MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC SERVANTS
WHO HAVE BEEN DISCIPLINED
Evidence presented before: The Royal Commission appointed
to inquire into the Civil Establishments, 1888; and the
Tweedmouth Committee, 1897. Instances of intervention by
Members of Parliament. Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Financial
Secretary to the Treasury, in April, 1902, states that at a
low estimate one-third of the time of the highest officials in
the Post Office is occupied with petty questions of discipline
and administrative detail, because of the intervention
of Members of Parliament. He adds that it is "absolutely
deplorable" that time and energy that should be given to the
consideration of large questions must be given to matters that
"in any private business would be dealt with by the officer
on the spot." Sir John Eldon Gorst's testimony before the
Committee on National Expenditure, 1902.
[Sidenote: _M. P.'s and the Rank and File_]
In 1888, Mr. Harvey, a Member of the Royal Commission appointed to
inquire into the Civil Establishments, asked Sir S. A. Blackwood,
Secretary to the Post Office since 1880: "Now I should like to ask
you ... whether you consider there is a distinct tendency among the
clerical establishments [_i. e._, the clerks above the rank and file],
especially the lower division clerks, to develop what for want of a
better term I will call trades union spirit?" "Yes, I believe there
is a good deal of evidence of that." "Have you, yourself, found it
difficult to deal with that; is it a factor in your administration
[of the Post Office]?" "Not with regard to the lower division clerks
[above the rank and file]; it is with regard to the subordinate ranks
of the service, the rank and file; amongst them there is a very
strong tendency in that direction." "A growing tendency?" "It is
certainly growing." "A growing tendency then we may say to introduce
the coöperation of Members of Parliament to deal with individual
grievances?" "A very strongly growing tendency." At this point
Mr. Lawson interrupted: "Individual or class grievances?" "Class
grievances, but there are a great many instances in which individual
grievances are brought forward [by Members of Parliament]." "The
point of the question was whether this spirit of trades unionism was
evoked for the sake of bringing forward individual grievances, and
you said yes; and then I asked whether it was class grievances or
individual grievances?" "I mean class grievances, but it is made use
of in respect of individual grievances." Mr. Harvey resumed: "And you
think it is growing?" "I think it is strongly growing." "So we may
say, to repeat the question I put just now, that it makes a factor
in your administration of the Post Office, and you have always to be
prepared to meet this growing tendency?" "It is continuously raising
difficulties, and very serious ones."
Mr. Lawson queried: "You said something about trades unionism; do you
think it is possible by any regulation to stop trades unionism of a
great class such as the senior division, or the classes which are the
subordinate part of your establishment?" "I think it would be very
difficult." "You would have to reckon with that as a permanent factor?"
"Yes."[329]
This intervention on behalf of individual employees is managed as
follows. Members of Parliament first interview the Postmaster General;
if they fail to obtain satisfaction, they bring the grievance of
their constituent before the House of Commons, by means of a question
addressed in the House to the Postmaster General. It will be remembered
that Mr. Hanbury, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in 1900 stated
that he had agreed to represent the Postmaster General in the House
of Commons only on condition that he should be given full freedom to
answer such questions in any way he saw fit, and that he should not be
bound by any answers furnished him either by the permanent officers
of the Post Office or by the Postmaster General. And that Sir H. H.
Fowler protested against the Postmaster General sitting in the House of
Lords, on the ground that the questions asked by Members of the House
of Commons often demanded to be answered by a man who had his finger
on the pulse of the House, and was able to cut through the red tape of
officialism on public grounds, which meant, to set aside the rules of
the Department in response to the exigencies of political expediency.
If the answer given by the Postmaster General is unsatisfactory,
the Member of Parliament gives notice that he will bring the matter
up again on the discussion of the Estimates of Expenditure. In the
meantime he brings to bear, behind the scenes, what pressure he can
command. And he often learns to appreciate the grim humor of the reply
once given by a former Minister of Railways in Victoria, Australia,
to a Victorian Royal Commission, to the query whether political
influence was exercised in the administration of the State railways of
Victoria. The reply had been: "I should like to know how you can have a
politician without political influence?"
Of course not all cases of intervention by Members of Parliament are as
successful as was the intervention of Mr. Bradlaugh, which resulted in
the promotion of eleven men out of fourteen who had been passed over
as "not qualified for promotion," or, as was the intervention of the
Member of Parliament whose name was not revealed, which brought about
the revocation of the promotion of the ablest man in the Post Office
at Sheffield. Indeed, the principal effect of these interventions is
not to force the Post Office to retrace steps already taken, it is to
prevent the Post Office from taking certain steps. These interventions
modify the entire administration of the British Post Office. They
compel the Postmaster General and his leading officers to consider the
political aspect of every proposal coming from the local postmasters,
and other intermediate officers, be it a proposal to promote, to
pass over, to discipline, or to dismiss. It was this possibility of
intervention by Members of Parliament, acting under pressure from
civil servants' unions, that gave the late Mr. Fawcett "a perfect
horror of passing over," that caused Mr. Arnold Morley "the greatest
distress" whenever he had to pass anyone over, and that led Mr. Raikes
to state in the House of Commons, that, "in the interests of the Public
Service, and especially in the interests of the Post Office itself,"
he had declined to follow the advice of his officers that he promote
a certain clerk in the Secretary's Office; as well as that he made it
his practice to try to mitigate the rules of the Department governing
punishment and dismissal. It was with the thought of Parliamentary
intervention in mind, that Mr. Austen Chamberlain,[330] Postmaster
General, said, in February, 1903: "The selection of officers for
promotion is always an invidious task."
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _Typical Grievances_]
The testimony given before the Tweedmouth Committee, 1897, contains a
number of incidents which show how leniently the Post Office Department
is obliged to deal with men who violate the rules. These incidents were
brought before the Committee by the representatives of the employees
of the Post Office, for the purpose of proving by individual cases,
that the Department's rulings were unduly severe, and afforded just
cause for grievance.
One Webster, a letter carrier at Liverpool, in July, 1883, failed to
cover his whole walk, and brought back to the office, letters which
he should have delivered. These letters he surreptitiously inserted
among the letters of other carriers. Mr. Herbert Joyce, Third Secretary
to General Post Office, said dismissal would not have been harsh
punishment for the offence; but Webster was merely deprived of one
good conduct stripe, worth 25 cents a week. In 1884 and 1885 Webster's
increment of salary was arrested for unsatisfactory conduct. In July,
1886, Webster was removed from his walk, and reduced to the "junior
men" on the "relief force," for having been under the influence of
drink while on duty. In 1890, Webster complained to headquarters of
harsh treatment, stating that though he had served 15 years, he had not
received three good conduct stripes. And in 1896, Mr. J. S. Smith, the
official representative of the provincial postmen, deemed it expedient
to cite the case to the Tweedmouth Committee in the course of an
argument to the effect that there was too great a difference "between
the punishment meted out to postmen and the punishment meted out to
sorters; not that I say the punishment is too slight for sorters, but
it is, I might say, too severe for postmen," It may be added that, in
1896, Webster was recommended for three good conduct stripes, though
the regulation says that a good conduct stripe shall be awarded only
for five clear and consecutive years of good conduct. Non-observance
of that regulation led the Tweedmouth Committee to report: "The
practice which has grown up in the Department of awarding two stripes
at the same time to a man whose service exceeds 10 years, but whose
unblemished service extends over only 5 years, is, we think, a bad one,
and should be discontinued."[331]
The foregoing recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee was not
endorsed by the Government. On March 13, 1906, the Postmaster General,
Mr. Sydney Buxton, in reply to Mr. Thomas Smyth, M. P., who was
intervening on behalf of one Thomas Reilly, said: "I find that Thomas
Reilly would have been entitled to an increase of one shilling and
six pence a week in his wages as from April 1, 1905, if his conduct
during the preceding twelve months had been satisfactory. Unfortunately
the necessary certificate to that effect could not be given, but the
question of granting the increase to Reilly will come up again for
consideration shortly.... It will be necessary to postpone for a time
the award of a second stripe."[332]
In October, 1895, one Roberts, an auxiliary postman was warned that he
would be dismissed unless his conduct improved. He had been reported
for "treating parcel receptacles in a rough and reckless manner, and
smashing the parcels." In November, 1895, he altered the address on a
parcel in order to save himself the trouble of delivering the parcel
on the day on which he made the alteration. The parcel was given
to a carrier on another route, who returned it as not deliverable.
After some delay the parcel finally was delivered by Roberts. When
Mr. S. Walpole, Secretary of the Post Office, heard this testimony,
he exclaimed: "And was Roberts dismissed on the spot?" Mr. Badcock,
Controller London Postal Service, replied: "No. The overseer described
him as totally unreliable, and he was warned for the last time." Mr.
Walpole continued: "Why was he not dismissed?" Mr. Badcock replied:
"Well, he ought to have been." In January, 1896, Roberts was again
cautioned; on February 24, 1896, he failed to attend his morning duty;
and he was seriously cautioned again. In March, 1896, he was guilty
of "gross carelessness," and was told to look for other employment.
Thereupon Roberts wrote his postmaster that he was a member of the
Postmen's Federation. Shortly afterward, Mr. Churchfield, Secretary of
the Postmen's Federation, brought Roberts' case before the Tweedmouth
Committee, alleging that the Post Office Department had dismissed
Roberts because he had supplied evidence to the representatives of the
postal employees who had appeared before the Tweedmouth Committee.[333]
In 1878, one Woodhouse, a postman at Norwich, was suspended for two
days for irregular attendance, having been late 42 times in three
months. In 1880, he was suspended for three days, having been late 173
times during the year. Woodhouse also had been very troublesome to the
inspector, setting a bad example to the younger men. In 1882, he was
absent from duty because of intoxication, was grossly insubordinate
to the local postmaster, whom he set at defiance, and also grossly
insubordinate to the surveyor. The local postmaster recommended that
he be dismissed. "At headquarters, however, with a large, and some
people think a very undue, leniency, it was decided to give him one
more trial." In 1889, Woodhouse was cautioned by the postmaster
for insubordinate conduct to the inspector. In 1891 and 1892, the
postmaster refused to recommend him for good conduct stripes. In 1894
there was a marked improvement in Woodhouse's conduct. The improvement
was maintained, and in 1896, Woodhouse was recommended for good conduct
stripes. Of this man, Mr. J. S. Smith, the official representative of
the provincial postmen, said, in 1896, before the Tweedmouth Committee:
"The last 17 or 18 years of Woodhouse's career have been of a most
exemplary description, a good time-keeper and zealous in the discharge
of his duties, and yet, though he had been a postman for 25 years, he
has never been the recipient of a good conduct stripe. By this means
he has been deprived of about $450, truly a great loss for a postman
to suffer through having this vast sum deducted from his wages. It
needs no words of mine to point out the great injustice that has
been inflicted upon Woodhouse. Any little irregularity that may have
occurred (such as bad time-keeping, which is admitted) in the first 7
or 8 years of his service, has been amply atoned for by 17 or 18 years'
punctuality and excellent behavior."[334]
In November, 1895, a letter carrier at Manchester came "under the
influence of drink," and reached at 3.50 p. m. a point in his walk
which he should have reached at 2.30 p. m. "On the following day he was
again under the influence of drink and unfit to make his delivery." The
punishment was the deprivation of one good conduct stripe.[335]
In December, 1895, a postman at Newcastle, while off duty, but in
uniform, "was reeling along [one of the principal streets] intoxicated
at 3 p. m." The case was sent up to the Postmaster General, who decided
that the man should lose one good conduct stripe. Mr. Spencer Walpole,
a member of the Tweedmouth Committee, and the Permanent Secretary
to the Post Office, said dismissal would not have been too severe a
punishment; and Mr. H. Joyce, Third Secretary General Post Office,
London, assented to the statement.[336]
Mr. Badcock, Controller London Postal Service, in replying to the
testimony of Mr. A. F. Harris, the official representative of the
London postmen, said that it was true that while one Worth for some
years past had off and on been made an acting head postman, he had
not been recommended for promotion to the position of head postman,
because his postmaster had reported that he was "shifty, unreliable,
and careless." Mr. Walpole, Secretary of the Post Office, thereupon
queried: "Is that not a reason for not employing him to act as head
postman?" Mr. Badcock replied: "It was thought better to give him a
chance, instead of letting him have the grievance of complaining that
he had not had an opportunity of showing whether he was qualified." Mr.
Walpole continued: "But if he showed himself shifty, unreliable, and
careless for several years, ought not his trial as a head postman to
cease?" Mr. Badcock replied: "I must confess that I think so."[337]
In February, 1887, Mr. Marum intervened in the House of Commons on
behalf of one Ward, a telegraphist, who had been dismissed in 1876
because he had discharged his duties unsatisfactorily.[338]
In February, 1888, Mr. Lawson, a Member of the Royal Commission
appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments, intervened on
behalf of one Harvey, a letter carrier who had been dismissed in
1882.[339]
In March, 1901, Mr. Bartley[340] intervened on behalf of one Canless,
who had been dismissed because the Postmaster General "was of the
opinion that Mr. Canless was not a fit person to be retained in the
service." On dismissing the man, the Post Office had deducted from his
pay the value of a postal money order--$2.25--alleged to have been
stolen by him.[341] Canless' case was brought up again in August,
1904, upon the occasion of the debate upon the Report of the Bradford
Committee.
In July, 1897, Mr. C. Seale-Hayne intervened on behalf of one J. C.
Kinsman, dismissed for insubordination and delegation of his duties to
unauthorized persons.[342]
In August, 1903, Mr. Sloan, M. P. for Belfast, intervened on behalf of
one Templeton, of the Belfast Post Office, dismissed for emptying ink
on the head of a workman engaged in the Post Office.[343]
In March, 1905, Mr. John Campbell, M. P., tried to induce the
Postmaster General to reopen the case of one M'Cusker, who had been
disciplined in 1897.[344]
In April, 1899, Mr. Lenty asked for a pension for one Wright, whose
"conduct had been such as to render him unfit for further employment in
the public service."[345]
In August, 1902, Mr. Crean asked for a pension for W. H. Allshire, "Who
was reported for certain irregularities for which he would probably
have been dismissed. While the matter was under consideration he sent
in his resignation, which was accepted."[346]
In August, 1903, Mr. L. Sinclair intervened on behalf of B. J. Foreman,
"who was not qualified for the award of a pension, as he was neither 60
years of age nor incapacitated from the performance of his duty" when
his service was terminated.[347]
In March, 1891, Earl Compton intervened on behalf of a first class
sorter who had been reduced to the second class after having been
sentenced to a fine by a Police Magistrate.[348]
In December, 1893, Mr. Keir Hardie asked the
Postmaster General to modify the rules governing fines for being late
at duty. In February, 1899, Mr. Maddison made a similar request.[349]
In October, 1902, Mr. Palmer intervened on behalf of some "learners"
at Reading, who had been punished "for careless performance of their
duties, leading to serious delay in the delivery of telegrams."[350]
Mr. Palmer, a biscuit manufacturer, was the Member for Reading. In the
past he had been an Alderman as well as the Mayor of Reading.
In July, 1901, Mr. Groves intervened on behalf of a postman at
Manchester from whom annual increments of pay had been withheld under
the rules governing irregular attendance.[351] Mr. Groves is Chairman
of the South Salford Conservative Association.
In April, 1900, Mr. Steadman said: "I honestly admit that this
question business might be overdone; but at the same time, if anyone,
postman or anyone else, thinks I can do his case any good by putting
down a question, I shall always do so as long as I am a Member of this
House." Mr. Steadman proved as good as his boast; and in July, 1900,
he intervened on behalf of a man from whom the Post Office Department
had withheld two good conduct stripes "because he had absented himself
frequently on insufficient plea of illness." Mr. Steadman stood ready
to shield any malingerer who might apply to him, though malingering is
a serious evil in the Post Office service. For example, in 1901 the
average number of days' absence on sick-leave was 7.6 days for the men
in that part of the staff that receives full pay during sick-leave, as
against 5.2 days for the men in that part of the staff that receives
only half-pay during sick-leave.[352] Mr. Steadman had been elected to
Parliament by a majority of 20 votes. He is at present a Member of the
London County Council.[353]
In June, 1906, Mr. Sydney Buxton, who had become Postmaster General,
upon the formation of the Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman Ministry, in
December, 1905, expressed himself as follows:[354] "He was informed
a little while ago by his private secretary that in the ordinary way
60 or 70 applications of various sorts were made by honorable Members
in the course of a calendar month, but that for some months past, in
consequence perhaps of there being a new Government, a new Parliament,
new Members, and a new Postmaster General, the number of applications
of all sorts had amounted to between 300 and 400 per month."
[Sidenote: _A Member of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants,
1906_]
In May, 1906, Mr. J. Ward, a Member of the Select Committee on
Post Office Servants, 1906, asked the Postmaster General "whether
his attention had been called to the dismissal of E. C. Feasey, of
Walsall, who had been an efficient officer in the postal service
for 17 years ... and whether he will reconsider the question of the
man's reinstatement?" Mr. Buxton replied: "I have looked into the
circumstances connected with the dismissal by my predecessor of E. C.
Feasey, formerly a town postman at Walsall. I find that Feasey had
a most unsatisfactory record.... I am not prepared to consider the
question of reinstatement."[355]
In March, 1906, the Postmaster General, in reply to Mr. Nannetti,
M. P., said: "The Reports and statements in the Corcoran case were
fully considered at the time [1901], and I can see no good purpose in
reopening the matter after a lapse of five years."[356]
In April, 1906, Mr. Wiles,[357] M. P., intervened on behalf of the
head messenger in the Secretary's Office at the General Post Office,
London. Under the administration of Lord Stanley, Postmaster General,
an allowance of 4 shillings a week given the head messenger at the time
of his appointment, had been withheld from October, 1900, to October,
1905. Mr. Sydney Buxton replied: "I have already had this case under my
consideration. The allowance of 4 shillings a week is being granted,
but unfortunately the allowance cannot be made retrospective."
Mr. Wiles had been elected to Parliament in January, 1906, having
defeated Sir Albert K. Rollit, who, for many years, had made a
specialty of championing the cause of Post Office employees who had a
grievance.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _Deplorable Waste of Executive Ability_]
In April, 1902, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Financial Secretary to the
Treasury, and representative in the House of Commons of the Postmaster
General, the Marquis of Londonderry, said: "In a great administration
like this there must be decentralization, and how difficult it is to
decentralize, either in the Post Office or in the Army, when working
under constant examination by question and answer in this House, no
honorable Member who has not had experience of official life can easily
realize. But there must be decentralization, because every little petty
matter cannot be dealt with by the Postmaster General or the Permanent
Secretary to the Post Office. Their attention should be reserved in
the main for large questions, and I think it is deplorable, absolutely
deplorable, that so much of their time should be occupied, as under the
present circumstances it necessarily is occupied, with matters of very
small detail, because these matters of detail are asked by honorable
Members, and because we do not feel an honorable Member will accept an
answer from anyone but the highest authority. I think a third of the
time--I am putting it at a low estimate--of the highest officials in
the Post Office is occupied in answering questions raised by Members of
this House, and in providing me with information in order that I may
be in a position to answer the inquiries addressed to me" concerning
matters which, "in any private business, would be dealt with by the
officer on the spot, without appeal or consideration unless grievous
cause were shown."[358]
In March, 1903, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Postmaster General, read
the following Post Office Rule: "A postmaster is to address to his
surveyor, and a subordinate officer is to address to the postmaster
(who will forward it to his surveyor), any application from himself
having reference to his duties or pay, or any communications he may
desire to make relating to official matters; and if the applicant is
dissatisfied with the result he may appeal direct to the Postmaster
General. But it is strictly forbidden to make any such application or
other communication through the public, or to procure one to be made by
Members of Parliament, or others; and should an irregular application
be received, the officer on whose behalf it is made will be subject to
censure or punishment proportionate to the extent of his participation
in the violation of the rule." Mr. Chamberlain added: "But it has been
my practice [as well as that of Mr. Chamberlain's predecessors] to
treat the rule as applying only to applications so made in the first
instance, and I have raised no objection to an officer who had appealed
to me, and was dissatisfied with my decision, applying subsequently to
a Member of Parliament."[359]
* * * * *
The Post Office is not the only British Department of State which is
obliged to consider with care how far it may go counter to individual
interests in enforcing rules and standards adopted for the preservation
of the public interest.
Before the Select Committee on National Expenditure, 1902, Sir John
Eldon Gorst, M. P., and Vice-President of the Committee of Council
on Education, 1895 to 1902, said: "What I want to impress upon the
Committee is that Parliament has never an influence which goes for
economy of any kind in the expenditure of public money on education
[about $40,000,000 a year]. Then I hope I have now shown the Committee
that the only security the public has that what it spends will be
efficiently spent is the system of inspection. Earlier in my evidence
I also pointed out the two systems which are in vogue for inspection,
namely the South Kensington system and the Whitehall system. The
Whitehall system, which deals with the larger amount of public money,
is extremely inefficient. The Elementary Education Inspectors have
before their eyes the fear, first of all, of the managers of the
schools which they visit. The managers of the schools are often
important School Boards like the School Board of London, which is not
a body to be trifled with, which has very great influence, both in
Parliament and in the Education Department, and which the Inspectors
are very much afraid of offending. But it is not only powerful School
Boards, but any managers [of schools] can take the matter up. If an
Inspector goes into a school and sees [reports] that the children are
dirty, or that the school is dirty, or that the teacher is inefficient,
the manager is up in arms at once, and writes a letter to the Board of
Education, and comes up and sees the Secretary, and protests against
the Inspector for having dared to make an unfavorable report of his
or her school. Besides that, the Inspectors have before their eyes
the fear of the National Union of Teachers. Almost every teacher now
is a member of the National Union of Teachers, and if an Inspector is
supposed to be severe, a teacher complains at once to the National
Union, and the case is taken up, possibly even in Parliament, by some
of the officials of the National Union of Teachers in Parliament, and
it is made very uncomfortable for the Inspector. Then, lastly, they
[_i. e._, the Inspectors] have the office--that is not, say, their own
Chief Inspector, but the officials of the office, who do not like an
Inspector who makes trouble. The great art of an Inspector is to get
on well with the managers [of schools] and teachers, and to make no
trouble at all. I have known cases of adverse reports which were not
liked at the office being sent back to the Inspector to alter," not by
the Chief Inspector, or Senior Inspector of the District, but by some
other person in the office.[360]
Sir John Eldon Gorst was Solicitor-General in 1885-86, Under Secretary
for India in 1886 to 1891, Financial Secretary to the Treasury in
1891-92, Deputy Chairman of Committees of the House of Commons in 1888
to 1891, and Vice-President of Council on Education in 1885 to 1902. He
was a Member of the House of Commons in 1866 to 1868, and has been a
member continuously since 1875. Since 1892 he has sat as representative
of the University of Cambridge.
Sir John Eldon Gorst was by no means unwilling to take his share of
blame for the mismanagement in the various Departments of State arising
out of the intervention of the House of Commons--under pressure from
the constituencies, or organized groups in the constituencies--in
the administrative details of the Departments of State. He said: "I
have been as great a sinner as anyone in the days when I represented
Chatham,[361] before I was a Member of the Government; I was
perpetually urging the Secretary of the Admiralty for the time being to
increase the expenditures at the dockyards"[362] [in the interest of
the laborers in the dockyards and of the merchants and manufacturers
who have raw materials to sell to the dockyards].
FOOTNOTES:
[329] _Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into
the Civil Establishments_, 1888; Sir S. A. Blackwood, Secretary to the
Post Office since 1880; q. 17,821 to 17,827.
[330] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, February 25, 1903, p. 803.
[331] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897, p. 19; q. 9,132 and following, Mr. J. S. Smith;
and q. 12,366, Mr. H. Joyce, Third Secretary to the General Post Office.
[332] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 13, 1906.
[333] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; Mr. Churchfield, Secretary Postmen's Federation;
q. 10,994 and following; and Mr. J. C. Badcock, Controller London
Postal Service; q. 11,585 to 11,589.
[334] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; Mr. H. Joyce, Third Secretary to General Post
Office; q. 12,316; and Mr. J. S. Smith; q. 9,063.
[335] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; Mr. H. Joyce, Third Secretary General Post
Office; q. 12,374; and Mr. J. S. Smith; q. 9,115.
[336] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; Mr. H. Joyce, Third Secretary General Post
Office; q. 12,356 to 12,360; and Mr. J. S. Smith, representative of the
provincial postmen; q. 9,108.
[337] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 11,485 and following, and 9,187 and following.
[338] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, February 14, 1887, p. 1,399.
[339] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, February 24, 1888, p. 1,375.
[340] _Who's Who_, 1905, Bartley, Sir G. C. T., K. C. B., cr. 1902;
M. P. North Islington since 1885; Assistant Director of Science
Division of Science and Art Department till 1880; resigned to stand for
Parliament; established National Penny Bank to promote thrift, 1875.
[341] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 15, 1901, p. 84.
[342] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 27, 1897, p. 1,221.
[343] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, August 13, 1903, p. 1,160.
[344] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 9, 1905, p. 397.
[345] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 27, 1899, p. 711.
[346] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, August 1, 1902, p. 395.
[347] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, August 5, 1903, p. 1,528.
[348] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 13, 1891.
[349] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, December 7, 1893, p. 633; and
February 24, 1899, p. 443.
[350] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, October 27, 1902, p. 797.
[351] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 18, 1901, p. 840.
[352] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 27, 1900, p. 206; July
23, p. 1,468; and Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Postmaster General, April 30,
1903, pp. 1,024 and 1,035.
[353] _Who's Who_, 1905.
[354] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, June 21, 1906, p. 397.
[355] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, May 21, 1906, p. 938.
[356] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 20, 1906, p. 198.
[357] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 5, 1906, p. 705.
[358] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 2, 1902.
[359] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 12, 1903, p. 564.
[360] _Report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure_, 1902;
q. 2,430 _et passim_.
[361] 1875 to 1885.
[362] _Report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure_, 1902;
q. 2,502.