§ Sir J. D. REESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the incon- 54W venience arising from the rule that telegrams, even when the telephone number is used as a sufficient address, have to be addressed by name to some person in the house bearing that number, which exactly defeats the object of the sender when, as often happens, he desires to address anyone the house at the time of the arrival of the message to prevent its remaining unopened until his own return; and whether there is any objection to addressing a telegram simply to the telephone number of the house concerned
§ Mr. ILLINGWORTHThe surname of the subscriber as well as his exchange number is required in a telephonically addressed telegram in order to minimise the risk of misdelivery or failure. I do not know of any practical inconvenience arising from this rule. A telegram so addressed is delivered by telephone, and its contents therefore become known to the members of his household concerned, even though the subscriber may not be at home. If the hon. Member knows of any case in which difficulty has occurred I shall be happy to have inquiry made, if he will send me particulars.