The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-14 00:00:00

;roll the attacks made upon them. A Noble Lord in the.
naher House, who was one of the Commissioners appointed to
examine into the state of thy Post Office, stated, or was re-
orteel to have stated, that he had m-ny proofs of the ob-
aiir.acy of the officers, and their• unwillingness ;to afford the
information required of. them. He said they see.ned disposed
studiously to conceal all knowledge of the wasking of the
system pursued in the institution. Undoubtedly it was their
duty to give every iaformation in their power, and he (Lord
M.) felt bound to say that while in office he found them always
disposed to afibrd every information. He never heard or knew
of any obstinacy or disinclination on their part. On the con-
trary, he always understood that every information was
promptly and cheerfully given. When he read of the asser-
tion lie attributed to the Noble Lord, he went to the Post •
(Alice in order to ascertain what grounds there were for the
statement, and he ascertained that there were thirty precepts
already made out Share, and with the greatest celerity, and"
that a number of officers had been examined. He himself ex-
emined all the ()films, and asked them if they ever refused to
give information. They all assured him they had not. He
next asked them if the Commissioners,ever complained of their
tardiness or reluctance to give it, and they declared to him
that they had not. Whatever questions lie asked them they
answered promptly and freely. This he declared on his honour
as a gentleman. He was sure the Noble Lord (Lowther, we
presume) never said what was attributed to him, and that it
was all a mistake of the report. He ( Lord Maryborough) en-
tifelv agreed in what fell from the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer in reply to that part of the Noble Lord's assertions—that
if any obstinacy on the part of any officer of the Post-office
.were proved, he should be immediately removed. Undoubtedly
it was the duty of Government to dismiss that officer, as a,
proper punishment for his contumacy. But was it not strange
that if this contumacy existed no complaint was made of it to
the heads of the department? No Report to that effect was
ever made, and he would take this as some evidence that the
offence was not really committed. After this explanation he
would leave it to their Lordships to say whether there was any-
foundation for this charge against the officers of the Post-office ?
His experience while connected with the establishment, and
the solemn declarations of the officers, were evidence to him.
that the charges were not tenable. He would avoid goiaig
into the details of the question ; but it was a duty and ;in act
of justice to a man who was not surpassed by any pulaiic func-
tionary in diligence, zeal, integrity, and ability, to :say a word
in his behalf. By the statements made in another place it .
would seem as if grounds were laid for the dismissal of Sir
F. Feeding. There was, however, no fact alleged against
him, no incompetency, no want of honesty, diligence, or skill.
The object appeared to be to d%ate an improper prejudice
against him. It was not said that he was guilty of peculation,
or was imbecile in his office, but that he absorbed all the
powers of the Postmaster- General, and abused that power.
When he (Lord Maryborough) undertook the. duties of that
office, and found such an officer as Sir F. Freeling there, he
certainly did avail himself of his services—of his long expe-
rience, rend well-known ability. It would be wrong if he did
not use the services of a man of undoubted talent and. well
known assiduity, who had been fifty years connected with the
department in a confidential and important capacity. Sir F.
Freeling was not a mere cypher—his intellect was as strong,
and his capability for business as active, as those of most of
their Lordships. It was said Sir F. Freeling made state-
ments which were adopted by the Postmaster-General. It
was true the Postmaster-General could not do his duty with-
out being much in the office. There were many important
subjects to be considered, and a great mass of voluminous
documents to be consulted, which should be previously ex-
amined and classified by the Secretary, whose opinion and
explanations it was often desirable to have. If it were a re-
gularly adopted system that the Postmaster-General should
merely sign the documents handed to him by the Secretary
without examination, then it was a bad one; but if he ex--
aminecl all the documents furnished as he (Lord Maryborough)
and, be was sure, the Noble Duke were in the habit of doing,
and pronounced their own judgment upon them, then surely
it could not be censurable to have the auxiliary opinion of the
Secretary. He (Lord Maryborough) often decided against
the views of the Secretary, and the Secretary cheerfully co-
incided
with him. It was again alleged that the Secretary did
all the duty, and the Postmaster-General neglected his busi.' •
ness. If that were so, then it- was the .Postmaster-General
and not the Secretary that should be accused. Another charge
was that the Postmaster-General was but the apprentice of
the Secretary. An apprentice he (Lord Maryborough)
derstood to be one bound to his master, subject to his will and
swayed by his judgment. In that view of the station of an
apprentice he (Lord Maryborough) should say that be was•::.:
rather too old, and too self-willed to be an apprentice. He
not the sort of man to serve an apprenticeship. It was
his lot to have filled many offices in- several departments in'
which he had a devilish deal of labour—(A laugh)--.-and if be
were not a man of business he should never have been able :to
do the duty, yet he always acted on his own -judgnielit;
His place at the Post-office, he would affirm, was no sine....
cure, for he did his own duty, and only used the Secretary
when he was bound to use him. It was shocking that a mall -
like Sir Francis Freeling, who possessed more assiduity, talent;
and zeal, than any man he ever knew, should be thus att-acked;
and it would be a disgrace to England that such a elan, after. -
fifty years faithful service, against whom no peeithe act of
misconduct was alleged, should be suffered to bn thus wounded
in public estimation. One of the worst possole acts would be
the removal of such a man; and those who at present pos-
sessed power should pause before they dismissed him. Ho
would refer to one fact more, which appeared in the catalogue •
of accusations. It was said that it was a practice to burn the
stopped letters, and put the money into the pockets of the
officers. Now, such a practice amounted to felony, and 'Was:
punishable with death. The charge was too absurd to be ei),
tertained. Could the Gentleman who made it prove it ?'-•
he could, then, in not doing so, he was an accessory to the.
fact, and was chargeable with- felony...--( Hear, and laughter.)
If lie could not prove it, was it not monstrous to cast those,
imputations on a body of public officers? Mr. Peacock, the
solicitor to the Post Office, who was not very negligent, voirld,
eagerly snatch at the opportunity of punishing the delft).
quents ; and if the Hon. Gentleman was at all cognizant Of.
the fact, he would not be likely to escape. These observa-
tions he ( Lord Maryborough) thought it his duty to make in ..
defence of -Sir F. Freeling and the officers of the establish.'
ment.—( Hear.)
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought the discussion bad
had gone far enough already. He thought it desirable that the
business should not proceed further, as, if it did, it would be
only creating a discussion on what occurred in another place,
which would be inconvenient. In the present stage of the
question details should not be gone into too minutely.
The Earl of ROSSLYN said that while he was at .the head
of the Post Office, he never knew an instance of .any officer '
having been a defaulter in furnishing any required information,
or causing unnecessary delay or obstruction. On the contrary
he found the utmost readiness to afford every facility of ob..
taining intelligence. No doubt there were occasional delay*
unavoidable in all offices ; but if he found any voluntary or un-
necessary delay on the part of any officers of the Post Offit.ee•
he would feel it his duty to punish the parties, and prevent its
recurrence.
The return was agreed to.
The Duke of RICHMOND said he was unwilling to saY
more on the subject before their Lordships. In what- he had
already' said he felt it necessary to disabuse the public mind of
impressions that might be created by erroneous statements
made in another place. It would be highly censurable if this
officers of the establishment were not cleared.; and he took
that opportunity of sasing that he cordially coincided in all -:
that was said in vindication of them. He had occasion at s
times to combat the prejudices of the cacers, and he was
bound to say that he always found Sir P. Freeling most
anxious to co-operate with him ; but he had another motion
to make which was personal to himself. It was alleged that
when lie Cbllle into office there were many married womelL
Postmistres-ses, and that he insisted on their removal. It svag
said that he removed thirty of them, and appointed single le-,
males-in their place. It was-not the case, It was'said that /I
married women, acting in the capacity of Postmistresses, I.)'
came alefaultCrs to the revenue these would be a difficulty in
enforcing the penalty ; but then he thought that-it was better
to have the affairs of the Post-cfliecs in country towns cone
ducted by married females, who would remain at home, atl
not neglect their business by going to fairs, and places 0'
public resort and amusement, than by single females, especially
when there was riot enough to require undivided time and at'
tentian. It was a mistake to suppose thAt tbnexclusive patron-
age of the office was vested in him. It was in the hands of the
Government, and be had only the poWer of confirming it, neu
signing the commission. Whenever he found an objectionable
person recommended by the Government he objected to the
appointment, and refused to sanction it. His great oliect
to have experienced persons, who possessed a knowledge
the details of the office, appointed. He called the atter-11l
°
of his Noble (Lord Spencer) to the lavish and. isepr.e;
per use of the patronage of that departrneat, and shoeced Inef
the propriety of appointing those only who had a knowledge,° ,
the business, and bad claims to promotion. When he -fount'
number of respectable persons about town, who had been 31'
,
prenticed as it were to the trade, he felt it his duty to recn."L
mend them. The course he pursued caused a eonsiderar f
saving to the revenue. He would state one fact as illustratiss e
the stern regard lie had shown to merit exclusively. The Peet.
mastership of Brighton, in the county of Sussex, which cOiil
his brother represented in Parliament, became vacant, an(`ta
was natural to suppose that the patronage of that place welea
be at the disposal of his brother. His brother recornmenuei,
a person to him, arid he (the
.Duke of Richmond) refused
•
brother, and appointed a stranger, simply because he was: 4-
30 years' standing in the business, and possessed a good e"
ractcr. He (Duke of Richmond) was willing to be put uf!°,,
his trial ; he feared nothing. Let the Gentleman who bronie"',
the charges petition Parliament, anal he would meet h
These. explanations he owed to his Sovereign for apPo,ntrog.
him, and to Earl Grey for recommending him.--( bea
The Noble Duke then moved for a Return of married warns
appointed as Postmistresses in 1831, 1832, and 1833.
DENS'S THEOLOGY.
The Bishop of EXETER gave notice that on Tiler/
next he would ask the Noble Viscount (Melbourne) r-aea`sor...
a letter published in the public prints, signed " Dani.cl "`
ay," and addressed to him, was received by him f th`l
The Duke of RICHMOND moved that the Report °
Committee on Highways be received and printed. H°wcicte
anxious he was for the Bill, and however wildrig to IT
et,
the agricultural interest, he disapproved of that mode 01 g
tin; rid of the tolls, though they pressed on the fanner!:
Several private Bills wore then advanced a stage, ai'u
House adjourned.

, •d .-
-

13 I I? TH. the
On the 12th at the Royal Horse Artillery B.4rraehst
lady of Ca"taln Philip Sandilands, of a son.

Loudon : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of Dr
112, Strand, at .The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the co
uOl
of Middlesex.