The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-13 00:00:00

of the Post-office for the situations as they became vacant, but
that he had invariably refused them even to his own
relatives, and friends. These were the grounds on which
he (Mr. H.) arraigned the conduct of the present
If General, because he contended he ought not
to have departed from the excellent regulations laid.
down by his i:redecessors. With respect to the situation of
Accountant-Gencral it appeared that the person who held that
office, Mr. Young had been compelled to retired froM ill-
health, and his nephew, Mr. George Youug, merformed the
entire duty of the department for three years.- Now he
contended, that to appoint a perThn like MN Primrose,
'who had never been ie the Post-office, or in fact
in any public office, over the head of the individual who had
acted as sleputy for such a length of time, was a violation of the
regulations of the Post-office, and rendered the situation of Clerk
uncertain as to promotion, which according to the Duke of
Richmond's regulations would hare gone according to seniority.
He objected to the conduct of Lord Lichfield, because it was
extremely improper in him to appoint so near a relative, and
the second son of an earl, to so paltry a situation, where he
superseded so many clerks, who had for many years
served their country with honour and fidelity. He ob-
jected to the appointment, because in no previous
instance had a stranger been appointed to the office of Cashier.
The Duke of Richmond, when he raised the salary of the
office, intended that it should be looked up to by the clerks
as a reward for long and faithful service. Injustice had
been done, by introducing a stranger at the head of the
office in place of putting him in as a junior-clerk, and a
great wrong had been done to Mr. Young, who had served
with honour and honesty for seven years. Ho believed
that the cashier and the accountant sat in the same room—
the latter was well acquainted with the duties of the office—
he could have performed the service, and as he had been
26 years in the public service, it would have been but fair and
reasonable that he should have been placed at the head of the
department, and so have added 1001. a year to his salary
after so long a service. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by
moving that the appointment of the Hon. Mr. Primrose to the
office of Cashier and Receiver- General of the Post Office re-
venues in Scotland, being a person not previously employed
in the Post Office, is contrary to the regulations of the Post-
office, as established by the Duke of Richmond (the Postmas-
ter General) in 1831, injurious to the public service and pre-
judicial to the interests of the established clerks and officers in
the Post-office establishment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was very
glad the Hon. Member had made for himself an opportunity
of bearing his testimony to the admirable manner in which his
Noble Friend (the Duko of Richmond) had administered the
affairs of the Post-office while he was at the head of that de-
partment. This was admitted not only by the Hon. Member
for Kilkenny but he believed by every one else. The Honour-
able Member endeavoured to show that the Duke of Rich-
mond was himself an authority for the motion which he had
brought forward ; but he would prove to the House that
the Honourable Gentleman was under a misconception
as to the real state of the facts. The Noble Duke
was adverse to the continuance of sinecure offices, but the
office held by Mr. Primrose was not a sinecure. The Hon.
Gentleman did not even suggest that it was, for it was ad-
mitted by him that an attendance from ten to three or four was
required, and that the party nominated was obliged to give se-
curity to the extent of 5,0001. for the due and proper dis-
charge of the duties of his office. In 1831 the Duke of Rich-
mond occasioned the suppression of the office of Deputy Post-
master-General of Scotland, a sinecure office, to which a sa-
lary of 8001. a-year was annexed, and then it was that the office
of cashier was first created. The Noble Duke, therefore, was
not an authority in favour of, but against the Hon. Gentleman
The remittances amounted at that period to 180,0001. and
since then they had been increased to the extent of 20,000/. by
the new arrangements. This it was that rendered the office
of cashier necessary as a check ; but the objection of the Hon.
Gentleman was not to the office itself, but that he thought
they should not have given the situation to some of the clerks of
the department rather than to a stranger. Now, what was the
evidence which the Duke of Richmond gave before the Com-
mittee of 1831 on this subject? Ile said that whenever an
office in that department became vacant it should not be filled
up by mere preference, but should go to those who deserved
compensation, or were entitled to superannuation, for their
long services. The principle of rewards thus laid down the
Noble Duke had followed out in filling up the vacancies
which had occurred at the Post-offices in Bath, Bristol, War-
wick, Nottingham, Brighton, and other parts of the country.
In the same way the Noble Duke bad disposed of the situa-
tions of agents to the Peat-office packet service, and other
affairs of that description. No man had been at more pains
to select deserving individuals for the department over which
he presided for promotion, but then it was apparent that the
role on which the Noble Duke acted, had no applicability
whatever to the appointment under discussion. There were in
the United Kingdom three appointments, which were all of
them analagous. These were check officers. This officer
was in England and Ireland called the Receiver-General, but
in Scotland he was denominated a cashier. In 1831 a vacancy
occurred in Ireland, but so far from that vacancy being filled
up according to the principle contended for, the Duke of
Richmond, with the sanction of Lord Spencer, gave this ap-
pointment of check officer to a complete stranger. It ap-
peared that the Noble Duke considered this affair an ex-
empted case, and his own minutes showed that he acted on a
principle different from that which governed him in other
cases. The gentleman appointed as Receiver-General in Ire-
land was Mr. Worthington ; and he had no connection pre.
viously with the Post-office. Lord Lichfield was anxious to
carry out the principle on which the Duke of Richmond
Acted. The office given to Mr. Primrose had been declined
by three gentlemen to whom it had been offered. Mr. Mason,
the next officer in rotation, had refused to accept it ; as had
also Mr. Horne and Mr. Mole ; the former then actually ap-
plying to be superannuated, and the latter not wishing to give
tip a salary of 5001. a-year for one of 4001.-4 A laugh.) Now,
it was important that the cheek officer should be perfectly dis-
tinct from the department itself, and the appointment of Mr.
Maberloy proceeded on the ground that it was right to fill up such
situations with persons who could have no attachment to the
old system. Indeed this consideration it was that caused Mr.
Freoling to be transferred to the Board of Customs; without
the principle of selection it would be impossible to carry on
the public service. This was the principle acted on in the ap-
pointments of the Assistant- Secretaries both at the Colonial
and Foreign affairs. Mr. Backhouse was not promoted but se-
lected for the office which he now hold. As this was an office
of check merely no previous knowledge of the business of the
Post-office was necessary, and that was another reason why a
stranger was better than one who had been connected with the
department. The same rule was adopted in other depart-
ments of the public se Tice. The auditor of the Board of
.!..:acise was an appointment made in the same way, and at the
Treasury ••1 • • Th.
.1 too a similar principle was acted on in certain cases.
Itt respect to different systems of convey ing remittances,
all ho could say was, that the subject had undergone inquiry,
And the result was that Lord Lichfield found any alteration
Would cost more than the present system, and, besi•les that,
b 0 other plan would be so convenient or practicable. lie must
7!tthy
that acting upon any other principle than that of selection
would be depi lying the Crown of the power of applying
the best resources of the country to the public service; and
for this reason, as well as because any other course would lead
to great discontent, he must oppose the Hon. Member's motion.
Mr. WALLACE dissented from almost all that had fallen
from the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
-Intler, and could not assent to much of what his Hon.
Friend the Member for Kilkenny had stated.—(A laugh.)
He must say he thought the office in question had not been
Properly bestowed. At the time the Duke of Richmond gave
tho evidence alluded to he had but recently entered office,
and therefore could not have a sufficient knoele to of the
business of the department over which he presided. Ile,
therefore, laid very little stress on the testimony which the
Noble Duke gave. It could not be denied that the office of
Postmaster-General was a job, and for his own part he did not
hes:tate to say that this appointment of Cashier was a still
greater j0b...„-( Cries of " No, no," from the Chancellor of
the Exchequer.) He asserted that it was. If such an office
should exist were there not plenty of men in the department
not only fully equal to the performance of the duty, but as
deservingwill of the situation as Colonel Moberly? It was,
he thought, clear that the Duke of Richmond meant to act
on the principle of promoting well-deserving officers to the
vacancies as they occurred in the department, and any one
who read his evidence attentively could arrive at no other
conclusion. There was at present an Accountant in the Post
Office in Scotland. That was a check officer, and therefore
if the appointment were to be made at all he was the party
to whom it should have been given. He asserted that if the
Postmaster-General had discharged his dutyproperly he would
have looked through the department generally, whether in
ttgland, Ireland, or Scotland, to see if he could not find
lorae fit and proper person for the office, rather than nominate
a stranger to it. Now, with respect to what the Right Hon.
ttlentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said as to the
economy of remitting money under the present system, what
zealleivte?that the Right Hon. Gentleman wished the House to
Why, neither more nor less than that it was cheaper
to forward remittances by a circuitous than a direct route.
oth the Excise and the Customs forwarded their remittances
di to London, and for his part he could see no goodprea-
-47_11y
N% their example should not be followed in the ost-
ms hen the office of cashier was first created the Duke
G 'Richmond had but just been inducted into office. It had
-ell said that these appointments were never made without
consultation with the Treasury ; but, if that were so, how
Chancellor
happen that neither the Right lion. Gentleman the
of the Exchequer or any other Minister con-
nected with the Treasury was acquainted with this appoint-
? Mr. Young had filled the office at a salary of 400/.,
and the party who had done the duty since his death received
fort' 1201., and yet, whets the country were crying aloud
0.. a reduced rate of postage, an increase in the expenditure
8001. was made. Now, was this commonly fair ? This
gentleman Who had been appointed was at present only twenty-
,O,ur years of age. lie wished to ask the Chancellor of the
o:!chequer whether, in case in the course of a few years this
Ince
ld shculd be found to be of no use, the individual holding
4`eitoo on the office being abolished have a compensation
tutor( e
efficeitn" • lie (Mr. Wallace) had been informed that this
had been filled by deputy for a considerable time, with a
Jew to not the appointment open to this individual. Now,
a_tutty% ithstanding all the reliance that had been placed on the
uuhorit), of the Duke of Richmond, yet when that Noble
Su 3e vtas in office he appointed his own brother ( Lord
po_ x Lennox) to be Postmaster-General of Jamaica. The
'll. Member stated in conclusion that be would support the
Notion before the House.
7The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, in
ply to the question of the lion. Member fur Greenock, that
itititiT ce was abolished this gentleman would not be en
-
all:- to compensation. He would not be entitled to a retiring
~,w`"lee until he lied been for at least ten years in the service. aadonel SIBTHORP said, that if the Hon. Member for