THE HOUSE OF COMMONS SELECT COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE SERVANTS, 1906
The Post Office Civil Servants' Unions demand the adoption
of the Bradford Committee Report. Lord Stanley, Postmaster
General, applies the words "blackmail" and "blood-sucking"
to the postal employees' methods. Captain Norton moves for a
House of Commons Select Committee. Mr. Austen Chamberlain,
Chancellor of the Exchequer, in vain asks the Opposition
Party's support for a Select Committee to which shall be
referred the question of the feasibility of establishing a
permanent, non-political Commission which shall establish
general principles for settling disputes between the Civil
Servants and the Government of the day. Captain Norton's
Motion is lost, nine Ministerial supporters voting for it, and
only two Opposition members voting against it. Mr. J. Henniker
Heaton's appeal to the British public for "An End to Political
Patronage." The Post Office employees, in the campaign
preceding the General Election of January, 1906, induce nearly
450 of the 670 parliamentary candidates who succeeded in being
elected, to pledge themselves to vote for a House of Commons
Select Committee on Post Office Wages. Immediately upon the
opening of Parliament, the Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman Liberal
Ministry gives the Post Office employees a House of Commons
Select Committee.
On September 17, 1904, the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association
unanimously resolved: "That this Conference expresses its indignation
that the Postmaster General, having appointed a Committee of his own
choosing to inquire into the Post Office wages ... now, for no good
reason, has rejected the Report. This Conference, therefore, calls upon
the Postmaster General to adopt immediately, as dated from May 9, 1904,
the whole of the ameliorative recommendations contained in the Bradford
Committee's Report; but the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association
reserves to itself the right to object to, and protest against, any
recommendations which may be considered by this Association to be of a
restrictive and retrograde character."[225]
[Sidenote: _A Merchant in Politics_]
In the evening of the same day a mass meeting was addressed by Mr. W.
W. Rutherford, M. P., the head of the firm of Miller, Peel, Hughes and
Rutherford, Liverpool. Mr. Rutherford had been Lord Mayor of Liverpool
in 1902. He said: "He ventured to think that the great Postal and
Telegraph Service was suffering because its position and its grievances
had not been made thoroughly intelligible to the general public....
That was not a matter touching a few hundreds of people in a hole and
corner of the country, but was one of extreme importance affecting no
less than 185,000 people.... The real foes of the employees were the
highly paid officials at the head of the Department, who were quite
content to draw their salaries and show that the Government was making
four or five million pounds sterling[226] out of the public and the
Postal Service."
Mr. Rutherford's speech recalls to mind the fact that the Australian
cousins of the British civil servants have learned to deal with their
"foes" by compelling the popular branches of the Australian Parliaments
to reduce the salaries of offensive officials, or to drive them out of
the Service by means of "fishing" Parliamentary Committees, appointed
to report on--and to condemn--the offending officials.
On August 14, 1904, the London Branch of the Postal Telegraph Clerks'
Association held a meeting, at which Mr. C. H. Garland,[227] the
Secretary, spoke of Mr. Thomas Bayley, M. P., as one who "had rendered
valuable service to their cause in the House of Commons." The presiding
officer, Mr. R. H. Davis, said: "In burking the recommendations of the
Committee they could not help feeling that the Post Office authorities
had been guilty of a breach of faith. Were they going to take the
rebuff lying down? The London Committee were determined to fight the
matter harder than ever. By the time Parliament assembled next year,
they would have an effective organization at their disposal, and the
enemy would feel their pressure very considerably."[228]
The Special Conference of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association
held on September 17, 1904, resolved to hold mass meetings in all the
district centres between then and next February [opening of Parliament]
to protest against the action of the Postmaster General. The series to
conclude with a "monster" demonstration in London immediately before
the opening of Parliament.[229]
* * * * *
On July 6, 1905, while the House of Commons was in Committee of Supply,
and was considering the vote upon the Post Office, there was a long
and instructive debate upon the Report of the Bradford Committee.[230]
Lord Stanley, Postmaster General, opened the debate with a quotation
from _The Post_,[231] the Post Office employees' organ. The statement
quoted read: "Not only do we object to the composition of the
[Bradford] Committee, but we take the strongest exception to its terms
of reference. The inquiry as to whether our wages are adequate or
otherwise becomes a farce if their adequacy is to be judged by the
standard of wages of the open labor market. No such comparison would be
reasonable or fair. There is no other employer who fixes his own prices
or makes an annual profit of $20,000,000. There is no other class of
work which can be compared to the Post Office work, neither any other
employee who can be compared with the Post Office servants.... Surely
Mr. Chamberlain does not think we should regard such an inquiry as
final. If he does, the sooner his mind is disabused the better." Lord
Stanley next discussed the manner in which the Bradford Committee
had made recommendations which were based on no evidence whatever.
For instance, in order to improve the chances of promotion, the
Committee had recommended the creation of additional higher posts--"for
which there was no work." In one Department of the Post Office that
recommendation would mean the increase in the number of overseers from
250 to 900. Lord Stanley next made lengthy comparisons between the
wages received by letter sorters and telegraphists on the one hand,
and employees of equal intelligence and attainments in the service
of private companies on the other hand. He showed that in London the
maximum wage of the sorters and telegraphists was equal to the salary
of the "non-college-trained certified teacher," and that in such
provincial cities as Hull, Swansea and Exeter it was larger. "The only
comparison which was not entirely upon his [the Postmaster General's]
side was that with the clerks in the cable companies, who were paid
more than the Post Office cable room operators. But the work of the
cable companies' operators was more arduous, and there was liability
to be sent abroad at any moment. But he had granted the Post Office
cable room operators an increase of pay." He added that the ultimate
aggregate cost of the increases in pay made since the publication of
the Bradford Committee's Report would be $642,000 a year.[232]
[Sidenote: _The Postmaster General applies the Terms "Blackmail" and
"Blood-sucking"_]
Lord Stanley, Postmaster General, concluded as follows: "But he would
ask the House just to consider what was going to be the end of all
these demands. This was really a question worthy of consideration on
both sides of the House. What were the demands on the public purse
for this particular office? It would be within the recollection of
the Committee of Supply that at a deputation to his Right Honorable
Friend and himself, one of the men stated that he thought the whole
of the $20,000,000 profit, as he regarded it, made by the Post Office
employees, ought to be devoted to the payment of those employees ...
that man made a deliberate statement, not on his own account, but as
representing a particular section or organization in the Department.
It was repudiated by others present".... Lord Stanley next stated that
the demands made by the Post Office employees before the Bradford
Committee would have called for $12,500,000 a year. He continued:
"Honorable Members knew better than he how they were being bombarded
with applications from Post Office employees and other classes of Civil
Servants for increases of wages. This had taken a form which was not
illegal, but which he could not help thinking was an abuse of their
rights, to wit, the form of a political threat. They had circulated
an appeal in which they expressed very clearly and very frankly
their intention, and it was one of which the Committee would have to
take note now, or it would be much worse in the future. They said:
'Two-thirds at least of one political party are in great fear of losing
their seats. The swing of the pendulum is against them, and any Member
who receives 40 or 50 such letters will under present circumstances
have to consider very seriously whether on this question he can afford
to go into the wrong lobby. This is taking advantage of the political
situation.' It was indeed, but it was abusing, as it seemed to him,
their rights as voters. It was nothing more nor less than blackmail.
It was nothing more nor less than asking Members to purchase votes for
themselves at the General Election[233] at the expense of the Public
Exchequer. Both sides would have to make up their minds that some
means should be devised by which there should not be this continual
blood-sucking on the part of the public servants."
[Sidenote: _A permanent non-political Tribunal suggested_]
"How it was to be done, was not for him to say, but he had suggested,
and he still thought that there would have to be some organization
outside party politics altogether, and unconnected with and unmoved by
Parliament and political considerations, to whom such questions should
be referred and by whom an impartial opinion should be given.... He
wanted now rather to anticipate a request that would probably be made
by Honorable Members opposite--that he should appoint a Parliamentary
Committee. To that request he would have to give a negative reply, and
he would say why. First, too great political pressure would be brought
to bear on the Committee; second, the whole case of the Post Office
employees was before the House in the evidence taken by the Bradford
Committee, and everybody could make up his mind as well as he would be
able to if appointed to a Select Committee. Third, he would not throw
the responsibility on to a Committee; it was his place to bear it
himself."
On July 18, Lord Stanley, Postmaster General, stated that he
would neither withdraw nor modify the epithets "blackmail" and
"blood-sucking" which he had used. He stated that those epithets
applied "only to those who by speeches, letters or circulars, attempt
unduly to influence the votes of Honorable Members with regard to the
questions affecting Post Office wages, and to those who associate
themselves with such action."[234]
[Sidenote: _Captain Norton on Civil Service Agitation_]
After the Postmaster General had spoken, Captain Norton moved a
reduction of the Post Office Vote, for the purpose of drawing attention
to the grievances of long standing of the Post Office employees. He
said: "As regarded what had been said about undue influence, his
contention was that so long as the Postal officials, or should he say
the members of the Civil Service, and for that matter the members
of the fighting services were allowed to maintain a vote, they had
precisely the same rights as all other voters in the country to
exercise their fullest influence in the defense of their rights,
privileges and interests. He might mention that all classes of
all communities, all professions, all trades, all combinations of
individuals, such as anti-vaccinationists and so forth, had invariably
used their utmost pressure in defense of their interests and views upon
Members of the House...."[235]
Sir Albert K. Rollit supported Captain Norton's motion.
[Sidenote: _Chancellor of the Exchequer asks for non-Party Vote_]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, spoke as
follows: "The question at issue was not one between the two political
parties. It was above parties. It was whether there was to be good
economical government in the country at all, or whether the Civil
Servants in the employment of the Crown could make such use of their
votes, as citizens, for the purely selfish purpose of forcing the
public to pay more for their services and so increase the expenditure
of a great Department of State. He did not know how long they could
go on in the position they had now reached, under which pressure
was brought to bear on Honorable Members of all parties by their
constituents. He was certain that if any scheme could be devised ...
so that they might take this question altogether out of the region of
political life--not merely out of party life, but out of Parliamentary
life--it would be a great advantage. It would tend to preserve the
Civil Service free from that political influence and independent
of the changing fortunes of party which had been their great boast
and security in the past. If there were a general feeling in the
House that an object of that kind was one on which all parties might
well coöperate, then His Majesty's Government, while maintaining as
resolutely as they had in past years their objection to referring these
specific grievances to a Select Committee appointed in the ordinary
way for that particular purpose, would be prepared to assent to the
appointment of a Committee of this House to consider the state of
affairs which had arisen; to see if they could devise some remedy for
it; to lay down the principles by which they should be governed in
these matters; and to advise whether it would be possible to establish
some permanent body or Commission, outside the sphere of electoral
pressure and above and beyond any of our party conflicts, which might
advise the Government in applying those principles to particular cases.
Such a Committee could, of course, only be successfully conceded with
the good will of all parties in the House, and if the whole House were
animated by a desire, if possible, to set this question at rest. With
that good-will, he thought, it might serve a useful purpose. The object
to be attained was of such vast importance that he, for one, would not
refuse any method by which they might hope successfully to compass it
and to maintain the Civil Service in that high position of which, with
its great traditions, they had such just cause to be proud and such
good reason to be grateful for."[236]
Captain Norton's motion was lost by a vote of 249 to 205. The House
divided on party lines, only two Members of the Opposition voting with
the Government, and only nine supporters of the Government voting
with the Opposition.[237] Of the Members of the Opposition who voted
in support of Captain Norton's motion, two shortly afterward became
members of the Cabinet in Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Liberal
Ministry, and fifteen others became members of the Ministry, but not of
the Cabinet, or inner circle.[238]
Captain Norton himself became one of the four Junior Lords of the
Treasury. The latter functionaries "are expected to gather the greatest
number of their own party into every division [of the House of
Commons], and by persuasion, promises, explanation, and every available
expedient, to bring their men from all quarters to the aid of the
Government upon any emergency. It is also their business to conciliate
the discontented and doubtful among the ministerial supporters, and to
keep every one, as far as possible, in good humor."[239]
* * * * *
In _The Nineteenth Century and After_, for April, 1906, Mr. J.
H. Heaton, in an article entitled: _Wanted! An End to Political
Patronage_, discussed at length some of the after effects of the
memorable debate of July 6, 1905. Mr. Heaton had been returned to
Parliament from Canterbury in 1885, 1886, 1892, 1895, and 1900; the
last four occasions as an unopposed candidate. He had carried the
Imperial Penny Postage Scheme in 1888; he had introduced telegraph
money orders in England; the parcel post to France, etc.; and the
freedom of the City of London in a gold casket had been conferred on
him in 1899.
[Sidenote: _A Prime Minister on the Civil Service_]
Mr. Heaton opened his article with the statement: "Many years ago a
great Prime Minister wrote to me as follows: 'There can be no doubt
that the organized attempts of servants of the State to use their
political influence at the cost of the taxpayer is likely to become
a serious danger. I agree with you in thinking that it can only be
effectually met by agreement between the two sides of the House.'"
Mr. Heaton continued: "The Civil Servants of the Crown are, taken as
a whole, an admirable and efficient body of workers, of whom England
is justifiably proud, and whom--as was held, I think, by the late
Mr. Gladstone--she rewards on a generous scale.... It is the more
to be regretted that large classes of them should have fallen into
the hands of agitators, who incite to the systematic intimidation of
Members of Parliament with a view to the extortion of larger and larger
votes [appropriations] for salaries. This evil is rapidly becoming
formidable.... Any official raising the cry of 'higher wages' is sure
of popularity among his fellows, who instantly regard him as a born
leader. The pleasant prospect of an increase of income without working
for it is a bait that never fails to appeal most strongly to the least
energetic and deserving. A postman or dockyard hand finds that he can
win promotion and increased pay only by strenuous hard work, just as if
he were a mere artisan or shop assistant. But the agitators point out
that he can attain an equivalent result by bullying the local M. P.,
and so he joins the league or union formed for the purpose."
[Sidenote: _Sir William Harcourt on Post Office Employees_]
"Where is this to stop? The late Sir W. Harcourt[240] wrote (to me)
that the demands of the Postal employees reached a depth, or abyss,
which no plummet would fathom. We know now that they claim the Postal
surplus, which amounts to nearly five millions [sterling].... There
are 192,000 of them, and of these probably 100,000 have votes. Adding
these to the dockyard, arsenal, and stores factory hands, and other
Government employees, we have a political force that may turn the
scale at a General Election. Candidates are tempted to bid against one
another with the taxpayer's money. 'Let us be charitable!' said Sydney
Smith, and put his hand into a bystander's pocket. Our legislators were
proof against the hectoring of the Tudors, the violence of the Stuarts,
and the blandishments of the Georges; surely they will never yield to
the menaces of demagogues."
[Sidenote: _Thirty M. P.'s threatened with Loss of Seat_]
"At this point I would like to state briefly my own experience....
Last year great pressure was brought to bear in the House of Commons
on Members of Parliament, and, with thirty other Members, I was
threatened with the loss of my seat unless I voted to meet the demands
of the Postal servants. It was further intimated to me that the
Postal servants' vote, 100,000 strong, would turn out any Government.
A few minutes afterwards it fell to my lot to address the House on
the question of increase of postmen's wages.... I ended my speech by
declaring that civil servants who threatened Members of Parliament for
refusing to vote them increased salaries ought to be disfranchised.
Result--a meeting called in my constituency, my opponent placed in
the chair, and a vote of censure passed on me. The London postmen
came to Canterbury and addressed my constituents at the meeting. It
is not surprising, therefore, that at the recent election my agents
informed me that 46 postmen voted solid against me.[241] I do not
blame the postmen; they were perfectly justified in using their power;
but if I had not had at my back one of the most intelligent bodies of
electors in the United Kingdom, I should have been defeated through the
postmen's action.
"It was some consolation to me to receive in the House of Commons,
after my speech, hearty, though private, congratulations from
hard-working, earnest workingmen representatives, who expressed their
entire approval of what they were pleased to call my courage. But
something ought to be done to prevent a recurrence of such a scandal."
In view of Mr. Heaton's closing remarks, it is interesting to note
that four of the eight[242] Labor Members voted, and that all of them
favored the appointment of a House of Commons Select Committee.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _Post Office Employees and the General Election of 1906_]
In the campaign preceding the General Election of January, 1906,
the several associations of Postal and Telegraph employees addressed
letters to the candidates for Parliament, asking those candidates
whether they would "support the claims of the Postal and Telegraph
employees and vote for the appointment of a Select Committee of the
House of Commons for the purpose of inquiring into their conditions of
pay and service; and stating that on their part the workers pledged
themselves to accept as final the decision of such a tribunal." At the
annual conference of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association, held in
March, 1906, the President of the Association said that nearly 450 of
the 670 Members of the House of Commons[243] had pledged themselves to
support a motion for a Parliamentary Inquiry into the position of the
Post Office employees.[244]
In the third sitting of the new Parliament, held on February 20, the
Postmaster General, Mr. Sydney Buxton, announced that the Government
had decided to appoint a Select Committee of the House of Commons.[245]
And on March 6, the Postmaster General introduced a motion for a
Committee of seven to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
In response to the wishes of the House, the Postmaster General
subsequently changed his motion to one calling for a Committee of nine,
to be appointed by the whips of the several parties in the House.[246]
[Sidenote: _The Prime Minister on Election Pledges_]
The motion was carried without debate upon the question whether a
Committee should be appointed. In the course of the debate whether
the Committee should be appointed by the Committee of Selection, or
by the Party Whips, Lord Balcarres, who had been a Junior Lord of the
Treasury in the Balfour Government, used these words: "As regards
those Honorable Gentlemen who had entered Parliament for the first
time,[247] he thought he was fairly accurate when he said that they
had given pretty specific pledges upon the matter [of the appointment
of a Select Committee] to those who had sent them to the House."
Sir A. Acland-Hood, who had been Chief Whip and Patronage Secretary
to the Treasury in the late Balfour Government, said: "There was a
debate and a division [upon this question, last year,] and nearly
the whole of the supporters of the Government voted against the
appointment of the Committee. No doubt many of them suffered for it
at the General Election; they either lost their seats or had their
majorities reduced in consequence of the vote." And, finally, Sir
Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the new Prime Minister, expressed himself as
follows in the course of an argument in favor of a Committee appointed
by the Committee of Selection rather than by the House itself through
the agency of the Party Whips. The Prime Minister said: "There was
a great deal of force in what the Right Honorable Gentleman [Sir A.
Acland-Hood] had said as to the fears that were entertained in many
quarters of the effect on the Committee if appointed under pressure and
insistence, and the retroactive effect of old promises extracted in
moments of agony from candidates at the General Election."[248]
The Select Committee on Post Office Servants consists of: 4 Liberals,
Messrs. Barker, Edwards, Hobhouse and Sutherland; 2 Conservatives, the
Honorable Claude Hay and Sir Clement Hill; 2 Liberal and Labor Members,
Messrs. John Ward and G. J. Wardle; and 1 Nationalist, Mr. P. A.
Meechan.[249]
The reference to the Committee is: "to inquire into the wages and
position of the principal classes of Post Office servants, and also of
the unestablished postmasters. To examine, so far as may be necessary
for the purpose of their Report, the conditions of employment of these
classes. To report, whether, having regard to the conditions and
prospects of their employment, and, as far as may be, to the standard
rate of wages and the position of other classes of workers, the
remuneration they receive is adequate or otherwise."
In the spring of 1907, the Committee reported that it had not had time
to perform its task, and asked for reappointment. The evidence thus
far taken by the Committee had not been published at the date of this
writing, March 20, 1907.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _Lord Stanley Congratulated_]
Lord Stanley was one of the many Conservative candidates defeated in
the General Election of January, 1906. When his defeat became known,
hundreds of telegrams were showered upon him by postal and telegraph
employees located in all parts of the United Kingdom. The telegram sent
by Liverpool postal and telegraph employees was typical of the lot. It
congratulated Lord Stanley upon his retirement to private life, and
assured him that the senders at all times would do all in their power
to make the retirement a permanent one.
FOOTNOTES:
[225] _The Times_, September 19, 1904.
[226] The apparent net profits of the Post Office Department average
about $18,500,000 a year. Those profits are subject to the correction
that the Post Office does not charge itself with interest and
depreciation upon its capital investment, which cannot be ascertained,
but must be very large.
[227] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 10, 1890, p. 342. Mr.
McCartan asks the Postmaster General "on what grounds Messrs. C. Hughes
and C. H. Garland were recently punished." ... The intervention was
repeated on March 14, p. 865.
[228] _The Times_, August 25, 1904.
[229] _The Times_, September 19, 1904.
[230] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 6, 1905, p. 1,350 and
following.
[231] August 29, 1903.
[232] In his annual _Report_, dated July 28, 1905, Lord Stanley stated
that the ultimate cost would be $1,861,500 a year.
[233] To be held in January, 1906.
[234] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 18, 1905, p. 1,062.
[235] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 6, 1905, p. 1,367.
[236] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 6, 1905, p. 1,401.
[237] Ayes Noes
Conservatives } Government 9 210
Liberal Unionists } Supporters 0 37
Liberals } The 138 2
Nationalists } Opposition 49 0
Various factions 9 0
--- ---
205 249
[238]
Name Office
Mr. Herbert Gladstone Home Secretary
Mr. Lloyd George President of Board of Trade
Mr. Thos. Lough Parliamentary Sec'y of Board of Education
Mr. R. McKenna Financial Secretary to Treasury
Mr. J. A. Pease Junior Lord of Treasury
Mr. J. Herbert Lewis Junior Lord of Treasury
Captain Cecil Norton Junior Lord of Treasury
Mr. F. Freman-Thomas Junior Lord of Treasury
Mr. J. M. Fuller Junior Lord of Treasury
Mr. R. K. Causton Paymaster General
Mr. Geo. Lambert Civil Lord of Admiralty
Mr. Edward Robertson Secretary to Admiralty
Mr. Herbert Samuel Under Home Secretary
Mr. J. E. Ellis Under Secretary for India
Mr. H. E. Kearley Secretary of Board of Trade
Sir Jno. L. Walton Attorney-General
Mr. Thos. Shaw Lord Advocate
[239] A. Todd: _On Parliamentary Government in England_.
[240] Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1886 and 1892-95.
[241] At the election of 1906 Mr. Heaton received 2,210 votes, while
his opponent received 1,262.
[242] _The House of Commons Poll Book_, 1885-1906, issued by The
Liberal Publication Department.
[243] Composition of the House: Liberal and Labor Members, 428;
Conservatives, 130; Liberal Unionists, 28; and Nationalists, 80.
[244] _The Times_, March 17, 1906.
[245] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates._
[246] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 6, 1906, p. 323 and
following.
[247] 281 in number.
[248] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 6, 1906.
[249] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 9, 1906, p. 847.