Lords Sitting of 13 July 1835

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord BROUGHAM and the Earl of LICHFIELD, from Porto Bello and North Berwick, against the Impressment of Seamen.—By the same from several Places, against any Grant for Building Churches in Scotland; from five Places, against the Stamp Duties on Newspapers.

CORPORATION COMMISSIONERS.—EXPLANATION.
Lord Broughamsaid that he had to present a Petition from Bridport, on the subject of the Municipal Corporations; which, however, like some others now in his hands on the same subject, had better stand over till that measure was before their Lordships. He should wish to take this opportunity of correcting a statement in a ministerial print of this morning, in which it was stated that he had recommended Sir Francis Palgrave to be one of the Municipal Corporation Commissioners, and the appointment of that Gentleman was attributed entirely to him. This was a mistake. It was true that as Lord Chancellor he had recommended Sir Francis Palgrave, but he did so on the recommendation of a noble Lord, then a colleague of his, and now one of his Majesty's Ministers. He had said at the time that Sir Francis Palgrave had some antiquarian crotchets about him that did not render him very fit to be a commissioner. However, he was assured that the hon. Gentleman had no such crotchets, and so the recommendation was made, but it now appeared that he had.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that the Report of Sir Francis Palgrave was one of considerable ability, and deserved to be well considered by their Lordships.
Lord Broughamanswered, that undoubtedly Sir Francis Palgrave was a man of ability and of very considerable learning, for whom he felt great respect.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that there was another Commissioner, Mr. Hogg, who did not agree with the Report of the rest, and whose reasons it would be important to consider.
Lord Broughamsaid, that if he knew anything of that Gentleman, the reasons for his dissent from the other Commissioners were not what his noble and learned Friend seemed to imagine.

COUNSEL FOR PRISONERS.
Lord Broughamsaid, that a Bill of considerable importance had just been brought from the other House, where it had been passed by considerable majorities, though in a shape rather different from that in which it was first introduced. It was to allow counsel and attornies to prisoners charged with felony; the counsel to address the jury, for at present they could only be heard by the Court to discuss a point of law. He should not now enter into the subject more than to say that he approved of it generally, but that there were some of the details to which he could not give his concurrence. He should propose that this Bill be now read a first time, and in the further progress of it he should wish to be guided by their Lordships' opinion.
Lord Lyndhurstsuggested that the Bill should go to the Committee up stairs.
Lord Broughamsaw no disadvantage in the plan proposed. There was no pressure as to the passing of the Bill at this moment, for the Circuits were just beginning, and the Bill could not be passed in time to come into operation at the present Assizes. He should, therefore, propose that it be read a first time now and then printed, and read a second time to-morrow pro forma, with the understanding that it was then to be sent to the Committee up stairs, and not to be debated till the Report was brought up.
The Bill read a first time.

WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
Lord Broughamsaid, that his noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, was again prevented by his judicial duties from being present here, and had requested him to say, that instead of proposing the amendments he had before suggested in this Bill he should adopt a different course. He should withdraw the present Bill, as, upon consultation with his brethren on the bench, he found it would be more advantageous to pass a measure

435
in a different shape, but the same in principle. He now, therefore, presented the new Bill, and moved that the old one be withdrawn.
Motion agreed to, old Bill withdrawn and the new Bill read a first time.

PROCESSIONS.
Lord Farnhammoved for a return of all prosecutions ordered under the Procession Act in Ireland. He did so with the view of finding whether the construction put on the Act by the noble Viscount opposite, was that which the Law Officers of the Crown put on it. It was said by the noble Viscount it was an essential feature in the Act, that the procession should be on the occasion of an anniversary, and that the law did not attach on such processions as did not take place on anniversary days. He found that the majority of the prosecutions had been instituted for processions on anniversary days; but he found also that there had been some for processions on other occasions than on anniversaries. He made the motion because he thought it was essentially necessary that the law should be known. He wanted to see what the Law Officers of the Crown thought of the offence, and their opinion could be best collected from the indictments they had prepared on the subject. He therefore moved for a Return of Copies of Bills of Indictment preferred under this Act, at the assizes at Tyrone, for an offence on the 12th July, 1833; at the assizes at Tyrone, for an offence on the 19th December, 1833; and at the assizes at Londonderry, for an offence on the 5th February, 1834. The first was at an anniversary procession; the others were not so.
Viscount Melbourne, without saying any thing at all about the Return, or what it would or would not shew, must take the opportunity of declaring that he did not agree with the noble Lord, that in order to bring processions within the Act, they must be on anniversary days. He apprehended that there were general words in the Act which covered all other occasions; and if there were none, it was evident that the Act would be easily evaded, by merely fixing a party procession to take place on the day before or after any particular anniversary.
Motion agreed to.

POST OFFICE.
The Duke of Richmondwished to draw their Lordships' at-
436
tention for a few moments, to a subject of considerable importance. He believed that his noble Friend (the Earl of Lichfield) would not oppose the production of the Return for which he intended to move before he sat down; but still he felt it necessary to preface his motion with a few observations. It was not his intention to make any attack whatever on any individual who was not there to defend himself. He thought it would be wrong—he thought it would be unjust—he thought it would be in bad taste to do so; and he also was of opinion that it would be much better for the public service, if such a course never was resorted to. The object he had in moving for the Return which he meant to call for was, that it should not go forth to the country, that in a period of ten years no less a sum of the public money than 1,097,000 l. was unaccounted for in the Post-office department. How any individual could have made such a statement was to him most surprising. The return which he held in his hand, and which had been made in pursuance of an order of the House of Commons, proved that the Gentleman to whom he alluded was not correct in the statement which he had made elsewhere. The Post-office accounts were kept under three heads—the gross receipts, the net revenue, and the expense of charge. The Gentleman who had made the charge said, that the two latter items did not come near the amount of the gross receipts. But that gentleman should have read one single line at the bottom of the Return, which would have set him right on this point. If he had taken the trouble to read that line, he would have found it stated—"that dead and returned letters, Parliamentary grants, and other payments made on account of national objects were not included in that Return." It was that very line, their Lordships would observe, that made the whole difference, and he could not understand why the hon. Gentleman had not read that line. The only reason which he could assign for the hon. gentleman's stopping short there was (and he certainly did not wish to make a charge against a person who was absent), but the only reason which he could assign for the hon. Gentleman's adopting such a course was, that he feared the next line would not be found favourable to his argument. When the hon. Gentleman brought charges against the Postmaster-General and against the system at large, was it not surprising

437
that he had overlooked the fact laid down in the Parliamentary Reports, that during the ten years referred to by him the revenue had not sustained any loss by defalcation or arrear on account of any postmaster in Great Britain? If he had read this, it would have shewed him that the Post-office during those ten years was not quite so badly conducted as he had asserted. He did not stand there to defend the Post-office from all the charges which the hon. Gentleman had made against it; that, he had no doubt, would be successfully done by the noble Earl who was at the head of that department. He only came forward to shew to the country that it was impossible that such a sum as 1,097,000 l. could remain unaccounted for without immediate discovery. The Post-office was placed under the immediate cognizance of the Lords of the Treasury, the receiver-general was appointed by that body, and all the accounts were submitted to the Commissioners of Audit. It was, therefore, impossible that there could be a defalcation, not of a million but of a single shilling, without instant discovery. He was now anxious to move for this return, in order to show the incorrectness of the statement that had been made, being perfectly assured that the details would fully prove how the large sum of money said not to have been accounted for had been expended. The noble Duke concluded by moving for "a return of the gross and net revenue, and charges for management of the Post-office, for ten years, up to December, 1834; together with an account of the manner in which the difference between the gross receipts and the amount of net revenue and charges of management, being 1,097,000 l., had been expended.
The Earl of Lichfieldsaid, he certainly had no objection to the Motion; on the contrary, he was grateful to the noble Duke for calling for this return; because it gave him an opportunity to make a few observations, in order to remove from their Lordships' minds any impression that might have been made by the statement which had been delivered elsewhere. He did not object to the perseverance which had been shewn by the hon. Gentleman in investigating, as fully as possible the affairs of the Post-office; he though that the hon. Member in question had a right to do so. Indeed, if the 1-10th of the abuses which he alleged really existed
438
in the Post-office system, the hon. Member would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of his duty if he had not brought the subject forward. What he did complain of however was, that the hon. Gentleman had not procured better information on the subject, and made himself more master of it before he introduced charges which he (the Earl of Lichfield) had no hesitation in saying had not the least foundation in fact. One of the first charges had relation to the objectionable manner in which the duties of the department were performed. It was asserted that all communications between the Postmaster-General and the Secretary were carried on in writing, and not personally, as they ought to be. He could only say, that while he had held the office of Postmaster-General he had continually attended, and all his recommendations had been punctually followed. The same thing, he believed, might be averred with reference to the noble Marquess (Conyngham) his predecessor in the office—a fact which was borne out by the Commissioners of revenue inquiry. So far for the charge of want of personal communication with the Secretary. Here he could not help complaining of the language which the hon. Gentleman had indulged in when he made charges against a most meritorious public servant—Sir Francis Freeling. If that eminent individual were guilty of any of the offences imputed to him in the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, he certainly would be totally unfit to hold the office which he had filled for so many years. He had not the smallest hesitation, however, in asserting that the statement was not borne out by the facts. During the short time which he (the Earl of Lichfield) had held the situation of Postmaster-General, he had learned to appreciate the truly valuable services of Sir Francis Freeling. That individual had been for 50 years in the service of his country, and during that time he had exerted himself faithfully, industriously, and, he would add, most successfully, in the discharge of his duties. It had been attempted to place the merits of Mr. Palmer above those of Sir Francis Freeling. Now, in 1793, when Mr. Palmer left the office, the revenue amounted only to 705,000 l.; whereas, in 1834, it had reached 2,579,000 l. How was this enormous increase of the revenue to be accounted for? Why, by the en-

439
larged accommodation afforded to the public, in consequence of the great improvements made in the Post-office system by Sir Francis Freeling, which made the correspondence throughout the country more secure and more easy. As to the extraordinary misrepresentation made by the hon. Gentleman alluded to, with reference to a sum of 1,097,000 l. unaccounted for, it was hardly necessary to trouble their Lordships with a single observation on such an extravagant assertion. Still, however, when charges of this kind were gravely sent forth, he feared that a great number of people might be led to think that there was some foundation for them. But the difference between the gross receipts and the net revenue and the cost for management was at once accounted for, when it was understood that large outgoings were not included in the charge for management, those outgoings amounting exactly to the sum which it was said had not been accounted for. Then came a charge of embezzlement of the public money to the amount of 2,500 l., which was charged for greasing and keeping wheels in repair. That sum, the hon. Gentleman stated, he was quite sure, never found its way beyond the walls of St. Martin's-le-Grand. Now, this sum was really expended in the manner stated. To insure the safety of the mail-coaches, it was thought necessary to examine them every day, in order to ascertain, when they came into town, that they were in a fit state to go out of town again. Hence this expense, which was the only charge for mail-coaches that the public was subjected to. The rest was defrayed by those who entered into the contract. Complaint was also made of the Return to the order of the House of Commons relative to the money-order office. The Return was, that the office was a private establishment, and that no information could be given respecting it. The fact was as stated—it was a private establishment. It was asserted, that it had been set on foot with a view to economy, to enable individuals to send money free of expense to different parts of the empire. No such intention was ever entertained. The object of the office was to give security to poor people when sending small sums to their relations or friends. That object had been fully answered, and poor people were secured from those losses to which otherwise they
440
would perhaps be subjected. If their Lordships, however, could adopt any other plan by which money might be remitted with equal safety, and at a less expense, those who were at the head of the department would at once adopt it. Again, the hon. Gentleman had asked why the country should be burdened with an expense of 30,000 l. a-year on account of mail-coaches? No such burden existed. The coaches under the contract were not 1s. expense to the country beyond the 2,500 l. to which he had already adverted. He had no doubt that the papers now moved for, and the statement made by his noble Friend, would place this subject in its true light. Certainly, an establishment which had enjoyed and did enjoy, the confidence of the country, ought not to be charged with errors for which there was no foundation whatever.
Lord Wallacewished the Post-office to be clear of suspicion, and was happy to say that the explanation of the noble Duke had been, to his mind, perfectly satisfactory. He had, indeed, previously expected some such elucidation, and he was glad that it had been made, for without it the matter would have been subject to much misapprehension. He did not defend what had been stated in another place; indeed he perfectly agreed that many of the charges that had been brought forward were completely erroneous. With respect to the explanation given by the noble Earl, as to the Money-order office, he begged to say that in his opinion that office was a great public accommodation. He quite agreed with the noble Lord (the Postmaster-General) that mail coaches did not, in point of fact, cost the country a single shilling. With regard to some details connected with the Post-office, he believed that his views and those of the noble Duke near him were somewhat at variance; but they differed only on points upon a discussion of which he felt it unnecessary to enter. He anticipated the most beneficial effects from the labours of the Commission which had been appointed to investigate the subject. He was satisfied that that Commission would bear in mind the principle on which the institution of the Post-office had been established, as well as the purposes which it was meant to answer. He should detain their Lordships no further than to express his sincere conviction that whatever alterations or amendments in the

441
system were made by this Commission, they would have no other effect than that of promoting the comfort, satisfaction, and commercial interests of the whole community.
Lord Maryboroughthought it unnecessary to add a word, with respect to the general management of the Post-office, to the very satisfactory statement which had been made by the noble Duke and noble Lord, the Postmaster-General. It would unquestionably be a work of supererogation for him to enter into any further defence of the general principles on which the departments of the Post-office were conducted. He had, however, another object in addressing their Lordships on that occasion, and that was, to endeavour to do justice to those officers who had served under him while he had held the office of Postmaster-General. He found, by a Report of a speech which had been spoken by a noble Lord (Lord Lowther) in another place, that it had been stated that whilst he (Lord Maryborough) had been Postmaster-General, the "officers under him had shown great reluctance and obstinacy in giving information to the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Post-Office; that they had, in fact, set the Commission at defiance." This extract he had taken from the speech of the noble Lord to whom he had alluded, but which, from the expressions used in it, he could not consider to be altogether correctly reported. In answer to the charge which it conveyed, he should only say that when he held the office of Postmaster-General, he felt it his duty to make it generally known to the officers, that they were bound to give every information which was required by the Commissioners, to comply cheerfully with their suggestions; in fact, to go hand in hand with them, in the inquiry, and act in every respect in compliance with their wishes. He felt pleasure in being enabled to state that whilst he remained in office there was not the slightest complaint of any obstinacy being shown by the officers, or of a determination exhibited by any one of the officers to withhold any information which they possessed. On the contrary, he had every reason to believe that every information which could be required was readily given, every return asked for was as soon as possible supplied, and the greatest anxiety evinced by every person in the department
442
to forward, as far as lay in his power, the object of the Commission. Under these circumstances he certainly felt very great surprise when he read the statement which had been put forward in another place, and to which he had already directed their Lordships' attention. But in order to see whether there was even any ostensible ground for such a charge, he had that day taken pains to make every inquiry into the subject, and he found that thirty precepts had been issued by the Commissioners, and that seven or eight of the officers of the Post-Office had been examined before the Commissioners. He stated to them what had been mentioned in another place, and asked them whether, in their examination before the Commissioners, any expression had fallen from the Commissioners, which could lead them to believe that the impression on their minds was, that they (the officers) had shown any backwardness or disinclination to give every information in their power to the Commissioners? They answered that they felt convinced that they gave the Commissioners the most perfect satisfaction, and that they had not made use of a single expression which could lead them, to a contrary opinion. He perfectly agreed with the observation which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the occasion when the noble Lord, to whom he had before alluded, delivered the speech, and from which he had already read. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer then remarked, that if the noble Lord found any disinclination on the part of any of the officers to afford the requisite information to the Commissioners, he was bound to take such steps as would enable the Government to dismiss the individual who was guilty of such reprehensible conduct. He concurred fully in that opinion; and so far as he was himself concerned, he could only say, that if the noble Lord had brought forward any charge of this description before, he should have taken care to examine it most closely, and if the explanation made by the officer against whom it was preferred was not satisfactory to him (Lord Maryborough) and the Commissioners, he should have had him immediately removed. But was it not a most extraordinary thing that if these officers had acted as was described

443
not a word on the subject had ever been mentioned to the head of the department. He had felt it to be his duty to offer this justification of the conduct of the officers who had acted under him; and after what he had stated he left it to their Lordships to decide whether the imputations which had been cast upon them were well founded. He must also beg of his noble Friend (Lord Rosslyn, we believe), who was at that time head of the Commission, to state whether the slightest opposition had been offered to the progress of the inquiry. If his noble Friend should corroborate his statement he did not think it would be necessary to say more to exonerate the officers from all blame. He had, as he before said, studiously avoided going into any detail on this subject; but he felt that he should be acting unjustly, and neglecting to fulfil his duty to the public, if he did not notice the manner in which a public officer, a man of integrity, ability, and zeal (he alluded to Sir Francis Freeling) had been spoken of in another place. It appeared to him that the object of the general statement made elsewhere by an hon. Gentleman was, to lay the grounds for the dismissal of Sir Francis Freeling; but he (Lord Maryborough) had looked in vain for a single specific fact in the whole address which could warrant such a proceeding. The whole tenor of the speech seemed to be directed to the end of impressing on the public mind that this worthy man was not fit for his office, and to make the public believe that it was desirable he should be removed. When, however, he came to examine the whole of the hon. Member's case, what direct charges did he find in it? None. It was not pretended that Sir Francis Freeling had been guilty of peculation, of disobedience of orders, of showing undue favour, that he had been guilty of any one act which could be charged against a public officer, as a dereliction of his duty. All the nominal charges against him resolved themselves into this:—that he had contrived to arrogate to himself all the powers of the Postmaster-General, and that he had used the trust thus acquired in such a way as to render him fit for the possession of his office. He could only state how he (Lord Maryborough) himself felt and acted when he undertook the duties of the Postmaster-General. When he found such a man as Sir Francis Free-
444
ling in the situation of Secretary, he did not hesitate to avow that he should have displayed a want of common sense and honesty if he had not endeavoured to make every use he possibly could of his experience and talents in the management of the department over which he was placed. He took his assistance and advice on all occasions; he called to his aid his experience of fifty years; his talents almost unequalled, and his assiduity never surpassed. When he spoke of the mental powers of Sir Francis Freeling, he hoped that he might be allowed to state it as his opinion that his faculties (which were elsewhere said to be in a state of decay) were in as full vigour, and as capable of exertion, in almost any department, as those of any of their Lordships. It had been next stated by the hon. Gentleman, that the Postmasters-General were under the complete control of the Secretary; that Sir Francis Freeling made any statement he pleased, which the Postmaster-General took for granted, and acted on without giving it any further consideration. He would honestly state to their Lordships how he, and he made no doubt, his predecessors, had proceeded in this respect. He perfectly agreed with a noble Lord opposite, who stated that it was not only the duty of the Postmaster-General to hold close and constant intercourse with his Secretary; but if he desired to perform his duty strictly and efficiently, he was bound to act and examine for himself in the department over which he was placed. There were, however, frequently matters of the greatest moment to be quickly considered; a variety of papers to be looked into narrowly, which the Secretary made his observations upon, and submitted to the Postmaster-General. So far from thinking this a vicious, he considered it (if the Postmaster-General did his duty) an admirable mode of proceeding. During the whole time that he was Postmaster-General, as well as during the period which his predecessors held office, every paper which belonged to any case was sent to the Postmaster-General by the Secretary, with a minute explaining his views, and sometimes conveying his opinion in very positive terms. If the Postmaster-General signed his name to the minute, and there was an end of the matter, there might be some ground for the attack which had been made on the Secretary. But if it were found that the

445
Postmaster-General read every paper which was sent to him—that he sometimes had fifty or sixty sheets in a single packet to examine—and that he always came to a decision on his own judgment; if such, he repeated, were ascertained to be the facts, then the charge which had been so boldly urged against the Secretary must of itself fall to the ground. He could himself state that many such cases had come under his own cognizance, in some of which he had given a directly contrary judgment to that which the Secretary had expressed; and he was proud to add, which was much to Sir Francis Freeling's credit, that whenever he differed from that Gentleman, he had invariably shown the strongest inclination to come into the views of the Post-master-General. But taking the charge of the hon. Gentleman at its fullest extent, it only amounted to this—that the Postmasters-General had so neglected their duty as to enable him to assume an authority over them. Who, then, was to blame? Surely, if there were any delinquents in the case, they were the Postmasters-General. The hon. Gentleman, in expatiating on the extraordinary degree of power which the Secretary obtained over the Postmasters-General, went the length of saying, that the Postmasters-General were the "apprentices" of the Secretary; and he added, that if he (Lord Maryborough) had remained long enough in office, there was a chance of his becoming a man of business. Now, in the first place, he must be permitted to say, that if the word apprentice, as it had been used by the hon. Gentleman, was to be taken in its strict sense—that is, a person prepared to yield implicit obedience to a master—to him it was perfectly inapplicable. If, however, the hon. Gentleman meant it in this sense—that acting under such a man as Sir Francis Freeling he was more likely to become a man of business, he fully admitted the justice of the observation. He unquestionably must admit that the charge of infirmity which the hon. Member had not neglected to bring against him was well founded. With respect to his qualifications for business, he could not forget that he had been many years in important offices, that he had had a great deal of labour to perform, and that if he had not become a man of business from this experience, he despaired of ever attaining to that distinction. He felt it
446
would be a disgrace to England if such a man as Sir Francis Freeling was to suffer in public estimation—if he were to be driven ignominiously from his station in consequence of the vague statements which had been made against him. He had only to express a hope, that whatever change was made in the Post-office—whatever new system was adopted by the Government, that the services of this great man would be secured to this institution, for they were the best guarantee for its utility and permanence. He should only allude to one more of the various statements which had been made by the hon. Gentleman to whom he had so often referred, and that was, the declaration which he made, that letters containing money were generally stopped, the envelopes burned, and the money put into the pockets of the officers. Now, to show how unlikely such a practice was, it would be only necessary for him to remind their Lordships that an oath against doing anything of this kind was taken by every Postmaster-General, and that, moreover, it was considered by the law in the light of felony, with the punishment of death. The hon. Gentleman had stated, that he could prove such acts to have been done. If this were so, and the hon. Gentleman had neglected to institute or to give his evidence in prosecutions for this offence, he (Lord Maryborough) very much doubted whether he should not be considered accessory to felony, and it would not at all surprise him if Mr. Peacock, the Solicitor to the Post-office (whom the hon. Gentleman castigated in one part of his speech and praised in another) were to take such steps as would persuade him that he had neglected his duty in conniving, as it were, at a breach of the law.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas of opinion that this discussion had proceeded far enough, particularly as it all rested on the reports of a discussion in another place, which reports might not, perhaps, be exceedingly correct. He was not astonished that the noble Lord (Maryborough) had felt surprised at a speech which had been attributed to a noble Lord elsewhere; but he (the Duke of Wellington) was perfectly convinced that that noble Lord must have been misrepresented.
Lord Rosslynwas perfectly ready to bear testimony to the promptitude with which the officers at the Post-office had acted in promoting the objects of the

447
Commissioners. Had they, indeed, acted otherwise, or offered the least resistance, it would have been unpardonable in him if he had not taken the most prompt and immediate steps to meet it.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that there was one more Return for which he felt bound to move. In doing so, he wished to express his full and entire concurrence in every thing which had been said by the noble Lord (Maryborough) relative to the conduct and character of Sir Francis Freeling. He could add to the eulogies which had already been pronounced on him, that, when he (the Duke of Richmond) came into office, he had many changes to propose which went directly contrary to the old system and ancient prejudices existing under it; and he was bound to say, that no man could cooperate more zealously and energetically in carrying those changes into effect than Sir Francis Freeling. He rose now to revert to the Return for which he proposed to move. It had been said, that there were a great many married women Postmistresses, whom he had dismissed. He certainly had done so in many cases, because there was a great danger of defaulters, and a great difficulty in recovering the public money, whilst married women were allowed to be Postmistresses generally throughout the country. He saw no such objection, however, to the appointment of respectable widows, in small towns, where the duties were light, the salaries 10 l. or 11 l. a-year, and the letters not, perhaps, amounting to fifty within that period. Yet it was urged against him, as an inconsistency, that he opposed the appointment of the former, and showed a disposition to favour the latter description of Postmistresses. Now, with respect to the charge of his use of patronage, which had been made against him, he believed it was very well known that the Treasury had the whole of the patronage of the Post-office. He brought the subject of patronage, as exercised by the Treasury, under the notice of Lord Spencer, and called his attention to the fact that many meritorious officers had passed many years in the general department of London, whose salaries were large, and their retiring allowances, from the length of their services, considerable. He had suggested to his noble Friend that, instead of giving up the whole of this patronage to the Treasury, which was going a little too far, such
448
officers as those to whom he had alluded, should be appointed Postmasters in the great towns throughout the country, wherever a vacancy worth their acceptance might occur. Thus the services of useful and efficient officers would be secured to the public, and large salaries and retiring allowances saved. He did not wish to speak on a matter in which he was personally concerned, but he might, he hoped, be allowed to say, that the first office, with respect to which he had carried this principle into operation, was that of the town of Brighton, to which his brother, as Member for the county, had the privilege of recommending a person, but to which, when a vacancy had occurred, he had appointed an individual who had served an apprenticeship of thirty years in the establishment of London. He would only say, in conclusion, that if any man in the House of Commons or in the country thought that he had committed a single job during the time that he held office, or neglected to have performed a single duty which he was bound to perform, he called on that Gentleman to petition that House or the other House of Parliament, in order to put him on his trial. He defied the hon. Gentleman who had already preferred charges against him, or any other person, to bring forward any proof that he had violated those obligations which he owed, not only to the public, but to his Sovereign, for having appointed him, and to Earl Grey for having recommended him, to the office he had the honour to hold. He concluded by moving for the Return of the number of married women who held the office of Postmistresses in the years 1830, 1831, 1832, and 1833.
Return ordered.