THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE CIVIL SERVICE UNIONS,
CURTAILS THE EXECUTIVE'S POWER TO PROMOTE EMPLOYEES ACCORDING TO MERIT
The civil service unions oppose promotion by merit, and
demand promotion by seniority. Testimony presented before:
Select Committee on Civil Services Expenditure, 1873; Select
Committee on Post Office, 1876; Royal Commission to inquire
into the Civil Establishments, 1888; from statement made in
House of Commons, in 1887, by Mr. Raikes, Postmaster General;
and before the so-called Tweedmouth Committee, 1897. Instances
of intervention by Members of House of Commons on behalf of
civil servants who have not been promoted, or are afraid they
shall not be promoted.
In the matter of promotion, also, the civil servants' unions compel the
Members of Parliament to intervene, on behalf of individual employees,
in the details of the administration of the several Departments of
State. The organized civil service is not content that every man should
have an equal chance of promotion, so far as his industry and capacity
shall qualify him for advancement; it evinces a marked tendency to
demand equal promotion in fact, that is, the elimination of the effects
of the natural inequality among men. The House of Commons, in yielding
in this matter to the pressure from the organized civil service, is
tending to reduce the public service to a dull level of mediocrity,
which action at one and the same time impairs the efficiency of the
public service and makes the service of the State unattractive to able
and ambitious men.
In this matter of promotion, the permanent heads of the Departments
are hampered also by the unbusinesslike attitude toward the conduct of
the public business that characterizes large sections of the newspaper
press as well the great mass of the voters. That unbusinesslike frame
of mind, in turn, is the outgrowth of that untrained sympathy which
makes every one tend to sympathize with the individual, whenever
the interest of the individual clashes with that of the State. To
illustrate, in 1873, before the Select Committee on Civil Services
Expenditure, Sir William H. Stephenson, Chairman of the Commissioners
of Inland Revenue, stated that in his Department promotion was mainly
by seniority in the two lowest classes, to some extent by seniority in
the third class, but beyond that entirely by merit. But he hastened to
add: "Indeed, if I may judge by the complaints that I have heard out of
doors, occasionally in the newspaper press, and elsewhere, the system
of promotion by merit is supposed to be carried to rather an excessive
extent in the Inland Revenue."[273]
[Sidenote: _The Glasgow Postmaster's "Mistake"_]
In 1876, before the Select Committee on Post Office, Mr. Hobson,
Postmaster at Glasgow, stated that he could not promote his telegraph
operators according to their dexterity, he was obliged to promote
according to seniority. Mr. Gower, a member of the Select Committee
queried: "Therefore, there is no encouragement whatever to superior
dexterity?" Mr. Hobson replied: "I should not recommend a clerk for
promotion ... if I were satisfied that he was not doing all he could
to improve himself ... and was only an indifferent operator. I should
mention that in submitting the report, and recommend him to be passed
over." Mr. Gower continued: "But suppose he took every sort of pains to
improve himself, but did not improve?" The answer came: "I would then
recommend him to go forward [_i. e._ for promotion]." Mr. Gower then
asked: "Have you any power to exchange a clerk who is a slow operator
for another quicker operator in a district where it would not signify?"
The Postmaster at Glasgow replied: "None whatever."[274] The reader
will recall that there are numerous telegraph stations in Glasgow.
In April, 1877, the Postmaster General, Lord John Manners, replied
to the Report of the Select Committee of 1876, in a letter to the
Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. He concluded the letter with
the statement: "In conclusion, I beg leave to say that it is, I
think, hardly worth while to attempt to contradict the mistakes as
to promotion into which the postmaster of Glasgow was accidentally
betrayed in giving his evidence before the Committee of last Session,
and to which no reference is made in their Report."[275]
Before the same Committee, Mr. Edward Graves, Divisional Engineer,
recommended that the head of the Post Office establish the rule, "that,
other things being equal as to seniority and general business capacity,
preference for promotion shall always be given to the telegraph clerk
who has shown himself possessed of technical knowledge, and who is
desirous of obtaining technical information."[276]
Passing over a period of 28 years, that is, from the year 1876 to the
year 1904, we find Mr. E. Trenam, Controller London Central Telegraph
Office, testifying that because of danger that in the immediate future
there would be a lack of telegraph clerks who had a knowledge of the
technics of telegraphy, Mr. W. H. Preece, Engineer-in-Chief, had caused
a special increase in pay--$26 a year--to be offered to men who should
acquire such knowledge. The witness added that "unfortunately many of
the men who have [acquired] this knowledge are comparative juniors,
and we are compelled to put them to work which those receiving higher
pay are incompetent to perform. It will take some years to adjust the
anomaly ... [that is, before the incompetent men receiving higher pay
shall have been pensioned or shall have died]".[277]
[Sidenote: _Promotion by Seniority, not Jobbery, the Public Service's
weak Point_]
Before the Royal Commission of 1888, appointed to inquire into the
Civil Establishments, Sir Thomas H. Farrer, who had been a Member of
the Playfair Royal Commission of 1876, and had been Permanent Secretary
of the Board of Trade from 1867 to 1886, said: "I should like to say
that in the discussion which led [in 1872] to the adoption of Mr.
Lowe's [Chancellor of the Exchequer] scheme[278] [for the reform of
the civil service] a mistake was often made, and is still made, in
supposing that the great evil of the service is jobbery. That is not
the case, and I say so with great confidence, having regard to what has
been done by Ministers whom I have served of both parties. The real
evil of the service is promotion by routine, and not jobbing in the
selection for superior places.[279] But make your regulations what you
will, the _sine qua non_, to make any regulations work well, is that
the men at the head of the different offices shall have discretion,
honesty, and courage, and shall not be afraid to put up the good men
and to keep the inferior men in their place. I am quite confident from
my own experience that it can be done, but I am certain that it can be
done only if the men at the head of the offices will take a good deal
of trouble about it." Lord Lingen, a Member of the Royal Commission,
and a former Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, interpolated: "A good
deal of trouble and a good deal of disagreeable interference." Mr.
Farrer continued: "It requires tact, because of course you must not
put a man up for mere merit. You cannot take a lad of 19 and put him
over a man of 30 without a very strong reason; but taking the different
sub-heads of the department into counsel; by a little give and take; by
care, discretion, and confidence in the perfect honesty with which the
thing is done, I believe it can be perfectly well managed.... The key
of the whole thing is to put the proper men at the top of the offices."
Lord Lingen and Mr. Farrer then went on to state that with every change
of the Government of the day, some civil servants who had been passed
over, or had some other grievance, made the attempt to have their cases
reopened.[280]
Sir Charles DuCane, Chairman of the Commissioners of Customs, said:
"We promote strictly by merit; we never allow seniority to weigh with
us."[281]
Sir Algernon E. West, Chairman of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue,
said that he promoted by merit within the limits allowed him by the
Treasury ruling that no clerk could pass out of the second class
into the first class without 10 years' service in the second class.
Subsequent testimony established the fact that the Treasury had made
that ruling in order to prevent the second class clerks from bringing
pressure on Members of Parliament with the view to securing automatic
promotion from the second class into the first.[282] Just before
making the foregoing statement, Sir Algernon West had said: "If you
take the whole Civil Service, I think you will find a general concord
of opinion that the man receiving from $2,500 to $3,000 a year is the
weakest part of the Civil Service. I am not speaking of a young man
who is in process of going higher, but of an elderly man who has risen
to that kind of high salary, and has no prospect of getting anything
more.... An ordinary middle aged man, who has got to $2,500 or $3,000
or $3,500, generally is far too highly paid." Mr. R. W. Hanbury, a
Member of the Royal Commission, queried: "How would he get such a
position?" The answer came: "By natural progression," _i. e._ promotion
by routine.[283]
Sir Lyon Playfair, a man of vast experience in the administration of
the British Civil Service, said: "Promotions by merit hardly take place
in most offices, I think; at all events, there are very few instances
brought before us."[284]
[Sidenote: _Promotion by Seniority the Great Evil_]
The Royal Commission itself reported: "We think that promotion
by seniority is the great evil of the Service, and that it is
indispensable to proceed throughout every branch of it strictly on the
principle of promotion by merit, that is to say, by selecting always
the fittest man, instead of considering claims in order of seniority,
and rejecting only the unfit. It is no doubt true that objections on
the score of favoritism may arise in the application of such a rule
in public departments, and the intervention of Members of Parliament
also presents an obvious difficulty, but we think that such constant
vigilance, tact, and resolution as may fairly be expected on the part
of heads of branches and of offices, will meet these objections, and we
believe that the certain advantages of promotion by merit to the most
deserving men, and therefore to the public service, are so great as to
be sure, in the long run, to command public support."
[Sidenote: _Able Men must "wait their Turn"_]
Shortly before the Royal Commission had made this recommendation,
in words which seemed to place the responsibility for past failure
to promote by merit, on the permanent officers of the Departments,
as distinguished from the political heads of the Departments, the
Ministers, Mr. Raikes, the Postmaster General, and the representative
in the House of Commons of the University of Cambridge, had refused
to accept the advice of the Permanent Secretary of the Post Office,
Mr. S. A. Blackwood, in filling a post of some importance in the
Secretary's office. On March 1, 1887, the Postmaster General, Mr.
Raikes, in reply to questions put to him in the House of Commons,
said: ... "It is also the fact that I have recently declined to adopt
the Secretary's recommendation to promote to the first class [in the
Secretary's office] one of the junior officers in the second class over
the heads of several clerks of much longer standing. The gentleman whom
I have promoted was, in my judgment, fully qualified for promotion,
and was senior clerk in the class, with the exception of one officer
who, on the Secretary's recommendation, has been passed over on
sixteen occasions.... What was I asked to do? I was asked to promote
a gentleman who was much lower down in the class, a gentleman who was
third or fourth in the class, and to place him over the heads of his
colleagues. This I declined to do. I made inquiries in the office, and
I found that the gentleman who was promoted was a meritorious officer
who had discharged his duties with adequate ability, and therefore
I thought there was no reason for promoting over his head and over
the heads of one or two other competent officers, a junior officer
who could well afford to wait his turn. I acted in the interests of
the Public Service, and especially in the interests of the Department
itself."[285]
* * * * *
No Post Office official in the United Kingdom has power to make a
promotion. No one has power to do more than recommend for promotion.
Each recommendation for promotion is examined by the surveyor, and
is then sent to headquarters, where "a most vigilant check is always
exercised, not from the suspicion that there has been favoritism,
but in order to secure that favoritism shall not be practised."[286]
Ultimately the Postmaster General passes upon every recommendation.
Sometimes the action of the Postmaster General is merely formal, and is
limited to the mere affixing of the Postmaster General's signature to
the recommendation made by the permanent officers of the Department;
at other times it is independent, and is preceded by careful
consideration of the case by the Postmaster General himself. Whether
or not the Postmaster General shall give his personal attention to a
recommendation for promotion, is determined largely by the presence or
absence of the political element, that is, the temper of the House of
Commons. The Postmaster General is not a mere executive officer with
a single aim: the efficient administration of his Department. He is
first of all an important Minister, that is, one of the aids of the
Prime Minister in keeping intact the party following. He must know
to a nicety how any given administrative act in the Post Office will
affect his party's standing, first in Parliament, and then among the
constituents of the Members of Parliament. It is true that no British
Postmaster General would convert the Post Office into a political
engine for promoting the interests of his party; but it is equally
true that no British Postmaster General would for a moment lose sight
of the fact that Governments have not their being in either a vacuum
or a Utopia, but that they live in a medium constituted of Members of
Parliament and the constituents of Members of Parliament.
In the course of a protest against the Postmaster General being a Member
of the House of Lords, Sir H. H. Fowler[287] recently said: "No man who
has sat in the House of Commons for 10 years can be ignorant of the
fact that there is a tone in the House; that there are occasions in
the House when, in dealing with votes [of Supply] and administrative
questions, a Minister is required, who, with his finger on the pulse
of the House, can sweep away the red tape limits and deal with the
questions at once on broad general public grounds." To make the
statement complete, Sir H. H. Fowler should have added the words: "and
grounds of political expediency." In the course of his reply to Sir
H. H. Fowler, Mr. R. W. Hanbury, Financial Secretary to the Treasury
and representative in the House of Commons of the Postmaster General,
said: "When I undertook the representation of the Post Office in the
House of Commons, the first rule I laid down was that [in replying to
questions put by Members as to the administrative acts of the Post
Office] I would take no answer from a permanent official, and that all
answers [framed in the first instance by permanent officials] should be
seen and approved by the Postmaster General [a Member of the House of
Lords]. I also reserved to myself full discretion to alter the answers
if I saw any necessity so to do."[288]
[Sidenote: _The Anxieties of Postmasters General_]
In 1896, before the Tweedmouth Committee, Mr. H. Joyce, Third
Secretary to General Post Office, London, said: "I well remember Mr.
Fawcett's[289] address to the head of a large Department [of the Post
Office] who, ... having a large number of promotions to recommend, had
told the officers concerned whom he had recommended, and whom he had
not, and what made the matters worse, he had in his recommendations
taken little account of seniority, whereas Mr. Fawcett, like Mr. Arnold
Morley,[290] had a perfect horror of passing anyone over. I only saw
Mr. Fawcett angry on two occasions, and that was one of them."[291] A
moment before giving this testimony, Mr. Joyce had said: "It is always
a matter of deep regret to the Postmaster General--every Postmaster
General under whom I have served--when he is constrained to pass anyone
over. I have seen Mr. Arnold Morley in the greatest distress on such
occasions."[292] Again, in defending the action of the Post Office in
promoting one Bocking, a second class sorting clerk at Norwich, over
the heads of 15 men in his own class, and 8 men in the first class,
to a full clerkship, Mr. Joyce said: "It is a matter of the greatest
regret to the Postmaster General to feel constrained to pass over so
many officers, all of whom were thoroughly respectable and zealous, and
performed the duties on which they were employed very well, but the
lamentable fact remains that they were not fit for a higher position;
every endeavor was made at headquarters to what I might call squeeze
them through, but it was no use." Mr. Badcock, Controller London Postal
Service, corroborated this testimony with the words: "The statement
is absolutely correct. The reports on which it was based can be
produced."[293] In passing it may be added that in February, 1895, Mr.
R. J. Price, M. P., for Norfolk, East, sought to intervene from the
floor of the House of Commons in this case of promotion. In 1892 and
1895, Mr. Price had been returned to Parliament from Norfolk, East,
with majorities of respectively 440 votes and 198 votes.
Still, again, at the Barry Dock Post Office, a branch office in
Cardiff, one Arnold had been promoted from position number 9, by
seniority, among the second class telegraph clerks, to a full
clerkship, skipping class 1 of the telegraphists. Of this action, Mr.
Joyce said: "It was a matter of great regret to the Postmaster General,
as expressed at the time, to pass so many officers, many of them most
deserving men, but above Mr. Arnold there was actually no one competent
to fill this important post. Some had a knowledge of postal work,
and some a knowledge of telegraph work, but none [beside Mr. Arnold]
were conversant with work of both kinds, and some were otherwise
objectionable. Barry Dock had suddenly shot into existence as a large
town, which has now a population of about 13,000, and so painful was it
to the Postmaster General to pass over all these deserving officers,
that, rather than do so, he seriously contemplated raising Barry Dock
to the level of a post town, and giving it a separate establishment of
its own."[294] Again, one Robinson was transferred from the Post Office
at Pontefract to a clerkship in the office of Blackpool, being made to
pass over the heads of two young men at Blackpool, by name of Eaton
and Butcher. Mr. Joyce said: "The case was specially put before the
Postmaster General, and with all his horror of passing people over, he
decided that the two young men Eaton and Butcher were not qualified for
promotion."[295]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _"A Strong Order"_]
In 1885, one Robinson, a postman at Liverpool, and number 210 in his
class, was jumped to the position of assistant inspector. "He had,
when a young postman, been selected by his inspector as a superior and
promising officer. He had been temporarily employed [by way of tests]
as assistant inspector, and had discharged the duties so efficiently
that, on a vacancy occurring, he had been promoted to it." This case,
as well as those previously mentioned, were cited as "grievances,"
before the Tweedmouth Committee, by the men selected by the Post
Office employees to act as their spokesmen before the Committee. Lord
Tweedmouth, chairman of the Committee, commenting on the case, said
to Mr. Joyce: "Still, it seems to have been rather a strong order to
appoint an assistant postman to such an office and to give him such a
great promotion." Mr. Joyce replied: "Yes, it certainly does seem so;
but for the position of inspector or assistant inspector of postmen
there is no doubt that qualifications are required which are not
ordinarily to be found in postmen.... For the positions of inspectors
and assistant inspectors, I think I may say that the local authorities,
and also headquarters, are more particular than they are about any
other promotion, and they are most anxious to select actually the best
man. In almost every other promotion, very great allowance is made for
seniority; but in the case of inspectors it is not so, on account of
the somewhat rare qualities required of inspectors, and because the
post is a most invidious one."[296]
The reader will note that in 1896 the Post Office employees were
complaining of a promotion made in 1885.
[Sidenote: _The Ablest Man in the Sheffield Office_]
It was established before the Tweedmouth Committee that in instances
the Post Office employees, with the aid of Members of the House
of Commons, have succeeded in forcing the Post Office to revoke
promotions, or to promote men that have been passed over. For example,
Mr. Joyce, Third Secretary, General Post Office, said: "Wykes is
unquestionably a very able man--probably the ablest man in the
Sheffield office--and it is quite true that he was promoted [from
a second class sortership] to be an assistant superintendent; but
for reasons quite unconnected with his ability and qualifications,
that promotion has been cancelled. Having said that, I trust the
Committee will not press me further upon the point, inasmuch as it
is very undesirable that I should say more." Mr. Spencer Walpole, a
Member of the Committee and the Secretary of the Post Office, added:
"Except, perhaps, that the cancelling of that promotion had nothing
to do with the evidence that has been quoted?" Mr. Joyce replied: "It
had nothing to do with that; the matter is still in a certain sense
_subjudice_."[297]
[Sidenote: _An M. P. promotes Eleven Men_]
In 1887, one M'Dougall, a second class sorter in Liverpool, was
made a first class sorter, being promoted over the heads of 14 men
whom the Liverpool postmaster had reported to be "not qualified for
the duties of the higher class." On March 31, 1887, Mr. Bradlaugh
brought the matter up in the House of Commons, by means of a question
addressed to the Postmaster General. He was not satisfied with the
answer that the men passed over had been reported "not qualified for
promotion."[298] Therefore, on June 6, 1887, in Committee of Supply, on
the Post Office Vote, Mr. Bradlaugh again brought up the case of the 14
Liverpool sorters who had been passed over. He said he had personally
investigated the qualifications of the men, and had found "that none of
them warranted the answer given by the Postmaster General" [on March
31].[299] Mr. Bradlaugh also brought up the case of one Hegnett, who
had been made assistant superintendent over the heads of 19 persons
"who were his seniors by many years." Also the case of one Helsby,
promoted over the heads of 11 persons. Also the case of one Miller,
promoted over one Richardson, "who had been acting as assistant
superintendent for years with the salary of a Supervising Clerk only."
Mr. Bradlaugh spoke of the Committee of Supply as "the only tribunal
that can overrule the Postmaster General." On June 17, Mr. Bradlaugh
again intervened on behalf of the 14 men who had been passed over.
Before the Tweedmouth Committee, Mr. F. T. Crosse, a sorting clerk at
Bristol, and one of the spokesmen of the Post Office employees, said:
"Macdougall, Liverpool, a second class sorting clerk, was promoted to
the first class over the heads of 14 men, his seniors. Mr. Bradlaugh,
M. P., brought the matter up in Parliament during the discussion on the
Estimates. The result of Mr. Bradlaugh's intervention was that 11 of
the 14 men passed over were promoted in a batch six months later."
Mr. Joyce, Third Secretary to General Post Office, London, said it was
true that "very soon afterward," 11 of the 14 men were promoted.[300]
"A great point was stretched" in favor of 5 of the 11 men. Those 5 men
were technically called single duty men, and since 1881 no sorting
clerk had been promoted to the first class [at Liverpool] who could not
perform dual duty. Although these five men were single duty men, and
therefore unable to rotate with others, which was a "great disability,"
they were promoted by reason of Mr. Bradlaugh's intervention.
In explanation of the Bradlaugh episode, it should be added, that
dual duty men are those who are able to act as letter sorters as
well as telegraphists; while single duty men are able to act only as
sorters, or as telegraphists. In order to reap full advantage from the
consolidation of the telegraph business with the Postal business, the
Post Office for years has been seeking to induce as many as possible
of its employees to make themselves competent to act both as sorters
and as telegraphists. At offices where it would be particularly
advantageous to have the men able to act both as sorters and as
telegraphists, the Post Office has sought to establish the rule that
no sorter or telegraphist shall be promoted to the first class, unless
able to act both as sorter and as telegraphist.
Mr. Crosse was not the only witness before the Tweedmouth Committee
whose testimony illustrated "the stimulus" conveyed by questions in
the House of Commons. Mr. C. J. Ansell, the representative of the
second class tracers in London, stated that in 1891 two vacancies
among the first class tracers in a London office had been left open
for respectively 5 months and 8 months. He added: "In March, 1894, the
Postmaster General's attention had to be called to this disgraceful
state of affairs [by the tracers' union]. It required, however, the
stimulus of a question in the House of Commons. We do not know how
far the Postmaster General is responsible for this state of affairs,
but it is only fair to state that his attention being drawn to this
matter by the question, we were successful in getting those promotions
ante-dated."[301]
* * * * *
The limitations upon the Postmaster General's power to promote men in
accordance with the advice tendered him by his official advisers by no
means is confined to the cases of promotion among the rank and file.
For instance, it was established by the testimony given before the
Tweedmouth Committee, that the Postmaster cannot freely promote, to
offices of more importance, postmasters who show that they have more
ability than is required to administer the offices over which they
happen to preside. For if a postmaster proves to be not equal to the
demands of his office, the Postmaster General cannot always remove
him to a smaller office, promoting at the same time the more able man
who happens to be in charge of the smaller office. The Department
tries to meet the situation by sending to the aid of the relatively
incompetent postmaster "a smart chief clerk," taking care, however,
that the inefficient postmaster shall receive less than the full salary
to which the volume of business of the office would entitle him. If
that expedient fails, the Department will transfer the postmaster.
Mr. Uren, postmaster at Maidstone, and President of the Postmasters'
Association, even asserted that nothing short of misconduct would lead
to the transfer of a postmaster.[302] It should be added, however, that
Mr. Uren's testimony related to the small and medium sized places only,
not to the larger cities.[303]
It must not be inferred, however, that the postmasters of the small
and medium sized places appeared before the Tweedmouth Committee to
demand unrestricted promotion by merit. On the contrary, with the great
bulk of the public service of all descriptions,[304] they held that
promotion is "slow and uncertain" and that the system of promotion
by merit "is thoroughly uncertain in its practical working." They
protested also against the uncertainty and inequality inseparable from
the system of making postmasters' salaries dependent upon the volume
of business done by the several and individual Post Offices. They held
that no postmaster should be made to suffer by reason of the fact that
he happened to be stationed in a town or city that was not growing,
or was not growing so rapidly as were other cities. By way of relief
from the foregoing "uncertainties" and "inequalities" they demanded
a reorganization of the postal service which should secure to the
postmasters regular annual increments of pay, and should "regularize"
promotion.[305]
[Sidenote: _Rank and File Oppose Promotion by Merit_]
It will be remembered that the Royal Commission appointed to inquire
into the Civil Establishments, 1888, expressed the belief: "that the
certain advantages of promotion by merit to the most deserving men,
and therefore to the public service, are so great as to be sure, in
the long run, to command public support." But the fact remains that a
large part of the rank and file of the British civil service is growing
more and more intolerant of promotion by merit, and demands promotion
by seniority. It will not accept as a fact the natural inequality of
men; it asserts, with its cousins at the Antipodes, the Australasian
civil servants, that it is the opportunity that makes the man, not the
man that makes the opportunity. This impatience of the rank and file of
the civil servants of promotion by merit was brought out in striking
manner by many of the "grievances" cited by the men who appeared before
the Tweedmouth Committee as the accredited representatives of the Post
Office employees. Some of those allegations of grievance have just been
recorded, but this matter is of sufficient importance to warrant the
recording of still others.
Mr. Joseph Shephard, Chairman of the Metropolitan Districts Board
of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association, complained before the
Tweedmouth Committee that one West, who had entered the telegraph
service as a learner in 1881, one month after one Ward had entered as
a learner, in 1896 was receiving $640, whereas Ward was receiving
only $550. It was true that Ward had "had the misfortune to fail in
the needle examination," the first time he had tried to qualify as a
telegraphist, but "that little failure" ought not to have made the
difference which existed in 1896. Mr. Shephard also complained that one
Morgan, after 14 years and 11 months of service, was receiving only
$550, whereas one Kensington, after 14 years and 5 months of service,
was receiving $670. He brushed aside as of no consequence, the fact
that Kensington had "qualified" in four months, whereas Ward had taken
twelve months to "qualify."[306]
One Richardson, a telegraphist, at his own request had been transferred
from Horsham to East Grinstead, and thence to Redhill, because of the
small chances of vacancies at the first two places. But the staff at
Redhill was weak and therefore the Post Office could not follow its
usual practice of promoting a man, "not because he is a good man, but
because he is not a bad one," to use the words of Mr. J. C. Badcock,
Controller London Postal Service.[307] The authorities had to promote
the best man at Redhill, and thus Richardson was passed over. Mr. James
Green, who appeared as the representative of the Postal Telegraph
Clerks' Association, referred to Richardson's case as "the case of a
learner who with some 5 years' service is, according to my information,
sent here and there relieving, presumably as a sort of recompense,
though what his future will be remains a mystery. What surprises me
in this matter is the spirit of indifference displayed by the heads
of our Department regarding the hopelessness of these learners'
positions."[308] One J. R. Walker was an indoor messenger until
October, 1893, when he was apprenticed a paid learner. Shortly before
October, two lads had been brought in as paid learners; and, after a
short service, they were appointed sorting clerks and telegraphists.
They were promoted over Walker, because of their superior education and
intelligence. Mr. Green, the representative of the Postal Telegraph
Clerks' Association, admitted the superior education of the lads in
question, but complained that they had been preferred to Walker.[309]
[Sidenote: _The Crompton Episode_]
One Crompton, a letter sorting clerk at Liverpool, in his leisure
moments had made himself a telegraph instrument, had taught himself
to telegraph, and had acquired a considerable technical knowledge of
electricity. He had attracted the attention of the superintending
engineer at Liverpool; had been promoted, in 1886, to the office of
the superintending engineer; and, by 1896, he had become one of the
best engineers in the service. In 1896, Mr. Tipping, the accredited
spokesman of the Postal Telegraphists' Association as well as of the
Telegraph Clerks' Association, complained of the promotion of Crompton,
which had occurred in 1886. He said: "It seems most unreasonable that
men who have, in some cases, not the slightest acquaintance with
telegraphic apparatus and methods of working, should be preferred
to those whose whole period of service has been passed in immediate
connection therewith. It is apparent that such an absence of method is
open to very serious objections, and allows great freedom of choice
to those upon whose recommendations the appointments are made. In
order, therefore, to safeguard, on the one hand, the interests of
the department, and, on the other, to encourage those members of the
telegraph staff who desire, by energy and ability, to improve their
official _status_, the following suggestions are humbly submitted: That
vacancies for junior clerkships in the offices of the superintending
engineers, and for clerks at relay stations, should be filled by open
competitive examination, held under the control of the Civil Service
Commissioners, and that telegraphists only be eligible."[310]
The Crompton episode shows what minute supervision over the
administration of the Post Office the civil service unions seek to
exercise. The same minute supervision was attempted as recently as
1903-04 by Mr. Nannetti, M. P. for the College Division of Dublin,
and also a Member of the Corporation of Dublin, as well as a member
of the Dublin Port and Docks Board.[311] On March 23, 1903, Mr.
Nannetti spoke as follows, in the House of Commons: "I beg to ask the
Postmaster General whether his attention has been directed to the fact
that two female technical officers, appointed in connection with the
recently introduced intercommunication switch system in London, were
selected over the heads of seniors possessing equal qualifications,
and whether, seeing that in one case the official selected was taught
switching duties by a telegraphist who is now passed over, he will
state the reason for the selection of these officers?" The Postmaster
General, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, replied: "The honorable Member has
been misinformed. There is no question of promoting or passing over
any officer. All that has been done is to assign to particular duties,
carrying no special rank or pay, two officers who were believed to be
competent to perform them." On May 7, 1903, Mr. Nannetti followed up
the question with another one, namely: "I beg to ask the Postmaster
General whether his attention has been called to the fact that two
women telegraphists were selected to perform technical duties in
reference to the intercommunication switch in London, who were juniors
in service and possessed of less technical qualifications than other
women telegraphists who were passed over; and whether, seeing that,
although official information was given that such selection was not a
question of promotion and no special rank or pay would result, one of
the two officers concerned has been appointed to a superior grade on
account of her experience gained by being selected for these duties,
he will explain why the more senior and experienced women were passed
over in the first place?" The Postmaster General replied: "I have
nothing to add to the answer I gave on March 23, beyond stating that
the officer to whom he is supposed to refer has not been appointed to
any superior grade. She has merely been lent temporarily to assist
at the Central Telephone Exchange in work for which she has special
qualifications."[312]
On April 19 and May 12, 1904, Mr. Nannetti again protested against
the promotion of the woman in question to the position of first class
assistant supervisor, saying: "This girl was appointed because she had
strong friends at Court." ... On the latter date Mr. Nannetti also
intervened on behalf of a telegraphist at North Wall, whose salary had
been reduced from $6 a week to $5, as well as on behalf of one Wood,
who had been retired on a reduced pension, by way of punishment. The
case of Wood, Mr. Nannetti had brought up in 1903, when the Post Office
Vote was under discussion. For the purpose of bringing these several
matters before the House, he now moved the reduction of the salary of
the Postmaster General by $500.[313]
On March 16, 1903, Mr. Nannetti asked whether the statement of the
Controller that there was not a man qualified for promotion in the
[Dublin letter sorting] branch had had any influence "with the
Department in the filling of a certain vacancy in the Dublin Post
Office."[314] That question illustrated a type of intervention that
suggests the possibility of Great Britain reaching the stage that
has been reached in Australia, where Members of Parliament have been
known to move reductions in the salaries of officers who had offended
the rank and file by attempting to introduce businesslike methods
and practices. If that stage ever is reached, there will be a great
multiplication of cases like the following one. Before the Tweedmouth
Committee appeared Mr. J. Shephard, Chairman Metropolitan Districts
Board of Postal Clerks' Association, to champion the cause of Mr. ----.
Said Mr. Shephard: "I have it here on his word that his postmaster
has recommended him for a vacant clerkship at the District Office.
Mr. ---- has served for many years under the eyes of this postmaster
who recommends him for promotion, and I take it that that is full
and sufficient evidence of Mr. ----'s fitness to perform the duties
of the clerk." Mr. J. C. Badcock, Controller London Postal Service,
testified in reply that he had summoned the postmaster in question, who
had admitted that Mr. ---- had discharged "minor clerical duties" in a
perfectly satisfactory manner, but that his recommendation that Mr. ----
should be promoted to a clerkship, "was made more out of sympathy with
the man than with any hope that he would be qualified to undertake
the higher duties which he would have to succeed to if appointed to a
clerkship."[315]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _M. P.'s act in Advance_]
In March, 1887, Mr. Bradlaugh, M. P., intervened in the House of
Commons on behalf of two telegraph clerks at Liverpool who feared they
were about to be passed over in favor "of a young man who entered the
Engineering Department nine months ago as a temporary foreman."[316]
In April, 1902, Captain Norton intervened on behalf of two letter
sorters, R. H. Brown and H. Johnson, who feared they were going
to be passed over in the filling of certain vacancies among the
overseers.[317] In 1906, Captain Norton was made a Junior Lord of the
Treasury in the Campbell-Bannerman Liberal Government.
In March, 1903, Mr. M. Joyce, M. P. for Limerick as well as an
Alderman, asked the Postmaster General:
"Whether it is his intention to promote a local official to the
assistant superintendentship now vacant at the Limerick Post Office,
and, if not, will he assign the reason?... May I ask whether the duties
of this office have not been performed in the most satisfactory manner
by a local officer during the absence of the assistant superintendent,
and will he give this matter due consideration, as every class of the
community would be pleased at such an appointment."[318]
In April, 1903, Mr. Shehan asked the Postmaster General: "Whether his
attention has been directed to an application from Dennis Murphy, at
present acting as auxiliary postman, for appointment to the vacant
position of rural postman from Mill Street to Culler, County Cork; and
whether, in view of the man's character and qualifications, he will
consider the advisability of appointing him to the vacancy?"[319]
In February, 1903, Mr. Nannetti asked the Postmaster General "whether
he is aware that a telegraphist named Mercer, of the Bristol Post
Office, has applied for 160 vacant postmaster ships since 1894;
whether, seeing that during these periods clerks of less service,
experience, ability and salary have been the recipients of these
positions, he will make inquiry into the case?"[320]
In July, 1899, Mr. O'Brien,[321] M. P. for Kilkenny, asked the
Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General,
"whether he is aware that a postman named Jackson, in Kilkenny, has
been in the Post Office service over 20 years and that his wages at
present are only 12s. per week; and whether Jackson was given the
increment of 1s. 6d. per week fixed by the new wages scale which came
into operation in April, 1897; and if not, whether he will cause
inquiry to be made into the case, with the view of giving Jackson
the wages to which he is entitled by the rules of the service?" Mr.
R. W. Hanbury, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, replied: "The
rural postman at Kilkenny to whom the Honorable Member refers was
transferred, on June 19, to another walk at that place, carrying wages
of 16s. a week. His previous duty was not sufficient to warrant higher
wages than 12s. a week."[322]
In April, 1901, Sir George Newnes, M. P. for Swansea, protested
against the promotion out of order, according to seniority, of one
A. E. Samuel, a sorter and telegraphist at Swansea.[323] Sir George
Newnes is the founder of George Newnes, Limited, proprietors _Strand
Magazine_, _Tit-Bits_, etc.; and proprietor of the _Westminster
Gazette_, the London evening newspaper of the Liberal Party.
In February and March, 1903, Mr. C. E. Schwann, M. P. for Manchester,
protested against the promotion out of order of two men at Manchester,
who had been respectively numbers 99 and 133 in their class.[324] Mr.
Schwann is President of the Manchester Reform Club, and has been nine
years President of the National Reform Union. He has held successively
the offices of Secretary, Treasurer and President of the Manchester
Liberal Association. In 1900 he was elected to Parliament by a majority
of twenty-six votes.
In July, 1902, Mr. Keir Hardie asked the Financial Secretary to
the Treasury: "Whether the overseer's vacancy in the South Eastern
Metropolitan district, created by the death of Mr. Feldwick, and
recently filled by a suburban officer, will now be restored to the
town establishment, seeing that the appointment properly belongs to
this establishment?" Mr. Austen Chamberlain replied: "The vacancy in
question has been filled by the transfer of an overseer from a suburban
office in the same postal district, but the vacancy thus created in
the suburbs has been filled by the promotion of an officer in the
town district office." In August, 1902, Mr. Keir Hardie asked the
Financial Secretary to the Treasury: "Whether he is aware that the
overseer's vacancy which occurred in the town establishment of the
South Eastern Metropolitan District by the promotion of Mr. May to an
inspectorship at another office, has been filled by the transfer of an
officer in the suburban establishment, thus diverting a town vacancy
to the suburbs; and whether, in view of the fact that the chances of
promotion in the suburban establishments are 75 per cent. better than
in the town establishment, he will cause the vacancy to be restored
to the establishment in which it originally occurred?" Mr. Austen
Chamberlain replied: "The Postmaster General is aware of the effect of
the promotion in question, and has already arranged that the balance of
promotion shall be readjusted on an early opportunity by the transfer
of a town [officer] to a suburban vacancy."[325]
[Sidenote: _A Member of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants,
1906_]
On March 24, 1905, Mr. Charles Hobhouse, M. P. for Bristol, asked the
Postmaster General "why a number of men with unblemished character
and with service ranging from 15 to 25 years have, in the recent
promotions in the Bristol Post Office, been passed over in favor of a
junior postman?" In 1906, Mr. Hobhouse was made a member of the Select
Committee on Post Office Servants.[326]
On March 15, 1906,[327] Mr. Sloan, M. P. for Belfast, intervened on
behalf of the men who had recently been passed over in the selection of
three men to act as "provincial clerks" in the Post Office at Belfast.
On the same day, Mr. Sloan asked the Postmaster General "under
what circumstances the junior head postman at Belfast is retained
permanently on a regular duty while his seniors, equally capable men,
are compelled to rotate on irregular duties with irregular hours."
On August 2, 1906, the Postmaster General, Mr. Sydney Buxton, replied
to Mr. Sloan: "I cannot review cases of promotion decided by my
predecessor eighteen months ago."
In 1905 Mr. Sloan had voted for a Select Committee on Postal Servants'
Grievances.
The foregoing quotations could be extended indefinitely, but they
illustrate sufficiently the several kinds of intervention in matters of
mere administrative detail, as well as the high political and social
standing of some of the Members of Parliament who lend themselves to
those several kinds of intervention. But these quotations may not be
brought to an end without mention of the qualifying fact that Lord
Stanley, Postmaster General from 1903 to 1905, repeatedly stated in the
House of Commons that he did "not select the senior men unless they
were best qualified to do the work."[328]
FOOTNOTES:
[273] _Third Report from the Select Committee on Civil Services
Expenditure_, 1873; q. 4,193 to 4,206, and 4,267.
[274] _Report from the Select Committee on Post Office_ (_Telegraph
Department_), 1876; q. 3,122 to 3,125.
[275] _Correspondence Relating to the Post Office Telegraph
Department_: Letter of April 12, 1877, Postmaster General, Lord John
Manners, to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury.
[276] _Report from the Select Committee on Post Office_ (_Telegraph
Department_), 1876; q. 1,259.
[277] _Report of the Bradford Committee on Post Office Wages_, 1904; q.
1,024 and 1,048.
[278] Mr. Lowe, Chancellor of the Exchequer, divided the service into
three classes, in such a way that it was difficult, if not impossible,
to pass from one class to the other. That was done with the object of
preventing individuals from bringing pressure on Members of Parliament
for promotion from class to class.
[279] Compare also: _Third Report from the Select Committee on Civil
Services Expenditure_, 1873; q. 3,703 to 3,705, Mr. T. H. Farrer,
Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade. "The salt of the service
is the staff appointments.... Since I have been in the Board of Trade
there have been almost forty higher staff appointments, and on not more
than four could I put my finger and say they had been made from any
other motive than the desire to get the best man. On some occasions
the good appointments have been made in the teeth of strong political
motives to the contrary."
[280] _Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into
the Civil Establishments_, 1888; q. 19,980, and 20,079 to 20,083.
[281] _Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into
the Civil Establishments_, 1888; q. 17,564.
[282] _Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into
the Civil Establishments_, 1888; q. 17,500, 20,141 to 20,149, 20,260,
20,262 and 20,338; and _First Report of the Royal Commission appointed
to inquire into the Civil Establishments_, 1887, p. 424.
[283] _Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into
the Civil Establishments_, 1888; q. 17,250 to 17,253.
[284] _Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into
the Civil Establishments_, 1888; q. 20,253.
[285] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 1, 1887, p. 890; March
7, p. 1,400; May 12, p. 1,723; and April 4, p. 456.
[286] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 12,152 to 12,154, Mr. H. Joyce, Third
Secretary to General Post Office. Compare also: q. 131 and 7,891, and
Appendix, p. 1,068.
Extract from the "Postmaster's Book of Instructions," p. 105.
"Except to clerkships of first class, all promotions from class to
class, whether in the Major or Minor Establishments, are governed by
seniority, combined with full competency and good character. Thus,
on a vacancy occurring in a higher class, not being the first class
of clerks, recommend for promotion that officer of highest standing
[according to seniority] in the class next below who is qualified
for the efficient performance of the duties of the higher class, and
has conducted himself with diligence, propriety and attention in his
present class to your satisfaction. If on the other hand you feel
it incumbent on you to recommend some officer other than the one of
highest standing [according to seniority] in his class, furnish a
tabular statement after the following specimens, giving the names
and dates of appointment of those you propose to pass over, and your
reasons. These reasons must be stated with precision in the column set
apart for observations. Such entries as: 'Scarcely qualified,' 'has not
given satisfaction,' being insufficient in so important a matter."
[287] _Who's Who_, 1905, Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H. H., M. P. (L.),
Wolverhampton, 1880 to 1900, and since 1900; Under Secretary Home
Department, 1884-85; Financial Secretary to Treasury, 1886; President
Local Government Board, 1892-94; Secretary of State for India, 1894-95.
[288] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 27, 1900, p. 128, Sir H.
H. Fowler, and Mr. R. W. Hanbury.
[289] Mr. Fawcett, Postmaster General.
[290] Mr. Arnold Morley, Postmaster General, 1892-95; Chief Liberal
Whip, 1886-1892.
[291] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 12,220.
[292] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 12,158. Compare, for example, _Hansard's
Parliamentary Debates_, September 18, 1893. Mr. A. Morley, Postmaster
General, states that 10 men had been passed over, after having been
found wanting upon a trial on higher duties. He added: "I am, however,
making further inquiries."
[293] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 12,180, and Appendix, p. 1,110.
[294] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 12,205.
[295] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 12,184 and 12,185.
[296] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 12,230 and 12,239.
[297] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 12,182 and 5,629.
[298] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 31, 1883, p. 55.
[299] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, June 6, 1887, p. 1,081 and
following.
[300] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 5,603 and 12,160 to 12,162.
[301] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 6,983.
[302] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; Mr. J. G. Uren, President Postmasters'
Association; q. 12,493 and following; and Mr. E. B. L. Hill, Assistant
Secretary General Post Office; q. 15,450.
[303] "But I do not think I ought to conceal the fact that the majority
of our members are the postmasters of small and medium sized places
who have very likely got, according to our ideas, more grounds for
grievance than the postmasters of larger towns."
[304] That the peculiar demands and ideals described in these chapters
are by no means confined to the Post Office employees, is shown
by the subjoined quotation from a Treasury Minute of March, 1891,
relative to an Inquiry by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the
Financial Secretary to the Treasury into the Administration of the
Outdoor Department of the Customs Revenue Department, to wit: "Besides
the alleged loss of promotion through a reduction in the higher
appointments, and the various arrangements by which they considered
that they were injured in their emoluments or as to the hours of
working, the officers of all grades complained of the existing system
of promotion. They contended that it was unfair and fortuitous in its
operation, and did not pay sufficient regard to seniority."--_Report of
the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Post Office Establishments_,
1897; q. 12,577.
[305] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Post
Office Establishments_, 1897. Testimony of the representatives of
the Postmasters' Association: Mr. J. G. Uren, Mr. W. E. Carrette
(Queenstown), Mr. John Macmaster; and Appendix, p. 1,127.
[306] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897, Mr. Joseph Shephard; q. 3,117 to 3,126, and
testimony of Mr. J. C. Badcock, Controller London Postal Service.
[307] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 1,614.
[308] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 15,219, Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary
General Post Office, London; and 5,290, Mr. Jas. Green.
[309] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 15,217, Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary
General Post Office, London; and 5,282 to 5,284, Mr. Jas. Green.
[310] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 15,097, Mr. W. H. Preece, Engineer-in-Chief
at the Post Office; and 4,876, Mr. E. J. Tipping.
[311] _Who's Who_, 1905.
[312] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 23, 1903, p. 1,464; and
May 7, 1903, p. 27.
[313] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 9, and May 12, 1904, p.
1,239 and 1,246 to 1,268.
[314] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 16, 1903, p. 856.
[315] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 3,214 and 4,206.
[316] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 10, 1887, p. 1,733.
[317] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 24, 1902, p. 1,189.
[318] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 9, 1903, p. 113.
[319] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 7, 1903, p. 1,242.
[320] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, February 24, 1903, p. 670.
[321] _Who's Who_, 1905, O'Brien, P., M. P. since 1886; mechanical and
marine engineer. In 1895 Mr. O'Brien had been elected to Parliament by
a majority of fourteen votes.
[322] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 3, 1899.
[323] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 22, 1901, p. 919.
[324] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, February 25, 1903, p. 803; and
March 9, 1903, p. 108.
[325] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 10, 1902, p. 1,359; and
August 8, 1902, p. 1,102.
[326] _Who's Who_, 1905, Hobhouse, C. E. H., M. P. (R.), East Bristol
since 1900; Recorder of Wills since 1901. Education: Eton; Christ
Church, Oxford. M. P. (L), East Wilts, 1892-95; private secretary at
Colonial Office, 1892-95; County Alderman, Wilts, 1893 to present time.
Clubs: Brooks', Naval and Military.
[327] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 15, 1906.
[328] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 28, 1904, p. 1,428;
April 14, and May 12, 1904, p. 1,253.