THE TWEEDMOUTH COMMITTEE REPORT
The Government accepts all recommendations made by the
Committee. Sir Albert K. Rollit, one of the principal
champions in the House of Commons of the postal employees,
immediately follows with a motion "intended to reflect
upon the Report of the Tweedmouth Committee." Mr. Hanbury,
Financial Secretary to the Treasury, intimates that it
may become necessary to disfranchise the civil servants.
The Treasury accepts the recommendations of the so-called
Norfolk-Hanbury Committee. The average of expenses on account
of wages and salaries rises from 11.54 cents per telegram
in 1895-96, to 13.02 cents in 1902-03, concomitantly with
an increase in the number of telegrams from 79,423,000 to
92,471,000.
In the preceding chapter the narrative was brought down to the
appointment in 1895, of the so-called Tweedmouth Committee.[169] That
Committee consisted of Lord Tweedmouth, Lord Privy Seal and a Member
of the Cabinet; Sir F. Mowatt, Permanent Secretary of the Treasury;
Sir A. Godley, Under Secretary of State for India; Mr. Spence Walpole,
Permanent Secretary of the Post Office; and Mr. Llewellyn Smith, of the
Labor Department of the Board of Trade.
In the "Terms of Reference to the Committee on Post Office
Establishments," the Postmaster General included this paragraph: "In
conducting this inquiry, I can have no doubt you will recollect that
the Post Office is a great Revenue Department; and that, in the words
of the _Select Committee on Revenue Departments Estimates_ in 1888,
it 'is most likely to continue to be conducted satisfactorily, if it
should also continue to be conducted with a view to profit, as one of
the Revenue yielding Departments of the State.'"[170]
[Sidenote: _No Service like the Public Service_]
Before the Tweedmouth Committee Mr. Lewin Hill, who, as Assistant
Secretary General Post Office, was the executive officer who had
general charge of all the postal and telegraph employees outside
of London, testified as follows: "My own view is that the time has
come for telling the postmen, in common with the members of the rest
of the manipulative staff [the telegraphists] in answer to their
demand for a general rise of wages, that the Post Office Department
is satisfied that the wages already paid are in excess of the market
value of their services; that this being so, no general addition to
pay will be given, and that if the staff are dissatisfied, and can
do better for themselves outside the Post Office, they are, as they
know, at perfect liberty to seek employment elsewhere." The Chairman,
Lord Tweedmouth, asked Mr. Hill: "Do you think there is any other
particular class of employment which is comparable with that of the
postmen [and telegraphists]?" Mr. Hill replied: "I thought of railway
servants, whose work in many ways resembles the work of our employees.
If they have not the same permanence [of tenure] as our own people
have, they have continuous employment so long as they are efficient,
but our people have continuous employment whether they are efficient
or not.... In that respect all of us in the Postal Service stand in
a unique position, from top to bottom our men are certain as long as
they conduct themselves reasonably well to retain their maximum pay
down to the last day they remain in the Service, and whatever their
class may be, whether postmen, or sorting clerks, or telegraphists, or
officers of higher grade, they continue, failing misconduct, to rise
to the maximum pay of their class, quite regardless of whether they
are worth the higher pay that they get from year to year." The only
concession that Mr. Hill was willing to recommend was, that in the
larger towns the time required for postmen and telegraphists to rise
from the minimum scale of pay to the maximum be reduced from 13 years
to 6 years.[171]
Mr. J. C. Badcock, Controller of the Metropolitan Postal Service
other than the Service in the London Central Post Office, and Mr. H.
C. Fischer, Controller of the London Central Post Office, joined in
Mr. Lewin Hill's recommendation. Mr. Fischer added that the London
telegraphists should be given better chances of passing from the second
class to the first class than they had enjoyed in the last three or
four years,[172] and that the pay of the London senior telegraphists,
who were a kind of assistants to the assistant superintendents, ought
to be raised above the existing scale of $950.
Mr. C. H. Kerry, Postmaster at Stoke-on-Trent, stated that if the
Post Office Department "was willing to act, not only the part of the
model employer, but of an exceptionally liberal employer; and it was
thought after all that had been done for the staff so recently, that
still a little further should be done," the Department might reduce
from 13 years to 5 years the period that it took the rank and file to
pass from the minimum salary of their class to the maximum salary. But
there was no necessity of doing anything for any one, "on a general
consideration of the pay given elsewhere to persons performing duties
requiring about the same amount of intelligence." There was "absolutely
no justification" for increasing the existing maximum of pay.
Mr. Kerry had entered the Post Office telegraph service in 1870,
after having served with the Electric and International Company from
1854 to 1870. He said: "The speed at which the telegraphists had to
work present, that is the speed per man,[173] because the telegraph
companies kept only enough force for the minimum work, and when the
work increased you had to catch that up by increased effort.... As a
previous witness said, one of the laws of the service is that there
must be no delay, but I think there is a well understood law, also,
that there must be no confusion, and the arrangements made are now
such that the maximum of work, as a rule, can be dealt with without
undue pressure.... From 1870 to 1889, I was constantly in the Telegraph
branch and witnessing from day to day, and almost from hour to hour,
the work which the telegraphists performed." ...[174]
This testimony from Mr. Kerry must be borne in mind when reading the
complaints of the Post Office telegraphists that the salaries paid by
the Eastern Telegraph [Cable] Company rise to $1,020 a year, whereas
the salaries of first class telegraphists in London rise only to $950.
The employees of the Eastern Telegraph Company have to work under so
much greater pressure than the State telegraphists, that Mr. Fischer,
Controller of the London Central Telegraph Office, was able to state:
"I have never known a telegraphist in the first class to leave our
service for that of any of the [Cable] companies. The cable companies
draw very few men from us, and those drawn away as a rule, are young
men in the second class who are receiving about $250 or $300, and are
attracted by the prospect of an immediate increase of some $150 upon
entrance into the service of the cable companies."[175]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _The Tweedmouth Committee's Recommendations_]
Those telegraph offices which are not sufficiently important to justify
the employment of telegraphists of the first class, are divided into
four groups: B, C, D and E. The Tweedmouth Committee recommended that
the maximum salary of the telegraphists in the offices of Group E be
raised from $8 a week to $8.50: in offices of group D from $8.75 to
$9; in offices of group C from $9.50 to $10; and in offices of group
B from $10 to $11. It recommended furthermore that all provincial
telegraphists should rise automatically and without regard to
efficiency, to a salary of not less than $10 a week. Beyond $10 they
should not go, unless fully competent. The Committee added that it
placed "the efficiency bar at the high figure of $10 a week,[176] for
the special reason that it may be rigorously enforced, and that all
inducements to treat it as a matter of form, liable to be abrogated for
the reason of compassion, may be removed."
As for the telegraphists employed in Metropolitan London, the
Tweedmouth Committee recommended that all telegraphists should rise at
least to "the efficiency bar" of $560 a year; and that those who could
pass the efficiency bar, should rise automatically to $800, the maximum
salary of first class telegraphists. In the past, telegraphists in
London had been promoted from the second class to the first class, only
upon the occurrence of vacancies. In this case, also, the Committee
added to its recommendation the words: "This efficiency bar has been
placed at the high figure of $560 for the special reason that it may be
rigorously enforced, and that all inducements to treat it as a matter
of form, liable to be abrogated for reasons of compassion, may be
removed."[177]
These recommendations the Tweedmouth Committee made in order to meet
the complaints advanced by the Post Office employees that the falling
off in the rate of increase of the business of the telegraph branch had
caused a slackening in the flow of promotion.
The remaining recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee it is not
necessary to enumerate; suffice it to say, that the Postmaster General,
the Duke of Norfolk, advised the Government to accept all of the
Committee's recommendations, with the statement that, on the basis of
the staff of 1897, the cost of carrying out the recommendations would
begin with $695,000 a year, and would rise ultimately to $1,375,000.
That estimate related to both branches of the Post Office, the postal
branch and the telegraph; no separate estimates were made for the
several branches.
[Sidenote: _The Government accepts the Committee's Recommendations_]
The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury accepted the
Postmaster General's recommendations, and directed the Financial
Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. R. W. Hanbury, to write as follows to
the Postmaster General.
"It has, of course, been necessary for my Lords to consider very
carefully proposals involving so large an increase of expenditure
in a single Department at one time, and they have duly weighed the
reasons which the Committee adduces in support of its conclusions.
While many of the proposals appear to be abundantly justified by the
considerations put forward, there are others which my Lords would have
hesitated to accept on any authority less entitled to respect than
that by which they are supported. But, my Lords readily acknowledge
the exceptional competence of the Committee to pronounce a judgment
on the question which came before it, and the great care with which
the inquiry has been conducted. They also note that the conclusions
represent the unanimous opinion of the Committee, and that they are,
in all cases, endorsed by your Grace. They have therefore decided,
in view of the weight of authority by which your recommendations are
supported, to accept them as they stand, and they authorize you to give
effect to them as from the first of April next. They have adopted this
course from a strong desire to do full justice to one of the largest
and most important services of the State, and because they feel that
the settlement now effected must be accepted as permanently satisfying
all reasonable claims on the part of the classes included in its terms.
The only condition which my Lords desire to attach to their acceptance
of your proposals is that the annual increments of pay should, in
all cases, be dependent on the certificate of a superior officer,
that the conduct of the recipient during the preceding year has been
satisfactory."
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _Sir A. K. Rollit demands a Committee of Business Men_]
The recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee went into effect on
April 1, 1897. On July 16, 1897, while the House of Commons was in
Committee of Supply, Sir Albert K. Rollit moved the reduction of the
salary of the Postmaster General by $5,000.[178] Sir Albert Rollit
said: "The Amendment was intended to reflect upon the report of the
Tweedmouth Committee, rather than upon either the Government or the
Post Office Department, for he thought more might be done to remedy
the abuses which were known [shown?] to exist in the course of the
report itself. To speak of the Post Office as a revenue earning machine
was, in his opinion, not a full or adequate description. He shared to
the full the opinion that its first object was to give facilities to
the public rather than merely to earn profits, and also to do justice
to its employees.... There were grievances which had not been redressed
by the report, and the House had a great deal more to do in that
direction. It was no answer to say that the Treasury had appropriated
a large sum of $695,000 for that very purpose, for after all, what did
the appropriation amount to? It only amounted to a rectification of the
inadequacies of the past. It was not in London alone, but throughout
the United Kingdom, that something like chronic discontent existed.
The complaints were loud and widespread. He did not at all agree as to
the propriety of the course intimated [by the telegraphists] by way
of notice to the Postmaster General, that if the grievances were not
redressed, over-time work at night would be suspended [_i. e._ the
telegraphists would refuse to work over-time in order to compel the
Government to redress their grievances]. That was an extreme remedy in
cases where the public convenience and service were concerned; but,
after all, every man's labor was his own right, and if there were no
disposition to remedy present grievances, even that extreme way of
trying to bring about a remedy might possibly have to be resorted
to. The Treasury was, of course, a barrier to a good deal. He did
not say the heads of a Department did not value as much as he might
do pecuniarily the services of those who contributed to the joint
effect which he and they made for the public advantage, and if we had
a splendid Civil Service in this country, he thought it had one great
defect, and that was too glaring disproportion between the salaries of
the highest officials and those of the lower, and this proportion might
well be redressed."
Sir Albert Rollit said he could not enumerate all the grievances,
he would have to confine himself to the enumeration of the worst
ones. He began by endorsing the contention of the telegraphists that
everybody should rise automatically to a salary of $1,000 a year. The
establishment of the "efficiency bars" he said, "was really a violation
of the contract with the telegraph operators, and was a grave and
gross injustice to them." He maintained, also, that the Committee's
recommendation that the payment for Sunday labor be reduced from
double rates to a rate and a half was "a material alteration of the
contract under which servants entered the Department." He supported
the contention of the State employees that it was a grievance that
some of the employees had to take their annual vacation in the winter
months. "The postmen had asked that the Christmas boxes [contributions
from the public] be abolished, $26 a year being added to the wages as
a compromise. Evidence had been given that $1.25 a year was the real
value of the Christmas boxes, but the Committee said there should be
no solicitation for Christmas boxes, and no compensation for their
loss." "He hoped that a statement of grievances, which were provoking
the strongest possible feeling, with disadvantage to the efficiency
of the Post Office, would be listened to. He was extremely glad to
recognize that the Postmaster General had been willing to receive two
deputations--one on June 15, which had not yet been replied to, and one
yesterday. But he would urge upon the Department and the Government
that the real remedy for this strong and wide discontent was the
appointment of an independent Committee, because the decision of such
a tribunal composed not of officials, but of practical business men,
who would perhaps have more sympathy with men in the lower grades of
the service, would be loyally accepted, and thus the public would be
advantaged and contentment restored to a service which was of great
value to the country." ["Hear, hear."]
Mr. R. W. Hanbury, who, as Financial Secretary to the Treasury,
represented in the House of Commons the Postmaster General, the Duke of
Norfolk, replied: "that throughout the discussion some facts had been
more or less left out of sight. Honorable Members ought to recollect,
in the first place, that the Tweedmouth Committee gave universal
satisfaction when it was appointed. It was then agreed that it was the
right kind of Committee; and that the right kind of men were appointed
to serve upon it. There was no preponderance of Treasury opinion upon
the Committee. In fact, the only Treasury official sitting upon it was
Sir Francis Mowatt. There was on it a high representative of the Post
Office, and the officials of a Department were not as a rule anxious
to cut down the salaries of their subordinates. Their tendency would
rather be to recommend an increase in salaries. There was also on the
Committee a representative of the Labor Department of the Board of
Trade, who was particularly well qualified to give an opinion as to
the proportion which the wages of the postal and telegraph employees
bore to the wages of persons doing corresponding work outside the
Post Office. Therefore the Committee was a very efficient body, and
through its recommendations the salaries of the officials had already
been increased by $700,000 a year, and the increase would amount to
something like $1,250,000 a year in the next few years. The Treasury
had accepted every recommendation of the Committee, whose suggestions
had been adopted wholesale. There was no ground for complaint,
therefore, in that direction."
[Sidenote: _Disfranchisement of Civil Servants Suggested_]
"Another fact which Members ought not to overlook was the political
pressure which was far too frequently exercised by Civil Servants upon
those who also represented them." ["Hear, hear."] "That was a great and
growing danger. It was chiefly in London that this pressure was brought
to bear.... He would give an instance of the way in which these Civil
Servants spoke of the expediency of political pressure. At one of the
great meetings which had been held, a speaker said there were 8,000
postmen in London, and that he hoped every one would have his name upon
the register [of voters], so that at election times they could exercise
their influence upon candidates and advocate the cause of higher
wages. He was of the opinion that political pressure ought not to be
brought to bear in that way." ["Hear, hear."] "Ordinary workmen could
not exercise the same power, but Civil Servants could, and, whether
their agitation succeeded or not, their position was secure, so that
it was a case of 'Heads, I win; tails, I don't lose'.... Before the
Royal Commission [of 1888], which had inquired into the Civil Service
establishments, evidence was given with regard to the way in which
pressure was brought to bear in certain constituencies upon Members,
and he thought that the almost unanimous feeling of the Commission
was that, if this state of things continued, it would be necessary to
disfranchise the Civil Service." ["Hear, hear."][179]
Sir Albert Rollit replied: "They had to acknowledge a very sympathetic
speech from the Secretary to the Treasury. Perhaps if some honorable
Members went to the Treasury in regard to this matter, accompanied
by one person who might represent practically the views which were
entertained by those concerned, the matter might be further gone into.
He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment."
The Secretary to the Treasury replied: "There was no objection on
the part of the Treasury to hearing communications from Members of
Parliament on the subject, but with regard to officials of the Post
Office coming to the Treasury, he should not like to give any pledge
without first consulting with the Postmaster General."
[Sidenote: _The Norfolk-Hanbury Committee_]
Shortly afterward the Postmaster General, the Duke of Norfolk, and
the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Hanbury, constituted
themselves a Committee to investigate the grievances that the
Tweedmouth Committee had left unredressed. All Members of the House
of Commons were invited to attend the meetings of the Norfolk-Hanbury
Committee, and to take part in examining the witnesses. Sir Albert
Rollit presented the case of the Post Office employees. The
Norfolk-Hanbury Committee recommended further concessions involving an
additional outlay of $400,000 a year; and the Treasury accepted the
recommendations.
The Report of the Postmaster General for the year 1897-98 stated that
the concessions granted would entail a total increase of expenditure of
$1,940,000 a year. The Duke of Norfolk concluded his reference to the
foregoing episodes with the words: "Since that time I have declined,
and I shall continue to decline, to allow decisions which have been
considered by the Tweedmouth Committee, and which have been revised
by Mr. Hanbury and myself, to be reopened. It is my belief that those
decisions have been liberal, but whether they are liberal or not, it is
for the interest of all parties that it should be understood that they
are final."
In April, 1900, Mr. R. W. Hanbury, Financial Secretary to the Treasury,
stated the concessions granted by the Tweedmouth and Norfolk-Hanbury
Committees were costing $2,200,000 a year. In April, 1901, Mr. Austen
Chamberlain, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said they were
costing $2,500,000 a year; and in April, 1903, he stated that they were
costing $3,000,000 a year.[180] Those figures related to the combined
postal and telegraph service. So far as the latter service alone is
concerned, the average expenses on account of wages and salaries rose
steadily from 11.54 cents per telegram in 1895-96, to 13.02 cents in
1902-03, under an increase in the number of messages from 79,423,000 in
1895-96, to 92,471,000 in 1902-03. In 1905-06, the average in question
rose to 14.29 cents, partly in consequence of the increases in wages
made in response to the demands of the Civil Servants, partly in
consequence of the drop in the number of telegrams to 89,478,000--as a
result of the growing competition from the telephone.
In 1895-96 the receipts of the Telegraph Department proper exceeded
the operating expenses by $646,000; in 1900-01, the operating expenses
exceeded the receipts by $34,000; in 1903-04 the deficit rose to
$1,505,000, and in 1904-05 it was $917,000. In 1905-06, the gross
revenue exceeded the operating expenses by $63,500.[181]
FOOTNOTES:
[169] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897, is the official title of the Committee's Report.
[170] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897, p. 4.
[171] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 15,119 and following, 11,706, 11,694, 15,123,
11,642 to 11,648, 11,680 to 11,697, 11,774 and 11,805.
[172] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 4,183 to 4,185, 3,907 to 3,912, 3,868 to
3,879 and 4,140 to 4,149.
[173] Mr. Kerry probably meant that the employees of the companies
worked under greater pressure.
[174] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 6,747 and following, and 6,691 to 6,694.
[175] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 3,863 and 3,853.
[176] Compare: _Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to
inquire into the Civil Establishments_, 1888, p. xvi. In 1888 the
salaries of the Lower Division Clerks of the Civil Service ranged from
$475 to $1,250. The Royal Commission recommended that in the future
the salaries in question should range from $350 to $1,750, with an
efficiency bar at $500 at the end of seven years' service, and a second
efficiency bar at $950 at the end of nineteen years' service.
[177] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897, pp. 9, 11 and 1,088; and q. 4,256 and following,
4,161 to 4,162, 15,126 to 15,134, and 3,913 to 3,937.
[178] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 16, 1897, p. 323 and
following.
[179] Compare also _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 9, 1896,
p. 597, Mr. R. W. Hanbury: "He had sat for some years as a member of
the Royal Commission upon Civil Service Establishments, and the Members
of that Commission had been greatly struck by the enormous pressure
that civil servants in particular constituencies were able to bring to
bear upon candidates, and in his view the House ought not to adopt any
line of action that would encourage that pressure being brought into
operation. So great, indeed, had been the abuses that it had even been
suggested that civil servants ought to be disfranchised altogether....
Another great danger that had to be provided against was that in
certain London constituencies, and in some of the large towns, it was
quite possible that the civil servants might, by combining together,
succeed in turning the balance at an election in the event of one of
the candidates refusing to pledge himself with regard to raising the
scale of wage, or an increase in the amount of pensions, or similar
advantages which the civil servants might desire to obtain."
[180] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 27, 1900, p. 135; April
25, 1901, p. 1,325; and April 30, 1903, p. 1,022.
[181] _Report of the Postmaster General_, 1906.