The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-25 00:00:00

The other clauses were then agreed to, after which the
House resumed.
Upon the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, the House went into Committee upon
THE POST-OFFICE BILL.
Colonel SIBTHORP opposed the Bill. It was brought
in to afford patronage, and gratify the expectancy of some
disappointed individuals. It proposed to appoint three Com-
missioners; he was opposed to the very name. He should feel
it his duty to propose to the Home that the salaries to those
Commissioners should not exceed that which was paid to the
Postmaster-General. The Hon. and Gallant Member con-
cluded by moving that the Bill be committed that day three

months.
Mr. KEMBLE seconded the amendment.
Mr. G 0 UL BURN did not see that any advantage would
arise from the Bill over the manner in which the business of
the Post-office was at present conducted.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied—
The change, so far from originating with the Government,
had been recommended so long ago as in the time of Mr. Pitt,
before the Scotch and Irish business was consolidated with
the English, so that the charge of the Hon. Member opposite
respecting patronage was evidently unfounded. He should
propose that two of the Commissioners should be in the same
situation as the subordinate officers of Woods and Forests.
The necessities of the times, the pressure upon the office,
proved that the change was necessary. The Bill was one
which had passed the House on a former occasion. It was
necessary to have in Parliament an officer connected with so
extensive a department, for it could not be expected that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to answer all the
questions which it might be necessary to ask upon the subject
of business connected with that department.
Sir ROBERT PEEL could not bow to the authority of
precedents upon such an occasion as the present ; he should
prefer forming a judgment according to reason in a matter of
that kind. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had said
that since the year 1797 the necessity for the Bill had been ad-
mitted ; that Mr. Pitt had been favourable to it—why, then,
did not Mr. Pitt introduce a similar Bill if he thought it ne-
cessary Why did not any of the successive Governments up
to the present period introduce it if it had been deemed of
such vast importance. Since the year 1797, when they were
told it had been first recommended, up to the present period, it
had not been introduced. The Right Hon. Gentleman said
that a public department of so much importance as the Post-
office required to have a principal office in the House of Com-
mons. If he thought so, why did he not extend the same ad-
vantage to the Customs and Excise, which were departments
that had equal claims with the Post-office ?—( Cheers. ) The
Bill proposed three Commissioners, who would require a secre-
tary. and he ( Sir R. Peel) supposed that secretary would have
a salary equal to the present Secretary of the Post-office.—
( Hear.) He did not see any advantage in the Bill which pro-
mised to be an equivalent for the expense. The Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite had said that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer could not be expected to answer all the questions con-
nected with the Post-office department, and that therefore it
would be well to have an officer at the head of that establish-
ment also in Parliament. Would this officer be enabled to af-
ford them information sufficient to warrant the sum of 2,0001.
per annum, which was to be the amount of his salary ? He
feared not. For the first year he would necessarily plead his
inexperience, and if, by a change of Government, his removal
occurred soon after, then his successor would be in a similar
position, so that they would lose the advantage of that in-
formation for which they were called on to pay 2,0001. a-
year. Perhaps his Hon. Friend near him (Colonel Sibthorp)
expected that at least they would obtain by the ap-
pointment of those Commissioners that wisdom which is said
to belong to the multitude of councillors. In this he would be
disappointed, for the Bill proposed to give to any one of the
Commissioners a power to act upon the part of the three, thus
virtually, to a certain extent, annulling the purpose of ap-
pointing Commissioners at all.—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir R.
Peel) was of opinion that one person was quite sufficient to
discharge such a duty. One person discharged the duties of
Chancellor of the Exchequer, one person discharged the
duties of Secretary of State, and he did not see that there
were more important or onerous duties connected with the
Post-office Department. The argument of the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite with respect to the necessity of having
the principal officer of the Post-office in Parliament, if held
good, would apply equally to the Customs and Excise,
which were not of less importance. For his part he was
ready, sooner than consent to this Bill to forego any of
the great advantages which they were told would be con-
ferred by it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
Post-office was a Department different in its constitution and
the nature of the duties which they were called on to dis-
charge from the Customs or Excise; many of its functions were
administrative.
Sir R. PEEL wished to know what the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman meant by administrative?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
it had not only the receipt of an important portion of the
public revenue, but also the administration of a great part
of its outlay.
Sir R. PEEL said the Customs was, in that respect, an
administrative department, for it had the charge of building
revenue cruisers, and the direction of a vast outlay in ad di-
tion to that.
Mr. LABOUCHERE though that such an appointment
as the Bill proposed was indispensable to the better regulation
of the Post-office. Under the present system the Secretary
was the person who really administered the affairs of the Post-
office. He (Mr. Labouchere" did not think that when the
public service was in question, it would be economy to stand
upon a thousand pounds more or less; and the Right Hon.
Baronet, who urged it so strenuously, should recollect that in
the good old times of the Post-office the Secretary alone had
5,0001. or 6,0001. a-year, besides large sums which were paid
to assistant functionaries. To talk, therefore, of economy now
-with that fact staring Honourable Gentlemen in the face, was
like straining at a gnat after having dieted upon camels.
As to the analogy sought to be established between the
Post.office and the Customs and Excise departments, he
( Mr. Labouchere) could see none whatever. But, at all
events, whatever course the House agreed to, there could be
no system of management worse than that at present in opera.
tion in that department. Under these circumstances he hoped
the House would not agree to the motion of the Hon. and
Gallant Gentleman.
Sir R. INGLIS defended the memory of the late Secre-
cretary of the Post-office from the aspersion cast upon it by
the Right Hon. Gentleman. He thought that respect to his
memory would have been sufficient to ward off these attacks,
and he regretted that more good feelings bad not been evinced
than to make them. There was no department of the public
.service better managed than the Post-office under Sir F.
I...reeling, and the public had never a better servant.
Mr. LABOUCHERF, explained. He had said nothing
in disparagement of Sir F. Freeling, he had not even men-
eioned his name, and any observations he had made were di-
rested against the system, and not against those individuals
who may have had the management of it.
Captain BOLDERO said that the sum of 5,0001. or
6,0001. a-year enjoyed by Sir F. Freeling, was a great part of
it, in lieu of perquisites appertaining to his office, which he
"had conditionally relinquished. He had held that most onerous
and responsible situation for a period of 50 years, and a better
servant the public never had. It was too bad, therefore, that
he should now be disparaged, and the feelings of his family
neut by the observations of the Hon. Member.
,Mr, LABOUCHERE again denied that he had said any
thing'. disparaging of Sir F. Freeling, and asserted that in
any eerieg he had said he bad not the slightest intention of
retketes; for a moment on his memory. He did not make the
remostese charge against him, and he believed that the Pose_
.odice and the public had derived benefit from his services.
Mr. WARBURTON thought that the individual presiding
over the Post-office should have a seat in that House, in order
hat there should be communicated to him those suggestions
it ism the representatives a the people which were at present
tardily carried into eeecution. He thought it would be a
• dt improvement of the Bill if a temporary Commission
Teem' a epoieted for two or three years to watch over the
great chas'
which were going on, and in order to see that
e; el •
Post-offs 9 not made merely a revenue department,
but the means a incre'asie;" the
facility of communication through
all parts of the empire. BI was perfectly convinced that no
Administration, be it Whio or :4°l7' could stand which would
resist those changes with regard t. communication which he
was sure that the public, when they p assessed the information
now divulged, would peremptorily dem. end.--( Hear, hear.)
Mr. ELLIS was not at all satisfied we t the reasons urged
ley the Hon. Gentleman op osite in su o et of the measure.
He strongly objected to burdening the c untry with addi-
onal expense for the sole purpose of giving the Treasury a
tic eninee.
WALLACE saw no difference betwei an the Post de-
partment and the departments of Excise or Cu. stoma,
cot i Illirier
d not, therefore, conceive that the same mac and he
y which
woisked the latter--a Chairman and Board—se mold riot be
equally efficient in the former. He
o f objected t o the Chief
Commissioner having
ug a seat in either House Parliament,
because it entailed neglect of duty. He should, he
Aially support the Commission.
The House then divided. wever, cor-
For the original motion .. ................ 81
Against it .................
Majority ................. 56
....................
The House then resolved itself into ............
Cia We 1 was agreed to.
Clam se 2 " salaries."
Sir R.legislate
pEEL objected to the mode of
lett it ex.-
bihited. 'Was it usual, he would ask, to provide A salary
reference to another ? The sale;
.under one Ale:t by ey of the
commissioners was referred to the Act regulating the e Woods
grid Forests. He thought it was not strictly formal, mad that
the sum should be specified in a Committee of th tt whole
Mouse in Supply.
of the EXCHEQUER sa id that
The CHANCELLO
such was not the practice of preceding Governments, . includ-
ing even that of the Right Hole. Gentleman himself. I ii fact,
there was no necessity for the pro ceeding be suggested. •
Sir R. PEEL still thought that it was but right th at the
maximum salary of the Commissioners should be fair 17 and
freely stated in the Bill before the Committee?, rather ellen
reference should be bad to an Act of Parliament on a pother
subject.

Sir. HUME was of opinion that the clause required
Tery much simpliSed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wou
c ibject to the introduction of a new clause which would
a !firm the salaries of the Commissioners by any other
M !ember.

In reply toa question from Mr. WALLACE,
The CHANCELLOIZof the EXCHEQUERstate
G )1. Maberly had 1,3001. a year as Secretary of the
O ffice, and 3001. a year allowance for the otlicial apart
0-041,i91) be bad been necessarily deprived in consequel
vatembet the business of the Post.office depart=

C, I ; .-
1
,
~.,;:,./ ..... 44, o.\- \
'i:l'44.: :.i.r
?(Zri''l2 . 5,,t1
)'s 4'..'l,:X>'..nt,'" ri Z