“SIR,—I beg to draw your attention to what purports to be the reply of the Postmaster-General to a resolution adopted by the executive of the London Trades Council. In this letter, written by the secretary to the Post-Office, it is stated that Mr. Morley reserves ‘to himself the right to consider on its merits the question of the position of the servants of the Post-Office in respect to the Parliamentary franchise.’ I beg to ask if, in your opinion, Mr. Arnold Morley has any right of interfering with the exercise of the Parliamentary franchise by his subordinates; if so, from whence he derives his power, and what are the limitations, if any, of his interference? I need hardly remind you that the removal of the electoral disabilities of civil servants was effected by two measures. One, which was passed in 1868, removed all disabilities, and a supplemental Act in 1874 removed all remaining disabilities. Many, like myself, are under the impression that none remain now under which Mr. Arnold Morley or any other minister who may desire to hamper electoral freedom, may derive the legal power of doing so; and as this is a vexed question which immediately concerns at least 200,000 electors in the Civil Service of the United Kingdom—because the Acts for the removal of electoral disabilities of civil servants are common to all departments—I hope that you will be able to favour me with some definite information on this constitutional problem.—I am, sir, your obedient servant, W. E. CLERY.” To this a reply was received in the following terms:— “10 DOWNING STREET, WHITEHALL, S.W., _September 10, 1892_. “SIR,—In reply to your letter of the 31st August, Mr. Gladstone desires me to say that he will take an early opportunity of consulting his colleagues on the question raised by you.—I am, sir, your obedient servant, SPENCER LYTTELTON.”