The Postmaster-General.

Constitution.

By the Post Office (Management) Act, 1837 (7 Will. IV. & 1 Vict. c. 33), s. 2, "Her Majesty's present Postmaster-General and the person or persons to be from time to time hereafter appointed by the Queen's Majesty by letters patent under the Great Seal of Great Britain, shall be the master of the Post Office by the style of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General," and he is given the exclusive privilege of conveying letters with certain specified exceptions.

By the Post Office (Duties) Act, 1840 (3 & 4 Vict. c. 96), s. 67, "to enable the Postmaster-General for the time being to hold and take conveyances and leases of messuages, tenements, lands and hereditaments for the service of the Post Office, and to transmit the same to his successors, be it enacted that for such purpose Her Majesty's Postmaster-General and his successors shall be and is and are hereby made a body corporate, and shall have a seal," and all lands, &c. are thereby vested in him in his corporate capacity.

The Post Office Lands Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 43), s. 6, transfers to and vests in any person appointed Postmaster-General the benefit of all contracts, bonds, securities and things in action which were vested in his predecessor at the time he ceased to hold office.

It is the duty of the Postmaster-General to see to the recovery of balances due to the Crown from officers employed under him. (Public Accountants Act, 1800 (39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 54), s. 12.)

Proceedings with respect to the Post Office.

By the Post Office (Offences) Act, 1837 (7 Will. IV. & 1 Vict. c. 36), s. 43, any sum not exceeding 207. due for postage from any person, or due for postage from any deputy, agent, or letter-carrier, or any other person employed in receiving or collecting the postage of letters or any of the Post Office revenue, or from the sureties of such last-mentioned person, may be recovered summarily. In Ireland the sum recoverable summarily is a sum not exceeding 507. By sect. 44, all duties of postage granted by any of the Post Office Acts and charged by virtue thereof, may be sued for and recovered by suit, action or information in any Court of Record in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty, with costs, in the same way as other duties under Revenue Acts.

The Post Office (Duties) Act, 1840 (3 & 4 Vict. c. 96), s. 60, the Post Office (Duties) Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 85), ss. 12-14, and

the Post Office Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 22), s. 8, provide for the recovery of the postage either from the sender or the addressee of any letter or postal packet.

Apart from these enactments, and apart from the proceedings before the Railway and Canal Commission, to which reference is made. below, it does not appear that the Postmaster-General has any statutory power to sue or be sued in respect of Post Office matters. His remedy is by information, and the subject's remedy is by petition of right. So we find in Northam Bridge Co. v. R. (1887), 55 L. T. 759, a petition of right claiming a declaration that the servants and contractors of the Postmaster-General were liable to pay tolls for using the suppliant company's bridge and roads; and in Clogher Valley Tramway Co., Ltd. v. R. (1891), 30 L. R. Ir. 316, a petition of right claiming the payment of sums alleged to be due for the conveyance of mails and parcels on a tramway.

In E. p. Postmaster-General, In re Bonham (1879), 10 Ch. D. 595; 48 L. J. Bk. 84, the Postmaster-General obtained a writ of extent against debtors in respect of moneys due to him on sales of old stores. In The Winkfield, [1902] P. 42; 71 L. J. P. 21, he claimed on behalf of himself and certain colonial Postmasters-General to recover the value of letters, parcels, &c. in his custody as bailee, which had been lost in a collision.

In Wadham v. Postmaster-General (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 644; 40 L. J. Q. B. 310, and in Gower v. Postmaster-General (1887), 57 L. T. 527, the Postmaster-General was defendant in his capacity of lessee of certain Post Office premises, the former action being an action of ejectment on a proviso for re entry for breach of covenant, the latter being proceedings to determine the question whether the Postmaster-General was liable under a covenant to pay taxes and outgoings.

A Post Office employé duly travelling with the mails is entitled to sue for damages for injury caused by the carriers' negligence, although the contract of carriage is between the carriers and the PostmasterGeneral and not between the carriers and the employé. His right arises from the general obligation to carry safely, and the action is properly brought by him and not by the Postmaster-General. (Collett v. London & North Western Rail. Co. (1851), 16 Q. B. 984; 20 L. J. Q. B. 411.)

In Scotland, in Postmaster-General for Scotland v. Kerr (1813), 17 F. C. 433, an action by the Postmaster-General against the cautioners of a deputy postmaster for the recovery of arrears was held to lie in the Court of Session.

Certain proceedings, in which it was attempted to make the Post

master-General liable for the defaults of his subordinates, are dealt with in Book VII., at p. 641.

Proceedings under the Telegraph Acts.

The Telegraph Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 110), s. 4, authorised the Postmaster-General, with the consent of the Treasury, to purchase existing telegraphs, and vested any undertaking and other property so purchased in him in his corporate capacity and his successors.

By sect. 6, all acts, charters and grants, and all valid deeds and agreements made to, from, by, or with any company whose undertaking is sold and conveyed to the Postmaster-General (except in so far as varied or repealed by, or inconsistent with the Act), are to remain in full force, and all matters to be done, continued, or completed by or against the company, their officers and servants," shall or may (as the case requires) be done, continued, or completed by or against the Postmaster-General, his officers and servants . . . and it shall be lawful for any person to enforce any such act, charter, grant, deed or agreement by action, suit, or other legal proceeding against the Postmaster-General in the same Court, and in the same manner, and with the same rights and liabilities to pay costs and otherwise, as if this Act had not been passed."

Sect. 2 incorporates the Telegraph Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 112), and provides that the term "the Company" in that Act shall, in addition to the meaning assigned to it in that Act, mean the Postmaster-General.

By the Telegraph Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 76), s. 11, as amended by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 56), "Any legal proceeding may be instituted by the PostmasterGeneral for any of the purposes of any of the Telegraph Acts in the name of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General, and shall not abate or be discontinued by reason of any change in the person who is Postmaster-General, but may be carried on as if Her Majesty's Postmaster-General were a body corporate; and where any sum is due or payable to the Postmaster-General under any of the Telegraph Acts, or any contract, agreement, or regulations made in pursuance or for any of the purposes of those Acts or any of them, the PostmasterGeneral may recover the same as a debt in any Court and in any manner in which it might be recovered as if it were a debt due to a private person."

The result of these sections, on the face of them, is to place the Postmaster-General in no more privileged position, when suing or being sued, than that occupied by the telegraph companies under the Telegraph Act, 1863, and before his purchase of their undertakings.

But it has recently been held that he is still entitled to the protection which he enjoys as a Minister of the Crown, although he is engaged in what may be described as trading operations. The case is Bainbridge v. Postmaster-General, [1906] 1 K. B. 178; 75 L. J. K. B. 366, which was an action against a sectional engineer in Post Office employment and the Postmaster-General for damages for personal injuries sustained through the negligence of the defendants or their servants. The Court of Appeal ordered the name of the PostmasterGeneral to be struck out of the writ on the ground that he was not liable in his official capacity, as head of the Telegraph Department of the Post Office, for wrongful acts done by his subordinates in carrying on the business of the Department, inasmuch as, on the authorities, which are dealt with more fully below, p. 641, the negligent persons did not stand to the Postmaster-General in the relation of servants to master, but were servants of the King just as the Postmaster-General himself was. This, they thought, applied in spite of the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1863, which, by sect. 42, makes the company answerable for injuries happening through their act or default or through the act or default of anyone in their employment, by reason of their works, while by sect. 2 of the Telegraph Act, 1868, the word "company" is to include Postmaster-General. If, therefore, "Postmaster-General" be read instead of "company" in sect. 42, he is liable for injuries happening through his own default (of which there was no question in the case under discussion) or through the act or default of anyone in his employment, and, on the authorities, the servants of the Post Office are not in the employment of the Postmaster-General, but of the Crown. On this ground the decision can well be supported; whether the other reasons given for the judgment are valid may perhaps be doubted.

The previous case of Jones v. Monsell (1872), Ir. R. 6 C. L. 155, was also decided on the Telegraph Acts, and it was decided that the Postmaster-General could not be sued in his individual capacity for damage caused by the negligence of Post Office employés; but the Court did not decide whether the action could be maintained against him in his corporate or official capacity. The decision, therefore, cannot be regarded as of any great value.

In Postmaster-General v. Green (1887), 51 J. P. 582; 3 T. L. R. 780, the Postmaster-General sued for a sum due for the transmission of telegrams.

A.-G. v. Edison Telephone Co. of London, Ltd. (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 244; 50 L. J. Q. B. 145, was an information praying a declaration that the acts of the defendant company constituted an infringement of the exclusive privilege conferred upon the Postmaster-General by the Telegraph Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 73), an injunction to

restrain the company's operations and an account. There would seem to be no reason why the Postmaster-General should not have commenced these proceedings in his own name under the Telegraph Act, 1878, s. 11, as in Postmaster-General v. National Telephone Co., Ltd., [1907] 1 Ch. 621; 76 L. J. Ch. 353; but probably in view of the importance of the case the advisers of the Crown thought a proceeding by information more appropriate and impressive.

While, under sect. 11 of the Telegraph Act, 1878, the PostmasterGeneral may sue in respect of any telegraph matter, it would appear that the provisions of sect. 6 of the Telegraph Act, 1868, only authorise proceedings against the Postmaster-General in respect of matters which have passed from the previous companies to the Postmaster-General, and not in respect of matters which have solely arisen during the latter's tenure of the telegraphs. Thus in Great Western Rail. Co. v. R. (1888), 4 T. L. R. 383, reported in the House of Lords as Postmaster-General v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1889), 5 T. L. R. 714, the company proceeded not by action but by petition of right, on which a special case was stated, praying for a declaration as to the construction of an agreement made between themselves and the Postmaster-General with regard to telegraph poles and wires, and for payment of money due to them under such agreement.

In St. James and Pall Mall Electric Lighting Co., Ltd. v. R., [1904] W. N. 68; 73 L. J. K. B. 518, the company proceeded by petition of right to recover compensation assessed against the PostmasterGeneral under sect. 7 of the Telegraph Act, 1863, for damage done by his works to their undertaking.

The observations made and authorities cited above may be taken to apply also to the Postmaster-General in respect of telephones. Compare Postmaster-General v. National Telephone Co., Ltd., [1907] 1 Ch. 621; 76 L. J. Ch. 353.

Proceedings before the Railway and Canal Commission.

By the Telegraph Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 76), ss. 3-5, differences between the Postmaster-General and any body or person having the power to give or withhold consent to the placing of telegraphs over or under streets or roads, branches of the sea or tidal waters, railways or canals, or any body or person having any power, jurisdiction or control over or relating to a street or public road, are to be decided by a magistrate, judge, or sheriff, and, on appeal, by the Railway and Canal Commission, except in the case of differences as to branches of the sea or tidal waters, which are to be referred on appeal to the Board of Trade.