HL Deb 12 August 1836 vol 35 cc1159-70
Viscount Duncannon

, in moving the second reading of the Post-office Commissioners Bill, said, that the Bill proposed to place the Post-office department under the management of Commissioners, instead of a Postmaster-General. He was aware that a noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) intended to oppose the Bill, and to contend, that the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry, upon which this Bill was founded, had been made without a due consideration of the Post-office establishment, and he therefore thought it right to state, that this subject had been under consideration for more than half a century, and that between five and six Commissions of Inquiry into that establishment had from time to time been issued. The first Commission made its report in the year 1788, and every succeeding Commission, up to that appointed three years ago, had come to but one opinion as to the necessity of a change in the system. When every one of the Commissioners (including also Lord Wallace's Committee) had come to the same conclusion—namely, that the Post-office department should be placed under a Board of Commissioners, in the same way as the Custom and other revenue departments,—he thought the Government were justified in embodying these recommendations into a law. The recommendation of the Commission of 1817 was not only that there should be a Board of Commissioners, but that one of them should be a Member of the House of Commons. This was followed up in the Bill; and, looking to the Board of Customs, the Admiralty, and the Excise, he thought the House would not consent longer to leave the Post-office department to one person, whose duties were performed by a secretary. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.

The Duke of Richmond

said, that after the statement be had made to their Lordships on a former occasion, they could not be surprised, that he should rise to move as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. He had been curious to learn from the noble Viscount on what grounds he could support this Bill. It had been said, that but little had been done to alter the old system, but surely it had been forgotten, that in the year 1830 the whole Post-office department was entirely reorganised and remodelled under the very useful recommendations of Lord Wallace's Committee in 1817. Those recommendations had been carried into effect so far as the Lords of the Treasury would consent. If the noble Viscount wished to make the Post-office department popular, it was only necessary to give the Postmaster-General a greater latitude in disposing of its revenue, for at the present time the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not permit him to spend more than a certain sum, except the revenue obtained an adequate advantage. He denied, as had been stated, that Lord Wallace's Committee had inquired into every department of the Post-office; neither did he believe, though he had waded through the reports, that the supposed frauds at Holyhead had been carried into execution. But even if that had formerly been the case, the evil had been remedied, inasmuch as the packet department at Holyhead had been placed under the control of the Board of Admiralty, and he had the authority of his noble Friend, the present Postmaster-General, (who by indisposition was unfortunately prevented from being then in his place) for stating thus publicly that the frauds supposed to exist at Holyhead to a very great degree had been disproved. He mentioned this in corroboration of his former statement, and before the noble Viscount asked the House to read the Bill a second time, he ought to have laid on the table the whole of the evidence which had been received up to within the last two or three weeks. At all events the noble Viscount had not shown that three men would be better than one for the discharge of these duties. Let him prove that the present Postmaster-General had not discharged his duty before the charge was made. He thought that his noble Friend, now at the head of the Post-office department, had fully and ably discharged the duties of his office, and that if the present commission of inquiry was got rid of, and that a little more revenue was allowed him, the department would be perfectly satisfactory to the public. He hesitated not to affirm that the great portion of the public were now fully satisfied, though he was aware that some individuals existed who for the sake of acquiring notoriety were loud in their complaints—one of them in a recent letter from Liverpool, which had gone forth to the public had described himself as a "great exposer of abuses." That individual had for some time chosen to attack the Post-office department, and especially an individual now lost to the public service—an individual who had raised himself to an important station by his zeal and assiduity in this branch of the service of his country—by a private character unimpeached and unimpeachable, and with the esteem of every individual in the establishment—he meant Sir Francis Freeling, who, the subject of attack while living, was not allowed to remain unattacked in his grave by the individual to whom he would not in his absence further allude than to say he had stated his opinion of him on a former occasion. To return, however, to the Bill, he begged to ask, was not a Postmaster-General, with two secretaries, as good a system as that proposed by the plan? The Postmaster-General had an undivided responsibility, while the alteration suggested would give a divided responsibility among the Commissioners. He contended that the advantage of an undivided responsibility was great, and that advantage had been admitted by three of his noble Friends now present, when he was associated with them as a Colleague, in the instance of the measure for the regulation of the Board of Control. That Board was reduced to one Commissioner and two secretaries, and had been found to work better than under its old constitution. On the whole, taking also into consideration the late period of the Session which had arrived—considering also that all the evidence had not been laid on the table, he was of opinion that further time ought to be allowed to the House and the Government to attend to the matter, and with that view he should conclude by moving, that this Bill be read a second time in six months.

The Marquess of Westmeath

said, that though he differed on many points of detail in this Bill, he was prepared to vote for its second reading.

Viscount Melbourne

said, that the noble Duke who had opposed the second reading of this measure had adverted to many topics connected with the Bill. Of the importance of the subject there could be but one opinion, involving as it did the transmission of all communications throughout the country, and bringing into the Exchequer a very considerable portion of the public revenue. Now it was for their Lordships a very material and important consideration—not merely, as had been stated by the noble Duke, whether any public dissatisfaction existed with respect to the present system of managing that branch of the public service, but whether even if that dissatisfaction did not exist, considerable improvement might not be made. It was very possible that upon such a subject there might be no general complaints against the present system, and that yet it might be capable of very great amelioration; and there was good reason to suppose that such was the case, because it was impossible for their Lordships, if they looked at the reports which had been made by the Commissions which had sat on the subject—if they looked at the reports of all those to whom the inquiry had been submitted—it was impossible for their Lordships to have a greater body of evidence, arising from the unanimity of the opinions expressed in favour of some such proposition as the present. There was no body of persons to whom the investigation of the subject had ever been committed who had ever approved of the present system, or had not recorded an opinion in favour of some arrangement of the nature proposed by this Bill. Recurring to the very earliest period at which the question had come under Parliamentary consideration their Lordships would find that such had been the case. The first Commission had been appointed in 1785, to inquire into several offices connected with the Government; and their report delivered on the 7th of June, 1788, contained recommendations of a character corresponding with the proposed alteration. The next was the Select Committee upon finances—a Committee always considered as a considerable authority; and the report with regard to the Post-office department, presented by Mr. Abbott, subsequently Lord Colchester, contained a passage to the following effect:— That it might be worthy of consideration, whether the appointment of a Board of Commissioners to discharge the duties of the Postmaster-General would not be calculated better to secure attention to the rapidly increasing and complicated business of that department. The next report, that of the Commission of fees and gratuities in Ireland, had recommended, That the office of Postmaster-General should be vested in three Commissioners, two of whom were to constitute a Board; and the signature of two to be necessary to the validity of any ordinance; that attendance should be required every day, in order that they might be able, by attending to the details of the business of the office, and, consequently, becoming more intimately acquainted with the subject, to act upon their own views, instead of being compelled, for want of information, to submit to the judgment and guidance of others. His noble Friend who had moved the postponement of the Bill on the present occasion, had also moved for an extract from the report of the Finance Committee which the noble Duke supposed to be favourable to his view of the question. This was the extract:— With regard to the office of Postmaster-General it does not appear to the Committee that that department comes exactly under the particular description of subjects upon which they have to report, and they are not prepared at present to suggest any alteration in the system upon which it is at present conducted; but if they are strongly of opinion that it would be inexpedient to place the management of that office under the direction of a Board, with a constitution similar to that of other Revenue Boards, on the other hand they are by no means prepared to express an opinion that in so large and complicated a concern, in which so many interests are involved, the present arrangement could stand without disadvantage, if the duties were permanently confined to one individual. So that the noble Duke would see that if the Committee were not prepared at once to accede to the appointment of a Board of Commissioners, at the same time they were not wholly favourable to the maintenance of the present system. He now came to the report of the Revenue Commissioners, who had pursued the subject with the most diligent attention, and had entered into the most minute details. The substance of the measure which they recommended was the substitution of one general board for the management, of the Post-office department, instead of the office of Postmaster-General and Secretary. It was proposed that the seat of the Board should be in London, and that there should be secretaries and subordinate officers; that there should always be one member of the Board in Ireland and another in Scotland: and that at both those places there should also be an establishment of secretaries and other local officers. With respect to Ireland, he could assure the House that his noble Friend, the Lord Lieutenant, held an opinion distinctly in favour of some such proposition as the present. A Commission had also been proposed by the Administration of the noble Duke; and though they knew not the opinions of all the Members of that Committee, they had, at any rate, the opinion of a noble Lord in their favour, whose great acuteness, whose application to business, whose talents for business, rendered his opinion of the greatest weight, whose authority was of the highest importance on the details of the measure—a noble Lord, whose general principles and feelings undoubtedly were opposed to those of the present Government, but who still always entertained the high and honourable desire of correcting anything which might seem to him to require correction, and of supporting everything which was expedient and advisable for the interests of the public. They had the opinion also of the noble Lord, the Member for Cumberland. In answer to a question put to him by the Commission. Lord Lowther had said,—"That he had not been connected long enough with the department to have considered the subject.—[Hear, hear, hear, from the Duke of Richmond and other noble Lords]—with his Colleagues." Let their Lordships mark that, "with his colleagues." There could be no doubt that he had considered the subject himself, for he proceeded—"but the observations which he had made led him to the conclusion that the present system was not adapted to the active circumstances of the times; and he should feel inclined to propose to Parliament to re-model the Post-office department altogether. It had just remained what it was ever since the improvements in 1797 and 1798; there had scarcely been a single alteration except those which were actually forced by the public. He should be disposed to look at the Post-office of this country as the Post-office of the world, if facilities were offered—and it was his opinion that it would be impossible for one man to afford the requi- site attention to the matter. He thought it better that there should be a Board of Commissioners, with a head and two assistants; and he would recommend that the patronage of the Board should be left with the chief Commissioner; because it always operated to the prejudice of Boards when the junior Commissioners had any share in the patronage." Now he begged their Lordships to mark the following observation: it appeared to him important, pertinent, and acute:—"But he (Lord Lowther) thought that if one of the Members of the Commission were in Parliament, he would perhaps hear more there than he could see if he visited the country." The noble Lord had then been asked—"Do you think it advisable that one of the Commissioners should sit in the House of Commons?—Yes, The head Commissioner?—Any one of them." The noble Viscount then proceeded to read the evidence of Lord Lowther, in which he expressed his opinion that some particular provision would be required for the purpose above-mentioned, because a Revenue Commissioner was not entitled to sit in Parliament. Now he thought that was laid down rather boldly; for he apprehended there was nothing in the present state of the law to prevent a Commissioner of Revenue or Excise from being a Peer. Well, then, he did contend that there was a body of evidence which was sufficient to induce their Lordships to enter upon the consideration of the Bill. With respect to the Bill itself, and the principle of it, it was to establish a Board instead of the single Postmaster-General and the two Secretaries who at 'present presided over that department. In making a considerable alteration in a system so long established, they were, of course, liable to the difficulty of seeming, by the adoption of that course, to condemn the persons who had held the offices, as well as the officers themselves, which it was proposed to abolish; but he could assure the House, in the present instance, nothing could be further from his intention. He would, however, state what was really the fact, though he had not the slightest intention of saying anything offensive to any person who had ever occupied those offices. His noble Friend had himself clearly shown that persons contracted, by holding office, very great attachment to that office—and also to the persons connected with that office—and he would say, that becoming familiarised with the old system, such persons were led to believe that the business could be conduct-ed in no other manner; and if his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) Lad not been somewhat blinded by former associations and attachments of the nature to which he had alluded—he did not think that his noble Friend would have viewed this measure in the light he had done. As to the question between Boards and single officers, that was not an old topic in this country. Boards were certainly rather of a democratical origin, and had been principally introduced by Oliver Cromwell, who though he wished for the name of King, either found it inconvenient or not corresponding with the character of his Government to appoint Lord Chancellors, and Lord High Admirals, and Lord High Treasurers; and who, therefore, generally created Boards for the discharge of the duties of those high offices. Subsequently those Boards had been complained of by Lord Clarendon, as of a democratical and jacobinical character. But such opinions, he believed, had been long abandoned; for there was not now one of those high offices which was not discharged by a Board, with the exception of the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack. As to the charge with respect to the Board of Control, he was not sufficiently acquainted with that office to know whether it had been any improvement or not; but with regard to an office which exercised such general control, which was called upon to decide upon such great measures, in which efficiency and unity of decision were so requisite, he conceived the appointment of a chief and two secretaries might be more convenient than of a Board consisting of three commissioners, with Secretaries. Not so, however, with respect to an office, that, like the one in question, had to deal so much with matters of detail; and whenever minute subjects were brought under consideration, in. that case the call for attention would render the latter constitution of the Board more eligible than the former. His noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) had certainly been the most active Postmaster-General that they had had for many years, if not the most active they ever had; and his exertion had at least succeeded in calling public attention to that office, which previously had been more one of show and authority than of any real superintendence or acquaintance with the busi- ness. Such, then, being the case, if the present system was, as had been stated by Lord Lowther, and, as he believed, truly stated, not a system suited to the increase of business in that department, he thought that it would be the best way to make at once a decided change, such as was proposed by the present Bill. It was, then, his opinion, founded upon the authorities which he had adduced, founded upon the recommendations of every one who had considered the question, and founded upon the nature of the office itself, and the state of public feeling with respect to it—it was his opinion that some alteration of the nature proposed by this Bill ought to be adopted; and for those reasons he should feel it his duty to vote for the second reading of the Bill.

The Duke of Wellington

said: My Lords, the inclination and desire which I should have upon this subject would be, to follow the course which is recommended by his Majesty's Government. There can be no doubt whatever that this is a most important department of the Government—a department upon which the Government itself must, in a great degree, rely—a department, therefore, in the good management of which the Government is most highly interested; and so far as this House has to deal with the subject, it should be inclined, certainly, to follow the advice which his Majesty's Government may think proper to give; but when his Majesty's Government comes down to this House with a measure of this kind, proposing a change of this description—in certainly one of the most important departments of public service—they ought, my Lords, to take care to bring before the House sufficient information to enable your Lordships to form a right judgment on the question. Now let us see how we stand with respect to this subject. The noble Viscount has read to your Lordships a variety of extracts from the reports of Commissions, and from evidence differing from the noble Duke's opinion upon this question. But the noble Duke who has made the motion for the postponement of the measure, has said that a variety of Commissions had sat upon the subject, and particularly of late, from not one of which has one single line been laid before your Lordships. My Lords, this Bill was brought up to this House upon the 8th of August, it was ordered to be printed, and upon the 12th your Lordships are called upon to take it into consideration on the motion for the second reading, and to decide at once, and make yourselves a party to the responsibility of the change in this office. My Lords, I know enough of this office to be quite certain that up to this period it has been administered in a way that has been highly beneficial to his Majesty's service. I can assert positively, my Lords, that the Post-office has hitherto been far better administered in this country than in any country in Europe, or any other part of the world—and, before I consent to any change in the administration of this office, I should like to see the grounds upon which this recommendation has been made. I know, my Lords, from the situation which I have had the honour to fill in his Majesty's service, that this is a most important office to his Majesty's Government; and before I can consent to this change—that is to say, before I can consent to lose the Postmaster-General, and the subordinate officers, and to receive in the place of those officers a Board of Commissioners, each of whom shall be co-ordinate and equal with the other in his station in the office. I should like to see the grounds on which the recommendation is made, and to know in what manner the duties of the office are to be carried on, so as to give to his Majesty's Government all that influence and advantage which they at present derive from this office. That, my Lords, is all which is material. I do not care whether the head of the Post-office is to sit in the other House of Parliament or not, but I must see the grounds upon which it is recommended to place the administration in the hands of a Board. The noble Viscount has referred to the opinion of a noble Friend of mine in another place; and, my Lords, I can easily understand that my noble Friend might have seen that great improvements might be introduced in this department, notwithstanding the state in which I do assert the Post-office of this country to be at this moment—a state very far superior to any other country in Europe. There may, perhaps, certainly be room for further improvement; but, my Lords, I can see no reason why these improvements should be introduced in the present state of things. If there had been more time for a due deliberation of this measure, I should probably have offered no objection to it in the present stage; but, as such is not the case, I certainly think it better that the Bill should be postponed to some future period, in order that we may have the report of the Commissioners before us, and may be able to come to a fair consideration of the question.

Lord Ellenborough

remarked, that although there were several Commissioners of the Board of Control, yet, practically, the whole business was transacted by the President, and if it were otherwise, it would be utterly inefficient. There was no responsibility whatever where three or more persons were equally responsible, and from what had passed under his own observation, he had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to conduct any government well, unless you placed your whole confidence in, and intrusted the whole power to, one individual. He was not disposed to think that the question of one of the Commissioners having a seat in the House of Commons, was a matter of indifference. He thought it would be rather an advantage, to have a multiplicity of persons holding offices in the House of Commons. They had quite enough public officers in their Lordships' House; and, in his opinion, it would be more convenient that the chief of the Post-office department should have a seat in that House, where it was much more probable that questions would be put relating to that department. But if they thought of placing three co-ordinate officers in that department, instead of efficiency, they would create inefficiency, and in so doing, cause great detriment to the public service. If, then, he agreed to this Bill, he should do so on the condition of being allowed to introduce a clause, providing, that if any difference of opinion should arise between the person first named in the commission, and the other two Commissioners, the person first named should be empowered to overrule the opinion of the other two, upon stating in writing his reasons for differing from them.

Viscount Duncannon

, in reply, said, that he did not think of moving for the evidence, because it was contained in nine large volumes, but he was fully satisfied that it bore out the recommendations of the Bill.

Lord Colchester

observed, that the Commissioners had not recommended that a Board should be appointed, but merely, that it should be considered whether it would be proper to put the management of the Post-office under a Board. He would vote for the amendment.

Their Lordships divided on the original motion:—Contents 22; Not-Contents 57: Majority 35.

List of the CONTENTS.
Lord Chancellor VISCOUNTS.
DUKES. Melbourne
Argyll Duncannon
Leinster Falkland
MARQUESSES. BARONS.
Lansdowne Mostyn
Queensberry Ducie
Headfort Foley
Westmeath Hatherton
EARLS. Holland
Minto Langdale
Leitrim Saye and Sele
Albemarle BISHOP.
Ilchester Bristol.

Bill put off for six months.