CHAPTER XVI

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.