§ MR. KELLY (Camberwell, N.)I beg to ask the Postmaster General under what authority, and at whose instigation, the postal officials of the Western Central District caused certain letters directed to one Woodcock, 106, High Holborn, to be sent to another person at another address from 22nd December, 1891, or from about that date, to 9th March, 1892, without the assent, and contrary to the repeated remonstrances of Woodcock; whether such conduct on the part of such Post Office officials was legal; and whether, inasmuch as there is no legal remedy, by way of damages, for the loss caused by such illegal acts, he will undertake that stringent orders are issued to prevent any repetition in the future of similar acts?
§ THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,) Manchester, N.E.The letters to Mr. Woodcock referred to in the question were, under the authority of the Postmaster General, re-directed to an accountant to whom Mr. Woodcock had made an assignment of all his property except household furniture and leaseholds for the benefit of creditors. The letters could not be delivered as addressed, inasmuch as Mr. Woodcock had left the place of address. They were re-directed to the assignee, because upon perusal of the deed of assignment its terms appeared to be sufficiently large to cover the business letters of Mr. Woodcock. In consequence, however, of the objections raised on the part of Mr. Woodcock the assignee was in March last further 275 communicated with, and it was ultimately arranged that letters addressed in Mr. Woodcock's own name without the addition of the words "and Company" should be re-directed to him. The re-direction was justified by the terms of the assignment; but in future cases of the same kind, where there is any dispute between the assignor and the Trustee as to the delivery of the assignor's letters, it would, I think, be better that such letters should either be delivered as addressed or returned to the senders, and instructions will be given accordingly.
§ MR. KELLYArising out of this answer may I ask whether, in the absence of Orders under Section 26 of the Act of 1883, the Postmaster General claims to have letters re-addressed? May I further point out that the remedy the right hon. Gentleman suggests for the future would be fatal to the debtor—that of sending all letters back to his customers?
§ SIR J. FERGUSSONThe Department acted under legal advice in what they did, but I recognise the inconvenience of returning such letters. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that communication between himself and the legal adviser of the Post Office would be useful, then that gentleman will be very happy to see my hon. Friend.