§ MR. P. A. M'HUGHI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that W. Smith, town postman of Harrogate, with 27 years' service, was four years ago appointed to do an inspector's duty as head postman in that town; that he performed that duty continuously and without complaint until 1st January, 1898; and that, in order to take up the appointment, he had to give up one of the best walks in the town, the receipts from which in the form of Christmas boxes, etc., were by no means counterbalanced by the special allowance of 5s. weekly attached to his new office; will he explain why, when an inspectorship of postmen was recently created at Harrogate, the duties of which are exactly the same as those satisfactorily performed for four years by Smith, Smith was passed over and a York town postman with no previous experience of the duties of inspector of postmen appointed; and whether he is aware that Smith, in consequence, is now doing ordinary town postmen's work among the men over whom for four years he had entire control; has ceased to receive the 5s. weekly allowance; and that the walk he is now working is less remunerative than the one he relinquished four years ago in order to take up the duties of head postman?
§ MR. HANBURYIt is the fact that W. Smith, postman at Harrogate, acted from December, 1893, to January, 1898, as head postman, and received an allowance of 5s. a week whilst so acting. He took up the duties of head postman, but by his own choice, and knew that as head postman he would not in the usual course share in the Christmas boxes given to ordinary postmen. When the increase of work at Harrogate rendered it necessary to substitute for the head postman an officer with the higher rank of inspector of postmen, Smith's claims were duly considered; but as neither he nor anyone else at Harrogate was thought to be fully qualified for the post, it was decided to bring in a postman from York who was reported to be fully qualified. After this appointment had been made, there was no alternative but to return Smith to ordinary postman's duties, and 415 to allot to him the particular walk which happened to be vacant. He has been continuously in receipt of the 5s. weekly allowance. The statement in the Question is, therefore, incorrect.