THE POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES PRESS THE HOUSE OF COMMONS FOR INCREASES OF
WAGES AND SALARIES
British Government's policy as to wages and salaries for
routine work, as distinguished from work requiring a high
order of intelligence. The Fawcett revision of wages, 1881.
Lord Frederick Cavendish, Financial Secretary to the Treasury,
on pressure exerted on Members of Parliament by the telegraph
employees. Sir S. A. Blackwood, Permanent Secretary to the
Post Office, on the Fawcett revision of 1881. Evidence as to
civil servants' pressure on Members of Parliament presented
to the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, 1888. The
Raikes revision of 1890-91; based largely on the Report of the
Committee on the Indoor Staff, which Committee had recommended
increases in order "to end agitation." The Earl Compton, M.
P., champions the cause of the postal employees in 1890; and
moves for a Select Committee in 1891. Sir James Fergusson,
Postmaster General in the Salisbury Ministry, issues an
order against Post Office servants "endeavoring to extract
promises from any candidate for election to the House of
Commons with reference to their pay or duties." The Gladstone
Ministry rescinds Sir James Fergusson's order. Mr. Macdonald's
Motion, in 1893, for a House of Commons Select Committee. Mr.
Kearley's Motion, in 1895. The Government compromises, and
appoints the so-called Tweedmouth Inter-Departmental Committee.
At the time of the transfer of the telegraphs to the State, February,
1870, the average weekly wages paid by the telegraph companies to the
telegraphists in the seven largest cities of the United Kingdom,
was $5.14 for the male staff, and $3.56 for the female staff. That
average for the male staff includes the salaries of the supervisors;
if the latter be excluded, the average for the rank and file of the
male employees will fall to $4.80.[120] In 1872, two years after the
transfer, the average wage of the male telegraphists in the offices of
Metropolitan London was $6.56, while the average wage of the female
clerks was $4.30. For the United Kingdom exclusive of London, the
average wage of the telegraphists was $5.46 for the male employees,
and $4.50 for the female employees.[121] The latter averages record a
larger increase of wages in the period 1870 to 1872, than would appear
at first blush upon comparison with the average of 1870, namely: $4.80
for men telegraphists and $3.56 for women telegraphists. For while
the figures for 1872 record the averages for the whole United Kingdom
exclusive of London, those for 1870 record the averages of the seven
largest cities only.
The increases in wages and salaries in the years 1870 to 1872 were due
mainly to the all round rise in wages and salaries that occurred in
the United Kingdom in the period from 1868 to 1872. In the case of the
telegraphists the rise in wages was postponed until 1870 to 1872, for
the reason that the telegraph companies, as much as possible, adhered
to the past scale of wages and salaries on account of the pending
transfer of their properties to the State.[122] The companies were
able to pursue the policy in question by refraining from increasing
their forces materially, working their old staff over-time. In part,
however, the increase in the wages of the telegraphists after the
transfer of the telegraphs to the Post Office was due to the fact
that the Government was obliged to pay the employees in the Telegraph
Department something more than the rates of wages prevailing in the
open market. For, previous to the acquisition of the telegraphs,
the Government had established the policy of paying its employees
more than the open market rate for work requiring only fidelity and
diligence in the performances of routine duty, as distinguished from
work requiring a high order of intelligence and discretion. Shortly
after the Post Office had acquired the telegraphs, it was compelled to
extend the aforesaid policy to the new body of State employees. As a
matter of everyday politics, it proved impossible for the Government to
discriminate between the several classes of public servants, paying one
part of them "fancy" wages, and the rest of them wages determined by
demand and supply.[123]
An episode from the reorganization of the Civil Service in 1876,
in accordance with the recommendation of the so-called Playfair
Commission, affords insight into the British practice of paying the
public servants something more than the market rate of wages and
salaries. The Playfair Commission had recommended that the pay of
the lower division of Government clerks begin with $325, and rise by
annual increments to $1,000, for seven hours' work a day. Thereupon the
Government had fixed the rate at $400, to rise by annual increments to
$1,000. The Playfair Commission had stated that if it had been guided
by the "voluminous" evidence which it had taken, it would have fixed
at $750, the maximum to which should rise the salaries of the lower
division clerks. But it had desired to attract "the elite" of the
classes that the Government could draw from, and therefore it had fixed
the maximum at $1,000.[124]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _Fawcett Revision of Wages, 1881_]
In August, 1881, the House of Commons accepted the proposal of Mr.
Fawcett, Postmaster General, to increase the pay of the telegraph
operators, to count seven hours of night attendance a day's work,
and to grant various other minor concessions.[125] Those several
changes raised the average sum spent for salaries and wages in the
transmission of a telegraphic message, from 11.70 cents in 1880-81,
to 13.72 cents in 1884-85.[126] Mr. Fawcett stated in the House of
Commons that inquiry of "leading employees of labor, such as bankers,
railway companies, manufacturers, and others" had led him to conclude
that the telegraph operators were underpaid. He also mentioned the fact
that while he was considering the arguments that the telegraphists
had made before him in support of the proposition that their pay was
inadequate, "outside influence" was brought to bear repeatedly upon
the telegraphists, and that the aforesaid outside influence "went so
far as to recommend the employees to resort to the last extremity of a
strike."[127]
Mr. MacIver replied that "he wished to say a word with regard to
the imputation contained in the statement of the Right Honorable
Gentleman, that he [Mr. MacIver] had exercised outside influence upon
the telegraphists. In common with other members of the House, he had
heard[128] the complaints of the telegraphists, and had thought it
his duty to bring complaints before the House and the Right Honorable
Gentleman, the Postmaster General, so that, if he had erred, he had
erred in common with many others."
[Sidenote: _The Treasury on Civil Service Pressure_]
In the course of the debate in the House of Commons, Lord Frederick
Cavendish, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said: "With respect
to the telegraph clerks, since they had received the franchise,
they had used it to apply pressure to Members of Parliament for the
furtherance of their own objects.... If, instead of the Executive being
responsible, Members of the House were to conduct the administration
of the departments, there would be an end of all responsibility
whatever. In the same way, if the Treasury was not to have control over
expenditure, and Members of the House were to become promoters of it,
the system [of administering the national finances] which had worked
so admirably in the past would be at an end.... With regard to the
position of the telegraphists in the Government Service as compared
with their former position under private companies, what had taken
place would be a warning to the Government to be careful against unduly
extending the sphere of their operations by entering every day upon
some new field, and placing themselves at a disadvantage by undertaking
the work of private persons. He pointed out that the Government Service
was always more highly paid than that of the companies and private
persons, and in the particular case of the telegraph clerks [operators]
the men themselves received higher pay than they had before."[129]
Before the Postmaster General had introduced into Parliament his scheme
for improving the positions of the telegraphists, sorting clerks and
postmen,[130] Lord Frederick Cavendish, in his position as Financial
Secretary of the Treasury,[131] had written the Postmaster General
as follows: ... "Admitting, as my Lords [of the Treasury] do, that
when discontent is shown to prevail extensively in any branch of the
Public Service, it calls for attention and inquiry, and, so far as
it is proved to be well founded, for redress, they are not prepared
to acquiesce in any organized agitation which openly seeks to bring
its extensive voting power to bear on the House of Commons against
the Executive Government responsible for conducting in detail the
administration of the country. The persons who are affected by the
change now proposed are, as you observe, no fewer than 10,000, and the
entire postal service numbers nearly five times as many. Other branches
of the Civil Service employed and voting in various parts of the United
Kingdom, are at least as numerous in the aggregate as the servants
of the Post Office. All this vast number of persons, not living like
soldiers and sailors outside ordinary civil life are individually and
collectively interested in using their votes to increase, in their
own favor, the public expenditure, which the rest of the community,
who have to gain their living in the unrestricted competition of the
open market, must provide by taxation, if it is provided at all. My
Lords therefore reserve to themselves the power of directing that the
execution of the terms agreed to in the preceding part of the letter be
suspended in any post office of which the members are henceforth known
to be taking part in extra-official agitation. They understand that you
are inquiring whether the law, as declared in the existing Post Office
Acts, does not afford to the public similar protection in respect of
postal communication, including telegraphs, as is afforded by the Act
38 and 39 Victoria, c. 86, s. 4, to municipal authorities and other
contractors, against breaches of contracts of service in respect of
gas or water, the wilful interruption to the use of which [by means
of a strike] is hardly of more serious import to the local community
than is that of postal communications to the national community. If
the existing Post Office Acts do not meet this case, it will be for my
Lords to consider whether the circumstances continue to be such as to
make it their duty to propose to Parliament an extension to the Post
Office of provisions similar to those cited above from the Act 38 and
39 Victoria, c. 86, s. 4."[132]
In June, 1882, Mr. Fawcett, Postmaster General, said in the House of
Commons: "The House would remember how, last session, he was pressed
by honorable Members on both sides of the House to increase the pay
of the telegraph employees ... in spite of all that was done for the
telegraph employees, he noticed that they were constantly saying that
what they received was worse than nothing. All he could say was that
if $400,000[133] a year out of public funds was worse than nothing,
he, for one, deeply regretted that that sacrifice of public money was
ever made."[134] In March, 1883, Mr. Fawcett, Postmaster General,
said: "The salaries of the telegraph employees have--I will not say
by the pressure of the House, but certainly with the approval of the
House--been increased [in 1881]. I do not regret that increase; I think
the extra pay they receive was due to them, and if I had not thought
so, no number of memorials would have induced me to recommend the
Treasury to make such a large sacrifice of revenue."[135] In April,
1884, Mr. Fawcett, Postmaster General, said: "$750,000 a year has
been spent [of late] in improving the position of the telegraphists
and letter sorters, and I say there never was an expenditure of
public money which was more justifiable than that. If we had yielded
to mere popular demands and thrown away the money we should deserve
the severest censure; but I believe that if an increase of wages had
not been conceded, it would have been impossible to carry on the
administration of the Department; and I think there is no economy so
unwise as refusing to increase remuneration when you are convinced that
the circumstances of the case demand the increase."[136]
In July, 1888, the following questions and answers passed between the
Chairman of the Select Committee on Revenue Departments Estimates, and
Sir S. A. Blackwood, Secretary to the Post Office. "With respect to
the increase of salaries at the time when Mr. Fawcett was Postmaster
General, I presume that those recommendations of his were founded upon
recommendations addressed to him by the [permanent officers of the]
Department?" "I can hardly say that they were. Mr. Fawcett held very
strong views himself as to the propriety of making an increase to the
pay of the lower ranks of the Department, and he carried out that
arrangement." "But the Department, I take for granted, was not excluded
from expressing an opinion upon the subject?" "Certainly not. I became
Secretary at the time [1880] when Mr. Fawcett became Postmaster
General.[137] I never should have initiated such a movement, but I saw
great force in many of the reasons which Mr. Fawcett urged in favor of
such an increase; and, at any rate, the Department, as represented by
me, saw no reason to raise a serious opposition, if it were at liberty
to do so, to the Postmaster General's views and determinations."[138]
Before the Tweedmouth Committee, 1897, Mr. E. B. L. Hill, "practically
commander-in-chief of the provincial postmen," testified as follows
upon that part of the Fawcett revision of 1882 that applied to the
postal service proper. He said that previous to 1882 all the revisions
of the wages of the postmen had been made on the basis of demand
and supply; but that the Fawcett revision had departed from that
policy.[139]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _Evidence, in 1888, as to Civil Service Pressure_]
The Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, 1888, took up at some
length, the question of the pressure brought by the civil servants upon
the House of Commons for increases of wages and salaries. Before that
Commission, Sir Reginald E. Welby, who had entered the Treasury in
1856, had become Assistant Financial Secretary in 1880, and had been
made Permanent Secretary to the Treasury in 1885, testified that many
Members of the House of Commons had recently attended meetings of the
civil servants for the purpose of endorsing the claims of the civil
servants for increases of pay; and that they had taken that action
without having made a close examination of the grounds upon which the
civil servants had put forward their claims. He added: "It is utterly
impossible for us [the Treasury] to ignore these symptoms that make it
very difficult to keep within reasonable bounds the remuneration of
such a body." Thereupon one of the members of the Royal Commission said
to Sir R. Welby: ... "but are you not aware that there is a general
feeling throughout the country among the people who are employed by
private individuals and public bodies [other than the State], that
Government servants receive higher pay than they do, and that when
these persons are called upon to exercise the franchise they bring
pressure to bear upon their Members just the other way [_i. e._,
against the increase of government wages and salaries]?" Sir R. Welby
replied: "Of course, I have no means of testing that. I am very glad to
hear that Parliamentary influence is not all in one direction. We do
not see the proof of it at the Treasury."[140]
Sir Algernon E. West, Chairman Inland Revenue Commissioners,[141] said
he wished for a greater spirit of economy, "not in the offices so much
as outside."
Thereupon the Chairman of the Royal Commission said: "I do not quite
understand what you mean by outside." Sir Algernon E. West replied: "I
say it with all possible deference, particularly Parliament." To the
further query: "Has there been on the part of Members of Parliament, an
increase of intervention on behalf either of the individual officers of
the Inland Revenue or on behalf of classes of the Inland Revenue since
the enfranchisement in 1869?" Sir A. West replied: "A large increase
on behalf of classes, not of individuals.... I should like to add ...
that I think last year the Lower Division clerks succeeded in getting
two hundred Members of Parliament to attend a meeting which was held to
protest against their grievances."[142]
Sir Lyon Playfair, who had been Chairman of the Royal Commission
on the Civil Service, 1874 to 1876, and the author of the Playfair
Reorganization of the Civil Service, 1876, testified as follows before
the Royal Commission of 1888. "Unfortunately Members of Parliament
yield to pressure a great deal too much in that direction, and they are
certainly pressing the Exchequer to increase the wages and salaries of
the employees of the Crown.... In a private establishment a man looks
after his own interests, and if a person came to him and said: 'Now you
must increase the salaries of these men by $100 or $250 all round,'
he would say: 'You are an impertinent man, you have no business to
interfere,' but you cannot say that to Members of Parliament, and
there is continual pressure from Members of Parliament to augment the
salaries of the civil servants."[143]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _Raikes Revision of 1890-91_]
With the increase of the number of telegraphic messages transmitted,
from 33,278,000 in 1884-85, to 62,403,000 in 1889-90, the average sum
spent on wages and salaries per message transmitted, fell from 13.72
cents in 1884-85, to 10.62 cents in 1889-90. In the following year,
1890-91, Mr. Raikes, Postmaster General, inaugurated an extensive
scheme of increases in wages, reductions in the hours of work, and
other "improvements in the condition" of the telegraph employees, that
again raised to 12.28 cents per message in 1894-95, the average sum
spent on wages and salaries. Mr. Raikes, Postmaster General, raised the
wages of the supervising staff, as well as the wages of the rank and
file;[144] he granted payment at one and one-quarter rates for over
time, granted payment at double rates for all work done on Sunday,
gave extra pay for work done on Bank Holidays, and increased from half
pay to full pay the sick-leave allowance. The annual cost of those
concessions Mr. Raikes estimated at $500,000 a year. The cost of the
concessions granted at the same time to the employees in the postal
branch of the Post Office Department, he estimated at $535,000 a
year.[145]
Mr. Raikes' schemes were based largely upon the _Report of Committee
of the Indoor Staff_. That Report has not been published; but in 1896,
Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary General Post Office, London, stated
before the so-called Tweedmouth Committee,[146] that the majority
of the committee on the Indoor Staff had signed the Report because
they believed that if the concessions recommended in the Report were
granted, "that would be the end of all agitation." Mr. Hill added: "I
remember myself saying [to the Committee] whatever else happens, that
will not happen. Do not delude yourselves with the notion that the
men will cease to ask." He continued: "Mr. Raikes' improvements were
received with the greatest gratitude, and there were any number of
letters of thanks from the staff; but the ink was scarcely dry when the
demands began again, and they have been going on ever since, and will
go on.... There is, unfortunately, a growing habit among the main body
of Post Office servants to use their voting power at elections to get
higher pay for themselves, and it is well known that in constituencies
in which political parties are at all evenly balanced, the Post Office
servants can turn the election."
[Sidenote: _Earl Compton demands a Select Committee_]
The Committee on the Indoor Staff appointed by Mr. Raikes in March,
1890, had not had the approval of the rank and file of the civil
servants, nor had it had the approval of the representatives of
the civil servants in the House of Commons, on the ground that it
consisted of government officials, who were not responsible directly
to the voters. Therefore one of the leading representatives in the
House of Commons of the Post Office employees, Earl Compton,[147]
on April 15, 1890, had moved: "That, in the opinion of the House,
the present position of the telegraphists in London and elsewhere is
unsatisfactory, and their just grievances require redress."[148] In
the course of his argument, Earl Compton said: "Perhaps the Right
Honorable Gentleman [the Postmaster General] has been cramped [in
the administration of his department] by what is called officialism.
In that case, if the present motion is passed, the Right Honorable
Gentleman's hands will be strengthened [against his permanent
officials], and he will be able to redress the grievances which have
been brought under his attention."
Baron F. de Rothschild followed Earl Compton, with the statement: "The
Postmaster General may well say it is no business of ours to interfere
between the civil servants and himself, but here I would venture to
ask him whether the civil servants are not quite as much our [_i. e._,
the public's] servants as they are those of the Postmaster General?"
Baron de Rothschild went on to say that through an error made in the
course of the transmission of a telegram his betting agent had placed
his money on the wrong horse, causing him to lose a considerable sum of
money. Such mistakes would not occur if the telegraphists were better
paid.
Sir A. Borthwick regretted "the increasing tendency to invoke the
direct interposition of Parliament between the Executive Government and
the Civil Service."
The Postmaster General concluded his statement with the words: "I hope
that after the statement which I have been able to make, the House
will recognize the claim of every Government that the House shall
not interfere with matters of Departmental administration, except
where it thinks fit to censure the Minister in charge. So long as a
Minister occupies his position at the head of a department, he ought
to be allowed to occupy it in his own way. I venture to hope that the
House will leave questions of this sort in the hands of those who
are directly and primarily responsible for them, in the belief that
grievances of the servants of any department are not likely to lack
careful consideration, and, I believe, just and fair treatment."
A few months later, the Postmaster General made this statement in
the House of Commons: "I wish to correct one misapprehension. It is
supposed that the position of the Government is that only the market
value should be paid for labor of this sort [the nonestablished
post office servants]. Those who sat in the Committee [of Supply]
will remember that I laid down a different doctrine the other day.
My own view is, that while the market value must be the governing
consideration, because we are not dealing with our own money, but with
the money of the taxpayers, the taxpayers would wish that, in applying
that standard to those in the Public Service, we should always bear in
mind that a great Government should treat its employees liberally."[149]
* * * * *
Earl Compton failed to carry his motion in 1890; and in the following
year he made another unsuccessful attempt, moving: "That, in the
opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Select Committee be
appointed to inquire into the Administration of the Post Office."[150]
Mr. Ambrose, speaking against the motion, said: "Questions between
capital and labor and between the Government and its employees should
not be influenced by motions in the House. We are all subjected as
Members of this House to all manner of whips from employees of the
Civil Service and the Post Office, and I know that when the _status_
of the Civil Service clerks was being settled some time ago, there
was, among Members generally, a feeling of disgust at the telegrams
and letters being received almost very minute from people seeking to
influence our votes on some particular question of interest to them."
Mr. Raikes, Postmaster General, enumerated in detail the concessions
made to the telegraphists and letter sorters in 1890 and 1891, at a
cost of $1,035,000 a year, and added: "and to all this, not one single
reference has escaped those who have spoken." He concluded with the
words: "It would never do if, in order to encourage the vaporings of
three or four of those gutter journals which disfigure the Metropolitan
Press, Members of this House were to make the grave mistake of throwing
discredit upon a body of men like the permanent officials [Executive
Officers] of the Post Office, of whom any country might be proud,
with whom, I believe, any Minister would be delighted to work, and of
diminishing the authority in his own Department of a Minister, who,
whatever may be his personal deficiencies, at heart believes that he
has done nothing to forfeit the confidence of this House."
A few months later, when the House was considering the Estimates of
the Post Office Department, the Postmaster General said: "Economists
[advocates of economy] of former days would have been interested and
surprised by the general tenor of the debate to which we have just
listened. The great point used to be, as I understand, to show a
large balance of revenue to the State [from the Post Office], and to
make a defense against charges of extravagance in the past. But we
have now arrived at a time when the opposite course is to be taken,
and the only chance a Minister has of enjoying the confidence of
this House is to point to a diminished balance of revenue and to a
greater expenditure on the part of the department." ... In 1891-92 our
telegraph expenditure will increase by $3,000,000, while our revenue
will increase by $1,700,000; "the reason is to be found in the very
comprehensive measures framed in the course of the last year for the
improvement of the position of the staff."[151]
[Sidenote: _Civil Servants circularize Members of Parliament_]
Mr. Raikes died in August, 1891; and in June, 1892, Sir James
Fergusson, his successor, asked the House of Commons to permit him to
call attention to a circular addressed to Candidates at the [impending]
General Election, and also sent to Members of the [present] House.
The circular had been issued by "The Provincial Postal Telegraph Male
Clerks" to "Candidates at the General Election," and contained the
following statement: "We have, in addition, to ask you whether you
will, if elected, vote for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee
to inquire into the working of the Telegraph Service, as we believe
such an investigation would be of great utility, and could not but tend
to the improvement of the service, the state of which is causing great
public dissatisfaction, as will be seen from the subjoined newspaper
extracts. In conclusion, we beg to state that we await your reply to
these few questions of vital importance with considerable anxiety, and
trust that you will give them your careful consideration."
Sir James Fergusson added that another branch of the Post Office
servants was issuing similar circulars.[152]
He said, "I think that there would be an end to the discipline which
should characterize members of the Public Service if encouragement
were given to such attempts to bring pressure to bear on Members of
the House and Candidates on the eve of a General Election.... I have
to say that the leading Members of the Opposition, including the right
honorable Member for Midlothian [Mr. W. E. Gladstone], and the right
honorable Member for Derby [Sir Wm. Harcourt], fully concur in the
observations I have made."[153]
A few days later, the Postmaster General issued the following notice:
"The Postmaster General at the same time warns Post Office servants
that it would be improper for them, in combination or individually, to
endeavor to extract promises from any candidate for election to the
House of Commons with reference to their pay or duties."
In the House of Commons Sir James Fergusson defended this notice
in these words: "I in no way deny the right of Members of the
Public Service to appeal to Members of this House to get their case
represented here, but there is all the difference between Members being
asked to represent a _prima facie_ case, and candidates being asked to
pledge themselves upon an ex-parte statement to support a revision [of
wages and salaries] or a commission of inquiry--in fact, to prejudge
the case. To ask for such a promise as a condition of giving a vote
does seem to me inconsistent with the duties of a public servant, and
to go beyond his constitutional privileges. In that view the warning
has been issued. By what law or right has this been done, the honorable
Member asks? By the right and duty which belongs to the head of a
Department to preserve proper discipline."[154]
In August, 1892, the Salisbury Government was succeeded by the
Gladstone Government, and Mr. Arnold Morley became Postmaster General.
On August 28, 1893, Mr. W. E. Gladstone, First Lord of the Treasury, in
reply to a question from Mr. Macdonald, said: "Questions may be raised,
on which I have no judgment to give on the part of the Government, as
to how far, for example, it is desirable for the public functionaries
to make use of their position as voters for the purpose of obtaining
from candidates promises or engagements tending directly to the
advantage of public servants in respect of pay and promotion. These are
matters which we deem not undeserving of consideration; but still they
do not form the subject of any decision on the part of Her Majesty's
Government in the nature of a restraint."[155] In accordance with the
policy thus announced, the Gladstone Ministry rescinded Sir James
Fergusson's order of June 17, 1892.[156]
[Sidenote: _Mr. Macdonald demands a Select Committee_]
In September, 1893, while the House was in Committee of Supply, Mr.
Macdonald[157] moved "a reduction of $500 in respect of the Salary
of the Postmaster General", in order to bring before the committee
the demand of the Post Office employees for "an independent inquiry
by a Parliamentary Committee." He stated "that in 1891 the present
Postmaster General [Mr. Arnold Morley] voted in favor of an inquiry
such as that for which he [Mr. Macdonald] now asked, and he wished
to know whether anything had occurred to cause the Right Honorable
Gentleman to change his view since that time."[158]
The Postmaster General, Mr. Morley, replied: "He was asked how he
could account for his vote in 1891 when he had supported the Motion of
the noble Earl, the Member for Barnsley [Earl Compton]? He accounted
for it on two grounds: He had supported the proposal, which was an
unprecedented one, because there was an unprecedented condition of
discontent prevailing throughout the Postal and Telegraph Service--or,
he confessed, he was under that impression at the time. The condition
of things in various branches of the Service was serious. There had
been an _émeute_ in the Savings Bank Department, and whether with
reason or without reason, the whole of the Services were discontented
with their position. The condition of things at present, however, did
not bear out the idea that there was anything like general discontent
prevailing. He accounted for his action on another ground. Since 1891
large concessions had been made, with enormous additional expense to
the country, and that made the state of things very different to what
it was when he supported the noble Earl's Motion."
Earl Compton said: "He had several times in past years stood up and
spoken for the telegraph clerks, and as the Amendment before the
committee related practically to them, it would be dishonest and mean
on his part, if, having taken a strong course [while sitting] in
opposition, he did not take the same course now his friends were in
power."
Mr. Macdonald's Motion was lost.
[Sidenote: _Mr. Kearley demands a Select Committee_]
In May, 1895, Mr. Kearley[159] moved: "That in the opinion of this
House, it is highly desirable that the terms and conditions of
employment in the Post Office should be made the subject of competent
and immediate inquiry, with a view to the removal of any reasonable
cause of complaint which may be found to exist."[160] The Motion was
seconded by Sir Albert K. Rollit.[161] Mr. Kearley stated at the
outset, that his remarks would be directed to the advisability of
granting some inquiry. He was not in a position to assert that any
particular alleged grievance really existed as stated by the employees;
but there could be no doubt that there was general discontent. Mr.
Kearley next stated that the most serious grievance alleged by the
Post Office employees was inadequacy of pay arising from stagnation of
promotion. It was true that at the time the blocking extended only to
the more highly paid portions of the rank and file, but it must soon
extend to the general body of employees unless relief were afforded.
In 1880, and in 1890, Parliament had sanctioned respectively the
Fawcett revision of wages, and the Raikes revision, for the purpose of
correcting inadequacies of pay arising from stagnation of promotion.
The employees now demanded the abolition of the classes into which were
divided the various grades of the rank and file of the Post Office
employees; they demanded assured promotion to a definite maximum wage
or salary.
That demand rested on the assumption that the employees had a
vested right to the rate of promotion that had obtained under the
extraordinary increase of telegraphic business that had followed the
transfer of the telegraphs to the State in 1870, and had followed the
adoption of the 12 cent tariff in October, 1885.[162]
Mr. Kearley supported his argument by reference to the telegraphists,
who enter the service between the ages of fourteen and eighteen, as
second class telegraphists, and in the course of fourteen years rise
by annual increments from the wage of $3 a week to $10 a week. At the
latter wage they remain, unless they are promoted to be first class
telegraphists, whose wages rise by annual increments, from $10 a week
to $14 a week--payment for over-time, and so forth, being excluded in
all cases. Mr. Kearley argued that promotion from the second class to
the first class was blocked, stating that in Birmingham, in the last
4-3/4 years, only 11 men in 168 had been promoted from second class
telegraphists to first class telegraphists; and that in Belfast and
Edinburgh the annual rate of promotion had been respectively 1.14 per
cent. and 2 per cent. Those instances, said the speaker, were typical
of the larger cities; the conditions in the smaller cities and in the
towns being still worse.
Mr. Arnold Morley, Postmaster General, replied to this part of Mr.
Kearley's argument with the statement that there were in London and in
the Provinces 3,308 second class male telegraphists, and that out of
that number only 65 were both eligible for promotion and in receipt of
the maximum wage of the second class, namely $10 a week. He added that
the average wage of the men telegraphists who had been promoted from
the second class to the first in 1894 had been $8.46. That meant that,
on an average, the men in question had been promoted three years before
they had reached the maximum wage of the second class. The Postmaster
General characterized as "extraordinarily misleading" the source from
which Mr. Kearley had taken his statements of fact, namely, a table in
a pamphlet issued by the telegraphists in support of their contention
that promotion was blocked. The compilers of the table had left out
promotions "due to causes other than what were termed ordinary causes,
namely promotions due to appointments to postmasterships and chief
clerkships, to transfers from provincial offices to the central office
in London, and to reductions of officers on account of misconduct."
Thus at Birmingham there had been, not 11 promotions, but 16; at
Liverpool, not 8, but 37; at Belfast, not 4, but 14; at Newcastle, not
5, but 24; at Bristol, not 6, but 13; at Southampton, not 2, but 8.
The second alleged grievance brought forward by Mr. Kearley related to
the so-called auxiliary staff, which consisted of men who supplemented
their earnings in private employment by working for the Post Office
in the mail branch. It was stated that the Post Office was paying the
auxiliary staff from $3.75 to $4.00 a week, whereas it should pay at
least $6.00 a week. The third grievance related to the so-called split
duties, which involved in the course of the 24 hours of the day more
than one attendance at the office. The abolition of those duties was
demanded. The fourth grievance was that some of the younger employees
were obliged to take their annual three weeks' vacation [on full pay]
in the months of November to February.
Sir Albert Rollit,[163] in seconding the motion, termed "reasonable"
the demand of the telegraphists that the wages of the London
telegraphists should rise automatically to $1,150 a year; and those of
the provincial telegraphists to $1,000 a year. At the time the maximum
wage attainable in London was $950, while the maximum attainable
in the provinces was $800. Sir Albert Rollit added that the recent
order of the Post Office that first class telegraphists must pass
certain technical examinations or forego further promotion and further
increments in pay, "amounted almost to tyranny," and he further
reflected that "where law ended, tyranny began." Sir Albert Rollit,
an eminent merchant and capitalist, contended that when the existing
body of telegraphists had entered the service, no knowledge of the
technics of telegraphy had been required, and that therefore it would
be a breach of contract to require the present staff to acquire such
knowledge unless it were specifically paid for going to the trouble of
acquiring such knowledge. That contention of Sir Albert Rollit was but
one of many instances of the extraordinary doctrine of "vested rights"
developed by the British Civil Service, and recognized by the British
Government, namely, that the State may make no changes in the terms and
conditions of employment, unless it shall indemnify by money payments
the persons affected by the changes. If the State shall be unwilling to
make such indemnification, the changes in the terms and conditions of
employment must be made to apply only to persons who shall enter the
service in the future; they may not be made to apply to those already
in the service. This doctrine is supported in the House of Commons by
eminent merchants, manufacturers and capitalists. Sir Albert K. Rollit,
for instance, is a steamship owner at Hull, Newcastle and London; a
Director of the National Telephone Company, and he has held for six
years and five years respectively the positions of President of the
Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom and President of
the London Chamber of Commerce.
When Sir Albert Rollit argued that the Government had broken faith
with the telegraphers, those public servants, acting under instructions
from their leaders, were neglecting to avail themselves of their
opportunities to learn the elementary scientific principles underlying
telegraphy, and were even repudiating the obligation to acquire
knowledge of those principles. The state of affairs was such that the
Engineer-in-Chief of the Telegraphs, Mr. W. H. Preece, began to fear
that before long he would be unable to fill the positions requiring an
elementary knowledge of the technics of telegraphy.[164]
Mr. Arnold Morley, Postmaster General, began his reply to Mr. Kearley's
Motion with the statement that "he understood the mover of the Motion
spoke on behalf of those in the Post Office service who had taken an
active part in the promoting what he might call an agitation, and that
his [Mr. Kearley's] position was that, in the condition of feeling in
the service, some steps ought to be taken which would enable the real
facts to be brought not only before the public, but before Parliament."
... He [Mr. Morley] had made a careful examination of most of the
alleged grievances during the three years he had been at the Post
Office, and though he had satisfied himself that in the main they were
not well founded, he recognized that a very strong feeling existed not
only among a portion of the staff, but also among the public, and among
Members of the House.
[Sidenote: _The Civil Servants' Campaign of Education_]
The feeling in question the Postmaster General attributed largely to
the manner in which the case of the telegraphists had been presented
by the telegraphists in the House of Commons, and in the newspaper
press. He spoke of the "extraordinarily misleading" table of promotions
published by the telegraphists. He then went on to state that recently
the Postmaster at Bristol had reorganized the local telegraph office.
By reducing the amount of over-time work, and by abolishing four
junior offices, he had effected a saving of $3,000 to $3,500 a year.
Thereupon a local newspaper had come out with the heading: "A Premium
on Sweating;" and had made the statement, which was not true, that the
local Postmaster had received a premium of $500 for effecting a saving
of $3,800 at the expense of the staff.[165] Mr. Morley continued with
the statement that in June, 1894, a deputation from the London Trades
Council had complained to the Postmaster General that skilled electric
light men were often employed by the Post Office at laborer's wages at
its factory at Holloway, citing the case of one Turner. Upon inquiry
the Postmaster General had learned that Turner had been employed as a
wireman, had been "discharged from slackness of work," and, upon his
own request in writing, had been taken back "out of kindness" as a
laborer. The same deputation had mentioned the case of one Harrison,
alleged to be earning on piece work, at the Holloway Factory, $1.75,
$2.25, and $3.75 a week. On inquiry the Postmaster had ascertained
that Harrison was able to earn $10 a week and more, but that "for the
purpose of agitation, he had deliberately lowered the amount of his
wages by abstaining from doing full work." After the Postmaster General
had informed the London Trades Council of the facts of the case, that
body had passed resolutions denouncing the postal authorities at the
Holloway Factories. Again, Mr. Churchfield, Secretary of the Postmen's
Federation, in an interview with the representative of a London
newspaper had stated that the shortest time worked by the men on split
duties was 12-3/4 hours, while the longest was 22 hours [in the course
of one day and night]. A duty of seven hours lasting from 8 p. m. to
10 p. m., and from 12 p. m. to 5 a. m., Mr. Churchfield had called a
continuous duty of twenty-two hours, lasting from 12 p. m. to 10 p.
m. The public also was "grossly misled" as to the condition of the
auxiliary postmen. For example, one Mears was alleged to earn, after
27 years' service, only $3 a week. Inquiry showed that Mears worked
in a warehouse during the day, and received from the Post Office $3 a
week for duties performed between the hours of 6 p. m. and 10 p. m.
Other cases had been reported, but in not one instance had the figures
been correct. One man in receipt of $3.94 a week, had been put down at
$2.62. The London auxiliary postmen received from 12 cents to 18 cents
an hour; they were mainly small tradesmen, shop assistants, and private
watchmen. In the country, the auxiliary postmen received from 8 cents
to 10 cents an hour.
The Postmaster General continued with the statement that the increases
in wages and the concessions granted by Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Raikes had
augmented the combined expenditures of the postal branch and telegraph
branch by $3,750,000 a year.[166] "In 1881, the wages formed 48.7
per cent. of the gross expenditure, whereas now they formed 59.9 per
cent.... He did not think that he need add to those figures, except
to say that in addition to salaries there were a large number of
allowances for special duties. In the circulation office in London
were 4,000 sorters, of whom 250 had each an allowance of $2.50 a
week, while a very large number had allowances of $1.25, $0.75 and
$0.50, of which never a word was said when complaints were made about
salaries." The demands made by the telegraphists would increase the
State's expenditures by $3,250,000 a year, "taking into account the
consequential advances which other classes in the Public Service,
treated on the same footing, would naturally receive." Similarly, the
letter sorters made an application involving a direct increase of
$635,000, and an indirect increase of another $2,500,000.
Mr. Morley next recited some statistics to show, "first of all, the
desire among people outside to come into the Post Office Service,
and secondly, the disinclination of those inside to go out." The
Post Office recently had called for 650 male letter sorters, and had
received 1,506 applications. A call for 188 "telegraph learners,"
had brought out 2,486 candidates. In London, in 1894, there had been
no resignations among 1,261 first class sorters, and 23 resignations
among 2,958 second class sorters. Out of 5,000 London postmen, 19 had
resigned in 1894; and in the 5 years ending with 1894, a total of
5,700 telegraphists had furnished 348 resignations, including the
resignations of women who left the service in order to marry.[167] "He
could not help thinking that when the working men got to know to the
full extent the terms and prospects of Postal Service, the sympathy
which they had so freely bestowed on Post Office employees would be
largely withdrawn."
[Sidenote: _The Government compromises with the Civil Servants_]
Mr. Morley, Postmaster General, summed up with the statement that
"he should be the last to deny that change and amelioration might be
required in certain respects, but, having examined all the cases, he
believed the men of the Postal Service, the Telegraph Staff as well as
the Postal Staff, were better treated than people from the same class
in private employment. But that opinion was not altogether shared
by the public, or by certain Members of the House of Commons, and
therefore the Government was prepared to appoint a strong Committee,
composed of men who would have special and practical knowledge and
experience of administration, and who would, he hoped, be assisted
by a Member of the Labor Department of the Board of Trade.... There
must be upon the Committee one official of the Post Office in order to
assist the Committee, but apart from that one appointment, he proposed
that the Committee should be appointed from executive officers of the
Government not connected with the Post Office."
Sir James Fergusson, who had preceded Mr. Morley as Postmaster General,
said: "He could not shut his eyes to the fact that there was no
difficulty whatever in finding candidates for employment in the Post
Office. In fact, it was impossible to meet the wishes of many of those
who desired to enter the Department. In those circumstances he thought
it could hardly be contended seriously that the remuneration offered
was grossly inadequate, or that the conditions of service were unduly
onerous."
The House of Commons accepted the compromise offered by the Government.
Lord Tweedmouth, Lord Privy Seal and a Member of the Cabinet, was
made Chairman of the Committee, which consisted, in addition, of Sir
F. Mowatt, Permanent Secretary of the Treasury; Sir A. Godley, Under
Secretary of State for India; Mr. Spencer Walpole, Permanent Secretary
to the Post Office; and Mr. Llewellyn Smith, of the Labor Department of
the Board of Trade.[168]
FOOTNOTES:
[120] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 15,119; Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary,
General Post Office, London.
[121] _Return to an Order of the Honorable, The House of Commons_,
dated March 16th, 1898.
[122] _Parliamentary Paper_, No. 34, Session of 1876, Lord John
Manners, Postmaster General; and _Report of the Inter-Departmental
Committee on Post Office Establishments_, 1897, Mr. L. Hill, Assistant
Secretary, General Post Office, London; Appendix, pp. 1,095 and 1,099.
[123] _Report of a Committee Appointed by the Treasury to investigate
the Causes of the Increased Cost of the Telegraph Service since the
Acquisition of the Telegraphs by the State_, 1875, p. 5; _First Report
of the Civil Service Inquiry Commission_, 1875, p. 9; and _Report from
the Select Committee on Post Office_ (_Telegraph Department_), 1876;
Mr. E. Graves, Divisional Engineer; q. 1,566 and following.
[124] _Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments_,
1888; Sir Lyon Playfair; q. 20,124 to 20,194; Sir Reginald E. Welby,
Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, 10,557 to 10,560; and Appendix, p.
570 and following.
[125] _Parliamentary Paper_, No. 286, Session of 1881.
[126] _Report from the Select Committee on Revenue Departments
Estimates_, 1888; Appendix No. 12, Mr. C. H. B. Patey, Third Secretary
to the Post Office.
[127] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, August 16, 1881, p. 128.
[128] That is, he had given the telegraphists an interview.
[129] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, August 16, 1881, p. 141.
[130] _The narrative ignores the parts of the scheme affecting the_
letter carriers and letter sorters.
[131] For an account of the organization and the duties of the
Treasury, as well as of the position and the duties of the Financial
Secretary to the Treasury, see Chapter XVII.
[132] _Parliamentary Paper_, No. 286, Session of 1881.
[133] In consequence of the fact that wages and salaries rise by annual
increments from the minimum to the maximum, some years must elapse
before the full effect of the increase in pay granted in 1881 would
be felt. It was assumed that in the first year the total increase in
expenditure would be $85,000, and that ultimately it would be $700,000.
In that connection it was common to speak of a mean increase of
$450,000.
[134] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, June 26, 1882, p. 429 and 431.
[135] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 29, 1883, p. 1,016.
[136] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 24, 1884, p. 572.
[137] From 1874 to 1880 Sir S. A. Blackwood had been Financial
Secretary to the Post Office.
[138] _Report from the Select Committee on Revenue Departments
Estimates_; q. 403 and 404.
[139] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 11,641 to 11,648.
[140] _Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments_,
1888; q. 10,562-3, 10,742 to 10,749, and 10,772 to 10,783.
[141] _Who's Who_, 1903, West, Sir Algernon E.; Was a clerk in the
Admiralty: Assistant Secretary to Sir C. Wood and Duke of Somerset;
Secretary to Sir C. Wood at India Office, and to Mr. Gladstone when
Prime Minister; Chairman of Board of Inland Revenue.
[142] _Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments_,
1888; q. 17,438 to 17,447.
[143] _Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments_,
1888; q. 20,238.
[144] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897, Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary, General
Post Office, London; q. 15,123 and 15,119.
The subjoined table shows the changes made in the wages of the second
class provincial telegraphists, who enter the service as boys and
girls, from fourteen years upward, and are taught telegraphy at the
cost of the Department.
========================+=================+================
| Wage Under the | Wage Under the
Age of the Telegraphist | Fawcett Scheme | Raikes Scheme
Years | $ | $
------------------------+-----------------+----------------
16 | 4.00 | 3.50
17 | 4.37 | 4.50
18 | 4.75 | 5.00
19 | 5.12 | 5.50
20 | 5.50 | 6.00
21 | 5.87 | 6.50
22 | 6.25 | 7.00
23 | 6.62 | 7.50
24 | 7.00 | 8.00
25 | 7.37 | 8.50
26 | 7.75 | 9.00
27 | 8.12 | 9.50
28 | 8.50 | 10.00
29 | 8.87 | 10.00
30 | 9.25 | 10.00
31 | 9.50 | 10.00
========================+=================+================
[145] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, August 1, 1890, p. 1,623 and
following; April 17, 1891, p. 883; and August 1, 1891, p. 1,059 and
following.
[146] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 11,706.
[147] _Who's Who_, 1903, Compton, family name of Marquis of Northampton.
Northampton, 5th Marquis of, Wm. Geo. Spencer Scott Compton; was in
Diplomatic Service; Private Secretary to Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
(Earl Cowper), 1880 to 1882; Member of Parliament (G. L.) 1889 to 1897;
owns about 23,600 acres.
[148] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 15, 1890, p. 581 and
following.
[149] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 31, 1890, p. 1,441.
[150] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 17, 1891, p. 851 and
following.
[151] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, August 1, 1891, p. 1,059 and
following.
[152] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, February 18, 1898, p. 1,109.
S. Woods quotes as follows from the circular issued by the Fawcett
Association in June, 1892: "Will you, in the event of being elected
a Member of Parliament, support a motion for the appointment of a
Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into the Post Office Service, such
as was advocated by Earl Compton, and largely supported during the
recent Session of the House of Commons?"
[153] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, June 14, 1892, p. 1,123 and
following.
[154] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, June 20, 1892, p. 1,565 and
following.
[155] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, August 28, 1893, p. 1,218.
[156] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, May 17, 1895, p. 1,455, Sir A.
K. Rollit, one of the most aggressive champions of the demands of the
civil servants.
[157] _Who's Who_, 1903. Macdonald, J. A. M.; Member of Parliament for
Bow and Bromley, 1892 to 1895; Member of the London School Board for
Marylebone since 1897; Education: Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities.
[158] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, September 16, 1893, p. 1,453
and following.
[159] _Who's Who_, 1905, Kearley, H. E., J. P., D. L., Member of
Parliament (G. L.), Devenport, since 1892. Director of Kearley and
Tonge, L't'd., tea importers and merchants; owns 1,200 acres. In 1906
Mr. Kearley became Political Secretary of the Board of Trade in the
Campbell-Bannerman Ministry.
[160] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, May 17, 1895, p. 1,446 and
following.
[161] _Who's Who_, 1905, Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye, J. P., LL. D., D. C.
L., D. L., Member of Parliament, South Islington, since 1886. Partner
in Bailey and Leatham, steamship owners at Hull, Newcastle and London;
Director of National Telephone Co.; Mayor of Hull, 1883 to 1885;
President Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, 1890
to 1896; President London Chamber of Commerce, 1893 to 1898; Chairman
Inspection Committee Trustee Savings Bank since 1890; President of
Association of Municipal Corporations.
[162] In 1891-92 to 1894-95 the number of telegrams transmitted had
remained practically stationary.
Number of Telegrams
1890-91 66,409,000
1891-92 69,685,000
1892-93 69,908,000
1893-94 70,899,000
1894-95 71,589,000
[163] _Who's Who_, 1905, Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye, J. P., LL. D., D.
C. L., D. L., M. P., South Islington, since 1886. Partner in Bailey
and Leetham, steamship owners at Hull, Newcastle and London; Director
of National Telephone Co.; Mayor of Hull, 1883 to 1885; President
Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, 1890 to 1896;
President London Chamber of Commerce, 1893 to 1898; Chairman Inspection
Committee Trustee Savings Bank since 1890; President of Association of
Municipal Corporations.
[164] _Report of Bradford Committee on Post Office Wages_, 1904; q.
1,024; Mr. E. Trenam, Controller London Central Telegraph Office;
and q. 1,048, Mr. W. G. Kirkwood, a principal clerk in Secretary's
department, General Post Office.
[165] Compare also, _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 4, 1890,
p. 1,774. Mr. Cunninghame-Grahame: "I beg to ask the Postmaster
General whether it is the custom of the Post Office to give bonuses to
Inspectors or other officials for cutting down working expenses, and
whether continual complaints are being made of the arbitrary stoppage
of payment for over-time?" "No," was answered to both questions.
[166] In April, 1896, Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary to General
Post Office, stated that on the basis of the staff of 1896, the Fawcett
and Raikes schemes were costing the Post Office Department $6,000,000 a
year in increased expenditure. The Postmaster General's statement of an
increase of $3,750,000 in the expenditure had been made on the basis of
the members actually employed in 1881 and 1891 respectively. _Report of
the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments_, 1897;
q. 12,382 and 15,123.
[167] Compare _Report of Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary to General
Post Office; q. 15,272.
On April 1, 1891, there were employed at 57 of the largest post offices
in the United Kingdom, 2,614 first class and second class male letter
sorters. In the next 5 years there resigned, in all, 95 sorters. Twelve
of that number resigned in order to avoid dismissal.
On April 1, 1891, there were employed at 96 of the largest telegraph
offices, 4,211 first class and second class male telegraphists. In the
next 5 years there were 235 resignations. Of the men who resigned, 12
avoided dismissal, 23 left because of ill health, 38 went to South
Africa, 28 obtained superior appointments in the Civil Service, by
open competition, 11 enlisted with the Royal Engineers, 1 entered the
service of an electric light company, 1 became a bank clerk, 2 became
commercial travelers, 3 went to sea, 4 emigrated to the United States,
and 48 entered the service of the British Cable companies, which pay
higher salaries than the Post Office, but work their men much harder
and demand greater efficiency than does the Post Office.
[168] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897, is the official title of the Committee's Report.