THE POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES CONTINUE TO PRESS THE HOUSE OF COMMONS FOR
INCREASES OF WAGES AND SALARIES
The Post Office employees demand "a new judgment on the
old facts." Mr. S. Woods' Motion, in February, 1898. Mr.
Steadman's Motions in February and June, 1899. Mr. Hanbury,
Financial Secretary to the Treasury, points out that the
postal employees are demanding a House of Commons Select
Committee because under such a Committee "the agitation and
pressure, now distributed over the whole House, would be
focussed and concentrated upon the unfortunate members of the
Select Committee." Mr. Steadman's Motion, in April, 1900. Mr.
Bayley's Motion, in June, 1901. Mr. Balfour, Prime Minister,
confesses that the debate has filled him "with considerable
anxiety as to the future of the public service if pressure
of the kind which has been put upon the Government to-night
is persisted in by the House." Captain Norton's Motion, in
April, 1902. The Government compromises by appointing the
Bradford Committee of business men. Mr. Austen Chamberlain,
Postmaster General, states that members from both sides of the
House "seek from him, in his position as Postmaster General,
protection for them in the discharge of their public duties
against the pressure sought to be put upon them by employees
of the Post Office." He adds: "Even if the machinery by
which our Select Committees are appointed were such as would
enable us to secure a Select Committee composed of thoroughly
impartial men who had committed themselves by no expression of
opinion, I still think that it would not be fair to pick out
fifteen members of this House and make them marked men for the
purpose of such pressure as is now distributed more or less
over the whole Assembly."
[Sidenote: _Civil Servants demand Right to agitate_]
On February 18, 1898, in the House of Commons, Mr. S. Woods[182] moved:
"And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that your servants in the
Post Office are not permitted to exercise the franchise, generally
allowed to other Departments in the State; nor to serve on electoral
committees; nor to take part in political agitation; and are otherwise
deprived of the privileges of citizenship in defiance of the letter
and spirit of the law; that the officials of the Post Office refuse to
recognize the Postmen's Trade Union; their officials are illegally and
unjustly dismissed for circularizing Parliamentary Candidates; and we
humbly beg Your Majesty to instruct the Postmaster General to remedy
these grievances."[183]
Sir James Fergusson, a former Postmaster General, said Mr. Woods'
motion had been brought "by the direction of the central Committee of
the Postal Union, or some such party." He continued with the statement
that the motion was the outcome of the agitation carried on since he,
Sir James Fergusson, had dismissed from the Post Office service Messrs.
Clery and Cheeseman, the ringleaders of a political campaign carried
on in violation of Sir James Fergusson's order of June 17, 1892. He
said the employees in the Revenue Departments had been disfranchised
in 1782 by the Marquis of Rockingham, Prime Minister, but that the
franchise had been restored to them in 1868. That in that year both Mr.
Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone had approved the policy of enfranchising
the employees of the Revenue Departments, subject to the limitation
that the ministerial heads of the Departments were to have the power to
determine the limits within which the employees were to take an active
part in politics. That an attempt had been made in 1874 to remove that
limitation, but that the House had supported the Government of the day
in resisting the attempt.[184]
[Sidenote: _House of Commons is Civil Servants' Court of Appeal_]
Mr. R. W. Hanbury, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and
representative in the House of Commons of the Postmaster General, the
Duke of Norfolk, said, in the course of his reply to Mr. Woods: "We
must recognize the fact that in this House of Commons, public servants
have a Court of Appeal such as exists with regard to no private
employee whatever. It is a Court of Appeal which not only exists with
regard to the grievances of classes, and even of individuals, but it is
a Court of Appeal which applies even to the wages and duties of classes
and individuals, and its functions in that respect are only limited by
the common sense of Members, who should exercise caution in bringing
forward cases of individuals, because, if political influence is
brought to bear in favor of one individual, the chances are that injury
is done to some other individual.... I think it is only reasonable to
expect that, as both [political] parties in the State have dropped
party politics with regard to their employees, the employees should
in turn recognize that fact, and drop party politics with regard to
their employers." Mr. Hanbury enforced this point by stating that, upon
the request of the Civil Servants themselves, Lord Rockingham, Prime
Minister, in 1782 had disfranchised the Civil Servants in the Revenue
Departments. At that time the party in power, through the Public
Service, controlled 70 seats in Parliament. Lord North, who had been
in power twelve years, had sent out notices to certain constituencies
where the Civil Servants were able to turn the scale, saying, that
unless the Civil Servants supported the Government, it would go hard
with them. Thereupon the Opposition had sent out counter notices, and
thus had put the Civil Service in an awkward position. The result had
been that the Civil Servants themselves had requested Lord Rockingham
to disfranchise them.
Mr. Hanbury continued with the statement that, in 1892, Sir James
Fergusson had dismissed Mr. Clery for ignoring his order forbidding
Civil Servants to "circularize" parliamentary candidates. Thereupon
Mr. Clery, at Newcastle-on-Tyne, had said to a political meeting
of postmen: "They must approach the House of Commons on its weak
side; they must influence Members through their susceptibilities as
opportunity presents itself when candidates appeal to their respective
constituencies. A man is never more amenable to reason than when making
a request." Mr. Hanbury continued: "What private employee is able to
say: 'I am the permanent servant of my employer; I have a share in
declaring who that employer shall be; I will attack him on his weak
side when he comes up for re-election, and then I will use my power? I
will bring organized pressure to bear throughout the constituencies,
and I will make this bargain: that if he will not vote for an increase
in my pay, or diminish my duties, then I will not give him my vote.'
We have done away with personal and individual bribery, but there is
still a worse form of bribery, and that is when a man asks a candidate
to buy his vote out of the public purse. There are three great things
which distinguish our permanent public service. There is, in the first
place, the remarkable loyalty with which they serve both parties in
the State. Then there is the permanency of their employment. Again,
a great feature of that service is that no longer is it a question
of favoritism, but promotion by merit is the rule. Those three great
features have been slowly built upon this foundation--the elimination
altogether of the element of political partisanship from the service.
I hope nothing will be done to break down those foundations, on which
alone the public service can rest--a service which, for its efficiency,
its loyalty, and its high sense of public duty, I do not think is
surpassed. I doubt whether it is equalled or even approached."
Mr. Woods' Motion was lost by a vote of 163 to 86. It was supported
almost exclusively by the Opposition, only three Government supporters
voting for it.[185]
[Sidenote: _Mr. Steadman demands a Select Committee_]
In the House of Commons, on February 20, 1899, Mr. Steadman[186]
moved: "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that, in view of the
great discontent existing among employees of the Postal and Telegraph
Services, immediate inquiry should be made into the causes of
complaint."[187] Mr. Steadman had been elected to the House of Commons
by a majority of twenty votes.
[Sidenote: _Parliament not competent to judge_]
Mr. R. W. Hanbury, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, replied that
no new facts had been brought to light since the Tweedmouth Committee
and the Norfolk-Hanbury Committee had made concessions entailing an
annual expenditure of $1,900,000 a year. The Post Office servants
were demanding "a new judgment on the old facts." He continued: "I
confess, I am not quite sure that we did not go too far [in 1897],
because by increasing these salaries we are bringing into this service
an entirely new social class; you are bringing in men who perhaps are
socially a little above their work, and these men naturally have a
standard of living and requirements which are not essential to men
doing this kind of work. If we are going to raise the salaries more
and more, you will get a higher social class into the service, and
there will be no limit to the demands made upon us." Mr. Hanbury
continued: "You have got to trust the heads of the Departments, or get
new heads; it is quite impossible for the House of Commons to go into
all these technicalities, and I know no Department where the work is
more technical and more complicated than the Post Office. The Treasury
work is supposed to be hard to learn [by the Members of the House of
Commons working for promotion to the Ministry], but the technicalities
of the Post Office is about the most difficult job I ever had, and I
do not think a Select Committee would be really able to get to the
bottom of this matter. But, after all, we must recollect another
fact, and it is this: that the Civil Service is a great deal too much
inclined to attempt to put pressure upon Members of Parliament. That
is a very bad system, upon which we ought to put our foot. It is bad
enough when it is brought to bear upon the House as a whole, but what
would happen with a Select Committee of this House? You would have the
resentment of the Civil Service focussed and concentrated upon the
unfortunate Members of the Committee, and I do not think it would act
more independently or more impartially than those two bodies which have
sat already."
Mr. Steadman's Motion was lost by a vote of 159 to 91. Eighty-six
members of the Opposition and two Government supporters voted for the
Motion.[188]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _Civil Servants have "Friends" in the Commons_]
On June 1, 1899, Mr. Steadman moved the reduction of the Postmaster
General's salary by $500, by way of asking the House of Commons
to instruct the Government to appoint a Select Committee of the
House of Commons to investigate the grievances of the Post Office
employees.[189] He said: "It stands to reason that a Departmental
Committee [Tweedmouth Committee] composed of officials, which contained
only one impartial member--a Member of the House of Lords--could not
be satisfactory to the 160,000 male and female employees in the Post
Office service.... Every department of the Post Office service now has
its organization. All these organizations right through the departments
have their coaches and organizers; true, they are not yet directly
represented here in this House, but they have friends here who are
prepared to take up their quarrels."
Captain Norton[190] seconded the Motion. He spoke of the fact that
any telegraphist could obtain $30 a year extra pay by making himself
competent to discharge the duties of a letter sorter, and another $30
by passing an examination on the technical questions of telegraphy.
He asserted that it was a grievance that the men had to acquire, in
their leisure hours, the additional proficiency in question; and that
only 46 per cent. of the men were able to pass the examinations on the
technical questions involved in telegraphy.
Mr. Maddison[191] supported Mr. Steadman's Motion with the words: "For
my part, I have always had some hesitation in taking up the cases of
men employed by the State, because undoubtedly there is a sort of
notion that, because they are employed by the State, they can make
such demands as they like, because they are paid out of a very full
Treasury. I know that every half penny of that money comes out of the
general taxation of the country, and I agree that we are here as the
guardians of the public purse. The Right Honorable Gentleman has never
denied that we are here as the guardians of these men's interest, and
it has not been shown that the public interest is of greater importance
than the interest of these men, who do so much for the prosperity of
the Country.... In this case we want a non-official committee, although
I confess that I do not think such an inquiry will put an end to
disputes in the future."
Mr. Hanbury, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said that if the
Government yielded to the demand for a House of Commons Committee
in this case, there would be a House of Commons Committee sitting
practically every session of Parliament. The points now under
discussion had been under agitation for four, five, or six years.
Before the Tweedmouth Committee entered upon its duties, and before
the Norfolk-Hanbury Conference with Members of the House of Commons,
the Government had a distinct understanding with Members of the House
that the decisions come to should be accepted. Mr. Hanbury continued:
"It is somewhat difficult, no doubt, to draw a comparison between
what the Post Office pays and what is paid by private firms. But I
will give one comparison, at any rate, and I think it is the only one
possible. A few years ago we took over from the National Telephone
Company the employees, principally women, who were engaged on the
[long-distance] trunk wires, and I venture to say that, counting in
the pensions we pay, these people are receiving from 30 per cent. to
40 per cent. larger salaries than when they were in the employment of
the company. Honorable Members who draw comparisons between servants of
the State and others, are too apt to forget the great facilities Post
Office servants get, such as constant employment, large pensions, good
holidays, for which they are paid, and large sick-pay and sick-leave.
If these are added together, it will be found that the Post Office is
paying wages considerably above the level of those paid by outside
employers. I should like to say one further word with regard to this
application for a Committee of this House. Why should we have it at
all? Let me speak with perfect frankness about this thing. We have
already had two Committees; we have also had a great deal of pressure
brought to bear upon Members; that pressure is becoming almost
intolerable. The honorable Member for Newington posed as the just
judge and said: 'I am weary of all this agitation; let us try to put
an end to it.' Well I am not weary of the agitation; so long as I am
satisfied, as I am now, that everything has been done that ought to be
done for the men, I will not yield to agitation. I say at once that I
do myself believe that, considering everything, and that full inquiry
has already been held, the only advantage these men could derive
from a House of Commons Committee would be that the agitation and
pressure, now distributed over the whole House, would be focussed and
concentrated upon the Select Committee. I, for one, am not prepared to
grant a Committee of that kind."
Mr. Steadman's Motion was lost by a vote of 157 to 107; ninety-seven
members of the Opposition and nine Government supporters voting for the
Motion.[192]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _Mr. Steadman's third demand for a Select Committee_]
On April 27, 1900, Mr. Steadman moved the reduction of the Postmaster
General's salary by $2,500.[193] He said: "I rise for the purpose of
advocating the claims of the 160,000 persons employed in the Post
Office for a fair and impartial Committee of Inquiry to be elected by
this House to look into their grievances."
The contention that there were grievances, Mr. Steadman supported
with the following arguments. From 1881 to 1891, the Civil Service
Commissioners, in issuing notices that they would hold competitive
examinations for intending entrants into the telegraph service, had
stated that in London telegraphists had "a prospect of obtaining
[ultimately] $950 a year." That, argued Mr. Steadman, was a contract
between the Government and the telegraphists who entered the London
service between 1881 and 1891, that every such telegraphist should
rise to $950. The Government therefore had committed a breach of
contract when, in 1892, it had announced that good character and good
skill as an operator would not secure a telegraphist promotion to the
senior class, in which the salary rose from $800 a year to $950. To be
eligible for promotion to the senior class, a man must be not only an
excellent telegraphist, but must, in addition, possess such executive
ability as would enable him to act as an overseer, or as assistant to
the Assistant Superintendent.
Mr. Steadman continued: "Now I come to the question of the postmen.
Goodness knows where all that $1,950,000 a year has gone to. You cannot
get away from the fact that the postman to-day in London commences
[at the age of 16 years to 18 years] with a minimum wage of $4.50 a
week.... Fancy that, Mr. Chairman, a man commencing on $4.50 a week,
and employed by the State in a Department that has a clean profit of
between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000." Mr. Steadman next contended that
a good conduct stripe--worth $13 a year--should be given every three
years; that the present period of five years was too long. Moreover,
the Department was altogether too rigorous in withholding good conduct
stripes for breaches of discipline. Mr. Steadman cited the following
instances to prove the necessity of an inquiry by Members of the House
of Commons into the discipline enforced by the Department. A man who
had served nine years as an auxiliary postman had been arrested on the
charge of stealing a postal money order. Though found not guilty by the
Court, he had been dismissed, without a certificate of good character.
Postman Taylor, of Stirling, after suffering an accident, was unable
to cover his route in the time fixed by the Post Office. Thereupon the
local postmaster had asked Taylor to retire on a pension. "The latest
information that I have in regard to that case is that the man who is
now doing Taylor's duties, in order to get through his round in the
time allotted, has his son to help him." Again, the annual increment
had been withheld from one Lacon, a telegraphist at Birmingham, and
the local Secretary of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association. The
Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Hanbury, had told Mr. Steadman that the
Superintendent at Birmingham reported that Lacon's increment had been
withheld because Lacon had been insubordinate while on duty. Lacon
had told Mr. Steadman that he had been disciplined because of his
connection with the union. Mr. Steadman added: "I will not for one
moment attempt to stand up in the House and attack permanent officials
who are not able to defend themselves; it would be unmanly for me to do
so. But I do say that I have as much right to believe the statement of
Lacon, as the Right Honorable Gentleman [the Secretary to the Treasury]
has to believe the statement of the Birmingham Superintendent. There
is only one way of proving these cases, and that is for a Committee
of impartial Members of this House to be appointed before which the
permanent official can state his case and the men theirs. If that is
done, the Members, if their minds are unbiased, will very soon be able
to judge as to who is telling the truth."
[Sidenote: _Commons reminded of Civil Servants' votes_]
Sir Albert Rollit seconded Mr. Steadman's Motion, saying: "and we ought
not to overlook the fact, that, rightly or wrongly, these men now have
votes, and if they cannot obtain redress for their grievances here in
the House of Commons, they will try to obtain it from our masters, the
electorate."
Mr. R. W. Hanbury, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and
representative in the House of Commons of the Postmaster General,
the Duke of Norfolk, "on principle" opposed the request for a Select
Committee. "Well, I say that the House of Commons is the last body
which ought to interfere in these questions of the payment of our
public servants. It is the last body which ought to be appealed to
as regularly as it is by civil servants to raise their salaries,
because that, after all, is the real object of this proposed committee.
Already I think the pressure brought to bear on individual Members,
and especially on Members who have a large number of civil servants
in their constituencies, has become perfectly intolerable, and civil
servants may depend upon it that it is the general opinion in this
House, although they may have their cause advocated by Members upon
whom they may be able to bring particular pressure, because large
numbers of them happen to live in the constituencies of those Members;
I repeat that they may depend upon it that in the opinion of the great
body of the Members of this House they are taking a highly irregular
course, and are in no way making their position more favorable in
the minds of the great majority of Members. Nothing will induce me
personally to agree to any committee such as has been suggested. And
while I object on principle, I object also because absolutely no
necessity has been shown for the committee.... The Duke of Norfolk and
I, because we were so desirous that no case of the slightest grievance
should be left untouched, inquired into every grievance which was
said to have been left unredressed by the Tweedmouth Committee....
Every Member of the House had a right to attend our [Norfolk-Hanbury
Committee] meetings, and to cross-examine the witnesses.... It is
the intention of the Post Office and of the Treasury to carry out
the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee to the very fullest
extent, and if the honorable Member [Mr. Steadman] is able to show me
any case whatever in which that has not been done, even in the case of
an individual postman, or sorter, or telegraphist, I will go into it
myself, and I will do more: I will promise that the grievance shall be
redressed."
Mr. Steadman's Motion was lost by a vote of 66 to 46. It was supported
by forty-one members of the Opposition and by four supporters of the
Government.[194]
* * * * *
On June 7, 1901, while the House of Commons was in Committee of Supply,
Mr. Thomas Bayley[195] asked for a Select Committee of the House of
Commons to investigate the grievance of the Post Office servants.[196]
He said: "This House shows a want of moral courage by throwing the
responsibility for redressing the grievance of the Post Office servants
on the other House [Lord Tweedmouth] or the permanent officials of any
Department whatsoever." Mr. Bayley had begun his political career as a
Town Councillor in Nottingham.
[Sidenote: _The Prime Minister's Anxiety_]
After many Members had supported the request for a Select Committee,
the Prime Minister, Mr. A. J. Balfour, said: "I have listened
with great interest to this debate, and, I confess frankly, with
considerable anxiety as to the future of the public service if
pressure of the kind which has been put upon the Government to-night
is persisted in by this House. This House is omnipotent. It can make
and unmake Governments. It can decide what, when, and how public money
is to be spent. But with that omnipotence I would venture to urge upon
Members their great responsibility with a subject like this. Everyone
knows that a great organized body like the Post Office Service has in
its power to put great pressure upon Members, but I earnestly urge upon
honorable Gentlemen that unless we take our courage in both hands, and
say that, although most desirous that all legitimate grievances shall
be dealt with, we cannot permit the Government as a great employer of
labor to have this kind of pressure put upon it, I think the future of
the public service is in peril. I assure the committee that I speak
with a great sense of responsibility. In this very case the Post Office
employees have brought forward their grievances year after year. Two
Commissions have been appointed, and no one ever ventured to impugn
the ability or impartiality of the members of those Commissions. These
Commissions made the fullest examination into the case put before
them, and reported at length, and as a consequence of that report the
British taxpayers are now paying $2,500,000 more of money than they
paid before.... In none of the speeches has any specific complaint
been brought forward, or any point urged which suggests the necessity
for further inquiry, but only the statement that there is a feeling
of uneasiness, and a desire for further examination, and that when
such a desire is expressed, the House should listen to it. We cannot
keep the Civil Service in a sound and healthy condition if we are
going to examine into it by a committee every five years. If the House
of Commons were to yield to the very natural temptation of granting
a committee such as had been asked for, though we might escape an
inconvenient division, we should be unworthy, in my opinion, of bearing
any longer the great responsibility of being the enormous employer
of labor that we are. We should not be carrying out our duty to the
public, and, worst of all, we should aim a blow at the Civil Service,
which is the boast of this country and the envy of the civilized
world, because we should become the parliamentary creatures of every
organized body of public servants who chose to use the great power
which the Constitution gives, for ends which I am sure they believe to
be right, but which this House could not yield to in the manner now
suggested without derogating from the high functions and spirit of pure
impartiality which the House must maintain if Members are to do their
duty by their constituents."
Mr. Bayley's Motion was lost by a vote of 148 to 103; it being
supported by ninety-one members of the Opposition and nine Government
supporters.[197]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _Captain Norton demands a Select Committee_]
On April 18, 1902, while the House of Commons was in Committee of
Supply, Captain Norton[198] moved the reduction by $500 of the item:
Salaries and Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service:
$12,056,250.[199] He said: "The case briefly was this, that the
Government had been guilty of a distinct breach of faith in connection
with a certain number of worthy Government officials. He knew that
to make this statement of breach of faith was what must be called a
strong order, but he was prepared to prove that he was not exaggerating
in the smallest degree." He went on to state that the telegraphists
who entered the service in London in 1881 to 1891, when the Civil
Service Commissioners had advertised that entrants had "a prospect of
obtaining $950," had a contract with the Government that the possession
of "ordinary manipulative ability, with regular attendance and good
conduct" would insure advancement to a position paying $950. The
Government had broken that contract by prescribing, in 1892, that men
"must be equal to supervising duties" in order to be promoted to the
positions carrying $950.
Sir Albert Rollit[200] supported Captain Norton with the words: "For
a long time past there had been a very strong and general feeling in
the service that many of the men had been the victims of something
amounting almost to an imposition, however unintentional, on the part
of a public Department. Strong terms had been used in the course of the
debate, but he should endeavor to deal with the matter on the basis of
what he believed to have been a contract between those employees and
the Post Office. It was not difficult to show that that implied--or,
he might even say, express--contract had induced many to enter the
service, only to find that the contract was afterward departed from by
one of the contracting parties, the State."
Mr. Keir Hardie supported Captain Norton's Motion with the argument
that the concessions made by the Tweedmouth Committee had imposed no
additional burdens upon the taxpayers, for that committee merely had
allocated a small portion of the extra profit made by the Post Office
to the Post Office servants who made that profit. Mr. Keir Hardie at
one time has held the office of Chairman of the Independent Labor
Party,[201] an organization that brings to bear upon the British
municipal governments a pressure similar to that here shown to be
brought upon the House of Commons.
[Sidenote: _Members of Parliament coerced_]
Mr. Gibson Bowles said: "He was aware that many honorable Members who
brought forward the position of servants of the State, did so against
their own desires, because of the almost irresistible pressure placed
upon them by the servants of the State, who were at the same time
electors.... He supported the Secretary to the Treasury in resisting
this particular amendment, because it was one of many which tended to
illustrate a form of tyranny that was becoming unbearable, and which
tended seriously to injure the character of this House as making its
Members the advocates of classes, sections, and little communities,
instead of being trustees not for them alone, but for the whole
community."
Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and
representative in the House of Commons of the Postmaster General, the
Marquis of Londonderry, said he "supposed it would not be unfair to say
that an officer joining the British Army had a prospect of becoming
a field marshal." As to the telegraphists, "all that the Government
ever had held out to them was a prospect of a certain number of them
attaining something beyond the ordinary maximum" of $800, to which any
man could rise by the display of ordinary manipulative ability and the
observance of good conduct. Under Mr. Fawcett, in 1881 to 1884, one
telegraphist out of every 6.3 telegraphists had risen beyond $800. In
1890 the proportion in question had been exactly the same. In 1902, the
proportion was one in six, or, "practically the same."
Mr. Austen Chamberlain continued: "When I consider the great
concessions that were made [by the Tweedmouth Committee], and the great
burden that was placed upon the taxpayers, the care that was given to
that inquiry, and the opportunity that was afforded to every one to
have their grievances heard, I cannot pretend to think that a case has
been made out for trying, not fresh matters, but for retrying the same
matters and changing the tribunal, merely because all its decisions
[_i. e._, some of its decisions] were not agreeable to one of the
parties concerned. I hope the House will not do anything so fatal to
the efficiency and the organization of our Civil Service, as to allow
any large body of civil servants to think that they have only to be
importunate enough to secure in this House repeated inquiries into
their grievances, no matter what previous care has been given to their
consideration. I trust this House will have confidence in the desire
of the Postmaster General to deal fairly with all his employees, and
believe me when I say that there is nothing easier for us to do than to
give way; and that it is only because we believe it to be our duty to
the taxpayers that we find it necessary to refuse these recurring and
increasing demands."
Captain Norton's Motion was lost by a vote of 164 to 134. It was
supported by one hundred and twenty-three Opposition members, and by
seven Government supporters.[202]
A few hours later, Mr. Thomas Bayley[203] moved a reduction of $500 on
the salary of the Postmaster General, in order to call attention to
the grievances of the officials of the Post Office.[204] He said there
should be a Court of Appeal for the civil servants, and that Court
should be the House of Commons alone; whenever a dispute arose between
the Government of the day and its servants, the House should constitute
itself the Court of Appeal. Mr. Bayley added: "It had been distinctly
laid down that it was no part of the duty of the Post Office to make
a profit, but it should be worked for the future convenience of the
public and not reduced to the level of a mere profit making machine. It
was this desire on the part of the Post Office officials to make profit
which lay at the root of all the troubles which the House had been
discussing in the debate that evening."
Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and
representative, in the House of Commons, of the Postmaster General,
replied: "I refuse to resign one particle of my responsibility, or
to accept the suggestion that the Government should wash their hands
of their responsibility, and throw the subject, as an open question,
before the House of Commons, and ask a Committee of this House,
without aid or guidance from responsible Ministers, to judge upon
the multitude of conflicting interests and details incident to the
administration of so great a service as the Post Office. I, for one,
will not be party to putting off that responsibility on to the House
of Commons.... But we consider that it would be a grave dereliction
of duty on our part to throw this great service into the turmoil and
confusion of a Parliamentary inquiry, with the knowledge that such an
inquiry would not be final--honorable Gentlemen who have supported this
Amendment have declared that to talk about finality in this matter
is absurd--with the knowledge that what is done to-day for the Post
Office, must be done to-morrow for every other Department employing a
large number of Government servants, until elections to this House
will depend more and more on the willingness of Members to purchase
the support of those who are in public employment by promises of
concessions at the public expense, instead of securing their support,
like that of other citizens, on public grounds and national interests."
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _The Government's Compromise_]
On April 30, 1903, while the House was in Committee of Supply, Mr.
Austen Chamberlain, Postmaster General, prefaced the discussion
by the Committee of the Post Office Vote, with the following
statement:[205].... "The demand is that a Select Committee of this
House should be appointed to examine into the grievances of the Post
Office staff. I have made it my business since I have been at the post
office to see that every memorial from the staff dealing with their
grievances, addressed to me, should come before me personally....
Even though I have felt that many of the matters thus brought to my
notice were very small details of administration. I am determined
that an official [employee] of the Post Office, going to the head of
his service, should receive as fair and careful consideration of his
appeal, if he applies to me direct, as if he sought Parliamentary
influence to urge his claim. And I venture to think that nothing has
occurred during the time that I have been responsible which can
justify any servant of the Post Office in saying that he is unable,
except by Parliamentary influence, or by Parliamentary exposure, to
obtain the attention of the head of the Department. The other day at
the request of several Members on both sides of the House, I met the
Members themselves, and consented that if they wished, they should
be accompanied by members of the Post Office Staff, who should make
before them, and in my presence, a statement of the grounds on which
they asked for this inquiry by a Select Committee, in order that then
and there I might discuss it with my honorable friends. The Vote comes
on to-night, and I intend to take this opportunity of making a few
observations on the grounds for this Parliamentary inquiry as put forth
by the Staff. There are three main grounds alleged by the spokesman
for the staff for a Parliamentary inquiry--wages, sanitation [_i.
e._, the sanitary condition of certain offices], and meal reliefs, or
the time allowed out of working hours for taking refreshment. If a
person does eight hours' continuous work he is allowed half an hour
out of that time for a meal, reducing his actual working hours to
seven and a half hours.... I only wish to draw the attention of the
committee to what was described to me as a typical grievance by the
spokesman of a deputation which waited on me shortly before Christmas.
Certain men are on duty from 10 a. m. to 2 p. m., and from 4 p. m.
to 8 p. m., and complain because they are not allowed 20 minutes for
tea. In the judgment of any impartial person, was that a reasonable
grievance?... I myself have come to the conclusion, ... that while a
great number of the complaints made have no foundation in justice, and
that a great number of the men who think themselves aggrieved would
find it difficult to get, elsewhere than in the public service, such
good employment as they have now, there are other cases which are
open to improvement and for which further inquiry is needed to fix
exactly what should be done. The Government is unalterably opposed
to a Select Committee of the House of Commons for the decision of
this question. Honorable Members know, and it is no use blinking it,
the kind of pressure which is brought to bear, or is attempted to be
brought to bear, upon Members in all parts of the House by the public
servants, servants of the Post Office, I am afraid, especially, though
not entirely [exclusively], at election times. I have had Members come
to me, not from one side of the House alone, to seek from me, in my
position as Postmaster General, protection for them in the discharge
of their public duties against the pressure sought to be put upon them
by the employees of the Post Office. Even if the machinery by which
our Select Committees are appointed were such as would enable us to
secure a Select Committee composed of thoroughly impartial men who had
committed themselves by no expression of opinion, I still think that it
would not be fair to pick out fifteen Members of this House and make
them marked men for the purposes of such pressure as is now distributed
more or less over the whole Assembly. But if I am opposed to the
appointment of a House of Commons Committee for fixing wages in the
Post Office, I am still more opposed to thrusting upon it, or, indeed,
on any Committee, the duty of regulating in all its details the daily
administration and work of the Post Office. The wages paid are not
in all respects satisfactory, some are too low, others are too high.
Advice from men of practical and business experience would help me, the
Minister in this matter. Therefore, I propose to take such advice--of
men as free from any kind of political and electoral pressure, as they
should be free from any departmental influence. I should suggest a body
of five to report for my advice and information on the wages paid in
the Post Office Department to the four great classes of employees, the
letter sorters and the telegraphists in London, and the letter sorters
and the telegraphists in the provinces."
After reiterating that he proposed to get the advice of business men
only on the question of the scale of wages paid in the Post Office
Department, and that he in no way proposed to surrender to any
Committee of any sort the general duties of the Postmaster General,
Mr. Austen Chamberlain closed with the words: "I ask the Committee [of
Supply] to give me all the confidence it can, and when it is unable to
give me that confidence, I say that that is no reason for granting a
Select Committee to do my work, but only a reason for transferring the
office of Postmaster General to someone who is more competent."
Mr. Thomas Bayley replied that "he was not willing to give up the
rights and privileges of the House of Commons, whose duty it was
to remedy the grievances of the public service.... And although he
had been assured by those whom he represented [_i. e._, post office
servants] that the Post Office officials would loyally abide by the
decision of a Committee of the House of Commons, the Right Honorable
Gentleman [the Postmaster General] could not expect the same loyalty
with regard to the decision of the Committee he proposed to appoint."
Sir Albert Rollit said: "The Tweedmouth Committee was a one-sided
tribunal; the officials were represented on it, but the men not at
all...."
Captain Norton replied: "The Right Honorable Gentleman had also
referred to the question of Members on both sides of the House coming
to him for protection. That was very startling, because the reason
they were there at all was that they might represent every section of
their constituents,[206] ... but presuming the Post Office servants
were organized, he submitted they were within their rights to appeal
to their Members.... If the postal officials were such terrible tyrants
he hoped they would take note that they could never hope for fair
play from the present Government. The Right Honorable Gentleman had
appointed a packed jury of five individuals to deal with a fraction of
the question.... In other words, he was going to take shelter behind
this bogus committee.... He was going to appoint five Members, possibly
sweaters, to determine the rate of wages.... It would be astounding if
the postal officials accepted any such bogus arbitration. If it was
to be a Board of Arbitration, why should not they have five postal
servants added to the five employers of labor?" Captain Norton is a
Junior Lord of the Treasury in the present Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman
Ministry.
* * * * *
On May 17, 1903, the National Joint Committee of the Postal Association
unanimously resolved: "That this National Joint Committee views
with extreme dissatisfaction the appointment of a Court of Inquiry
which is not composed of members of Parliament, but is an altogether
irresponsible body, and protests against the scope of the inquiry
being limited to a single grievance and to a minority of the Staff. It
pledges itself to continue to use every legitimate endeavor to obtain
an impartial Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into the causes of
discontent in the postal and telegraph service."[207]
In August, 1903, the Postmaster General appointed a "Committee to
inquire into the adequacy of the wages paid to certain classes of the
postal servants." The Committee consisted of: Sir Edward Bradford,
until lately Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police; Mr. Charles
Booth, a Liverpool Merchant, and the author of "The Life and Labor of
the People in London;" Mr. Samuel Fay, General Manager of the Great
Central Railway; Mr. Thomas Brodrick, Secretary of the Co-operative
Wholesale Society, Manchester; and Mr. R. Burbridge, Managing Director
of Harrod's Stores.[208]
FOOTNOTES:
[182] _Who's Who_, 1903, Woods, Sam'l., M. P. for S. W. Lancashire,
1892 to 1895; M. P. (R.) for Walthamstow, Essex, 1897 to 1900;
President of Lancashire Miners' Federation; Vice-President of Miners'
Federation of Great Britain; Secretary of Trade Union Congress since
1894.
[183] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, February 18, 1898, p. 1,107
and following.
[184] Compare also _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 22,
1874, p. 958 and following, and June 1, 1874, p. 797 and following.
_Parliamentary Papers_, 1874, vol. IV: A Bill to Relieve Revenue
Officers from remaining Electoral Disabilities; and 37 and 38 Victoriæ,
c. 22: An Act to Relieve Revenue Officers from remaining Electoral
Disabilities.
[185] Ayes Noes
Conservatives } Government 2 132
Liberal Unionists } Supporters 1 27
Liberals } The 48 3
Nationalists } Opposition 32 0
Various factions 3 1
-- ---
86 163
[186] _Who's Who_, 1903, Steadman, W. C., M. P. (R.) Stepney, Tower
Hamlets, 1898 to 1900--returned by a majority of twenty, defeated 1900;
stood for Parliament, Mid-Kent, defeated, 1892; Hammersmith, defeated,
1895. Is Secretary Barge Builders' Trade Union.
[187] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, February 20, 1899; p. 1,523
and following.
[188] Ayes Noes
Conservatives } Government 1 129
Liberal Unionists } Supporters 1 28
Liberals } The 67 2
Nationalists } Opposition 19 0
Various factions 3 0
-- ---
91 159
[189] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, June 1, 1899, p. 99 and
following.
[190] _Who's Who_, 1903, Norton, C. W., M. P. (L.) W. Newington,
London, since 1892. Late Captain 5th Royal Irish Lancers, ... some
years in India; selected to report upon Italian Cavalry, 1880;
Brigade-Major of Cavalry, Aldershot, 1881-82. In 1906 Captain Norton
was made a Junior Lord of the Treasury in the Campbell-Bannerman
Liberal Government.
[191] _Who's Who_, 1903, Maddison, F., M. P., Sheffield, Brightside
Division, 1897 to 1900. Three years Chairman of the Hull Branch of
Typographical Association; first Labor Member of the Hull Corporation;
offered post of Labor Correspondent to the Board of Trade in 1893;
Editor of the _Railway Review_, official organ of the Amalgamated
Society of Railway Servants (resigned, 1897); Ex-President of the Labor
Association for Promoting Co-operative Production.
[192] Ayes Noes
Conservatives } Government 5 133
Liberal Unionists } Supporters 4 21
Liberals } The 83 2
Nationalists } Opposition 14 0
Various factions 1 1
--- ---
107 157
[193] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 27, 1900, p. 199 and
following.
[194] Ayes Noes
Conservatives } Government 4 55
Liberal Unionists } Supporters 0 9
Liberals } The 40 0
Nationalists } Opposition 1 0
Various factions 1 2
--- ---
46 66
[195] _Who's Who_, 1903, Bayley, Thos., J. P., M. P. (L) Chesterfield
Division, Derbyshire, since 1892. Many years on Nottingham Town
Council; Alderman, Nottingham County Council; contested Barkston Ash
Division of Yorkshire, 1885; Chesterfield, 1886.
[196] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, June 7, 1901, p. 1,358 and
following.
[197] Ayes Noes
Conservatives } Government 8 120
Liberal Unionists } Supporters 1 25
Liberals } The 57 0
Nationalists } Opposition 34 0
Various factions 3 3
--- ---
103 148
[198] _Who's Who_, 1905, Norton, C. W., M. P. (L.) West Newington
(London), since 1892; late Captain 5th Royal Irish Lancers; selected to
report upon Italian Cavalry, 1880; Brigade-Major of Cavalry, Aldershot,
1881-82. In 1906 Captain Norton was made a Junior Lord of the Treasury
in the Campbell-Bannerman Liberal Government.
[199] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 18, 1902, p. 660 and
following.
[200] _Who's Who_, 1904. Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye, J. P., LL. D., D.
C. L., D. L., M. P., Islington, since 1886. Partner in Bailey and
Leetham, steamship owners; Director of National Telephone Co.; Mayor
of Hull 1883 to 1885; President of Associated Chambers of Commerce of
the United Kingdom, 1890 to 1896; President London Chambers of Commerce
1893 to 1898; Chairman Inspection Committee, Trustee Savings Bank since
1890; President Municipal Corporations' Association.
[201] _Who's Who_, 1905.
[202] Ayes Noes
Conservatives } Government 6 127
Liberal Unionists } Supporters 1 31
Liberals } The 72 4
Nationalists } Opposition 51 0
Various factions 4 2
--- ---
134 164
[203] _Who's Who_, 1905, Bayley, Thos., J. P., M. P. (L.), Chesterfield
Division Derbyshire since 1892; many years on Nottingham Town Council.
[204] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 18, 1902, p. 706 and
following.
[205] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 30, 1903, p. 1,015 and
following, and May 11, p. 313 and following.
[206] According to _The Times_, May 11, 1903, Captain Norton said: "The
Right Honorable Gentleman had told a startling story of how Members on
both sides of the House had appealed to him to protect them from the
postal servants. Members of the House represented all sections in their
constituencies and surely postal servants as voters had the right to
approach their representatives, and apply the same kind of pressure
that other organized bodies applied."
[207] _The Times_, May 18, 1903.
[208] _The Times_, August 14, 1903.