THE SPIRIT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
The doctrine of an "implied contract" between the State
and each civil servant, to the effect that the State may
make no change in the manner of administering its great
trading departments without compensating every civil servant
however remotely or indirectly affected. The hours of
work may not be increased without compensating every one
affected. Administrative "mistakes" may not be corrected
without compensating the past beneficiaries of such
mistakes. Violation of the order that promotion must not
be mechanical, or by seniority alone, may not be corrected
without compensating those civil servants who would have
been benefitted by the continued violation of the aforesaid
order. The State may not demand increased efficiency of its
servants without compensating every one affected. Persons
filling positions for which there is no further need, must
be compensated. Each civil servant has a "vested right" to
the maintenance of such rate of promotion as obtains when he
enters the service, irrespective of the volume of business or
of any diminution in the number of higher posts consequent
upon administrative reforms. The telegraph clerks demand that
their chances of promotion be made as good as those of the
postal clerks proper, but they refuse to avail themselves of
the opportunity to pass over to the postal side proper of
the service, on the ground that the postal duties proper are
more irksome than the telegraph duties. Members of Parliament
support recalcitrant telegraph clerks whom the Government is
attempting to force to learn to perform postal duties, in
order that it may reap advantage from having combined the
postal service and the telegraph service in 1870. Special
allowances may not be discontinued; and vacations may not
be shortened, without safeguarding all "vested interests."
Further illustrations of the hopelessly unbusinesslike spirit
of the rank and file of the public servants.
Upon a preceding page has been mentioned the contention of the civil
servants that there is an implied contract between the State and the
Civil Service that the conditions of employment obtaining at any
moment shall not be changed to the disadvantage of the civil servants,
except upon payment of compensation to all persons disadvantageously
affected; and that unless such compensation is paid, any change in the
conditions and terms of employment must be limited to future entrants
upon the service of the State, or to persons who shall accept promotion
on the express condition of becoming subject to the altered terms of
employment.
[Sidenote: _Implied Contract for Six Hour Day_]
Before the Select Committee on Civil Services Expenditure, 1873, Mr.
W. E. Baxter, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said: "I am not an
advocate for long hours; and in the mercantile business with which I am
connected, I have years ago reduced the hours both of the clerks and of
the workmen, but I am inclined to think the six hours given to their
work by the Government officials [that is, Upper and Lower Division
clerks], rather too short a period, and that it might with advantage
be somewhat lengthened. At the same time we must always keep in mind
that the effect of lengthening the hours would be to cause an immediate
demand for an increase of pay. However I have a very strong impression
that in most of the Government offices there are too many clerks, and
that there might be considerable economy in a reduction of numbers and
an increase of hours."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated to the Committee that it would
be inexpedient to try to raise the hours of clerks from 6 hours to,
say, 7 hours. He said: "I suspect that my one-seventh more time would
be more than compensated by my having to pay them a great deal more
than one-seventh more salary; and I think it would be very perilous to
take up the floodgates in that way."[363]
Before the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil
Establishments, 1888, Sir Reginald E. Welby, Permanent Secretary to
the Treasury, stated that he was in favor of extending the hours of
the Upper and Lower Division clerks from 6 hours to 7. The Chairman
queried: "But can it be done with existing clerks without a breach
of faith?" Sir R. E. Welby replied: "With regard to Lower Division
clerks, it is provided that in consideration of an extra payment, which
is according to the regulation, a 6 hour office can be turned into a
7 hour office.... There is no provision of that kind for the Upper
Division, and, of course, any change would have to be made a matter
of consideration.... The arrangement made between the authorities
of the Inland Revenue and the Treasury, in those departments of the
Inland Revenue which have adopted the 7 hours system, has been that
the clerks who were under no stipulation to do 7 hours' work, should
have an extra allowance until promotion. As soon as they are promoted
to another class, we have assumed that we have the right to put our
conditions upon the promotion, and, therefore, from that time they fall
into the ordinary scale of salary without addition." At this point Mr.
H. H. Fowler, a Member of the Commission, queried: "I understand you to
say there is no provision made for altering the period of service of an
Upper Division clerk from 6 hours to 7 hours. I want to know where is
the document by which the State binds itself over to accept 6 hours'
work ...?" "Nowhere. The only thing is that when he enters the office
he is told that the hours are from 10 to 4, or from 11 to 5." Mr.
Fowler continued: "I consider this is a question of vital importance,
and I want to have it very distinctly from you: I want to know where
is the contract between the State and any Upper Division clerk in any
department, that he is only to work 6 hours a day?" "There is no such
document that I know of, and no such understanding further than the
statement upon his entering the office that the hours are such and
such." "But I want to ascertain whether there would be even an approach
to a breach of faith (if such a term may be used) if the State says:
'We insist upon our servants working for us 7 hours a day?'" "None in
my mind, and I may add that it is generally known that the hours are so
and so, but longer hours when required" [on exceptionally busy days].
To Sir T. H. Farrer, Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade, 1867
to 1886, the Chairman of the Royal commission said: "What is your view
with reference to its being fair or necessary to increase the pay if
seven hours' work be asked from an Upper Division clerk. Do you think
there is any contract to do only 6 hours' work?" "No, there is no
contract whatever; theoretically the rule is that civil servants are
to do the business that is required of them. The practical difficulty
remains that if you do it you may have a great uproar. You may cause
discontent, and you may have, as I said before, pressure in the House
of Commons; but theoretically, and as a matter of right, I can see no
reason why every officer should not be obliged to give 7 hours for
the existing pay." "Have you not to some extent recognized it[364] by
creating a different scale of pay in the Lower Division for 7 hours
than for 6 hours?" "Yes, you have, and I am very sorry for it; when
I say you have, I was a party to it,[365] but I am sorry that we did
it." "But you are of course of opinion that when you announce that the
office hours are from 10 to 4, it means that these are the hours of
public attendance, but that it does not in any way prevent the head of
the office from asking the clerks to stop until the work is done?" "No;
but the larger your class of Lower Division clerks, the more you will
find that the hours become fixed hours, and if they are asked to attend
beyond them [because of unusual pressure of work], they will ask for
extra pay for attendance."[366]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _Clerks are Clerks_]
In 1881, Mr. Fawcett, Postmaster General, created for the provincial
towns the class of "telegraph clerks," who are recruited from the
first class of telegraphists, and act as assistants to the assistant
superintendents. Since the men in question were styled clerks, they
immediately contended that their hours of work should be reduced from
8 hours a day to 39 hours a week, the hours of the clerks proper.
The Department always has refused to recognize that claim. But Mr.
Beaufort, Postmaster at Manchester, acting on a misreading of the
rules, from 1884 to 1890 granted the telegraph clerks at Manchester
the 39 hours a week. In 1892 the hours were raised to the correct
number, namely 8 hours a day, with half an hour for a meal. In 1896,
9 telegraph clerks from Manchester sent a spokesman to the Tweedmouth
Committee to state that they had become telegraph clerks in 1890, when
the hours were 35 a week, and that they deemed it a "hardship" to be
compelled to work 8 hours a day.[367]
In November, 1902, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Financial Secretary to
the Treasury, stated in the House of Commons: "The town postmen at
Newton Abbot were formerly paid on too high a scale [in consequence
of an error of judgment made by a departmental officer]. The wages
were accordingly reduced some years ago, but the postmen then in the
service were allowed to retain their old scale of payment so long as
they should remain in the service, and the new scale was applied only
to postmen who entered the service subsequently. This will account for
there being temporarily two scales for postmen at Newton Abbott."[368]
[Sidenote: _Standard of Efficiency should not be Raised_]
In 1881, Mr. Fawcett, Postmaster General, established for Metropolitan
London the class of "senior telegraphists," with a salary rising by
annual increments of $40, from $800 to $950. He intended that this
class should be filled by the promotion of men from the first class
of telegraphists who possessed exceptional manipulative efficiency
as well as sufficient executive ability to act as assistants to the
assistant superintendents. But as a matter of fact many men were
promoted to this class by mere seniority and without reference to their
qualifications. In 1890, however, under Mr. Raikes, Postmaster General,
the Department resolved to promote to the senior class no more men who
were not fully qualified.[369] And in 1894, the Department imposed a
technical examination[370] between the first class of telegraphists
and the senior class, in order to insure that all men promoted to the
senior class should have the qualifications required of them. Mr. H.
C. Fischer, Controller of the London Central Telegraph Office, said
of this examination: "It is not considered unjust that this should
have been enforced in the case of men who had always been employed
on instrument duties, and who had only themselves to blame if they
neglected to acquire some knowledge of technical matters, which all
skilled telegraphists are expected to possess.... Even before the
institution of the examination it was always held that the possession
of technical knowledge gave the man an additional claim to promotion to
the senior class."[371]
Before the Tweedmouth Committee the representatives of the first class
telegraphists complained of the technical examination as a "grievance."
They said: "The regulation came into operation at once, an act which
is regarded as exceptionally unjust toward men of more than 20 years'
service, who, up to that time had understood from the general practice
of the Department, that, other things being equal, good conduct and
manipulative efficiency would secure promotion. Now, however, the
possession of technical knowledge is added as a necessary qualification
before promotion to the senior class, and this without a coincident
rise in the maximum [salary] of the first class as compensation for the
additional demand upon the capacity of the staff." As the alternative
to the raising of the maximum salary of the first class [$800], "it
was earnestly contended that the scale to which the officer is raised
on passing the examination should be materially enhanced [beyond the
present maximum of $950] in recompense for the further additional
demand upon his time, and for his pecuniary outlay in preparing himself
for the requirements of the Department."[372]
Prior to November, 1886, special intelligence was required of the
sorters of foreign letters in the London Central Post Office, who were
correspondingly well paid. The wages of the first class of sorters
of foreign letters began at $13.75 a week, and rose to $17.50, by
triennial increments of $1.25 a week. Those of the second class
began at $11.25, and rose to $13.75, by annual increments of $0.50 a
week. But in consequence of a material simplification of the duties
of the foreign letter sorters, consequent upon the changes in the
international postage charges, the Department resolved, in November,
1886, to replace the two classes of sorters of foreign letters by
one class, with wages ranging from $12.50 a week to $15.[373] It
was provided, however, that the existing sorters of the first class
should retain the old scale of wages; and that the existing sorters
of the second class should have the option of immediate promotion to
the new class, with wages rising from $12.50 to $15, or, "of being
advanced to the $13.75 to $17.50 scale, in the order in which they
would have attained to that scale if the old first class scale had
not been abolished." In other words, the men who, prior to November,
1886, had been in line for ultimate promotion to a class carrying wages
of $13.75 to $17.50, were offered the option "of being regarded as
having a vested interest to rise to $17.50 a week, as vacancies should
occur."[374]
[Sidenote: _Claim of Exemption from Vicissitudes of Life_]
In 1895, Mr. H. B. Irons, a second class sorter in London, appeared
before the Tweedmouth Committee to present the grievance of himself
and colleagues, who, prior to 1886, had given up the position of
first class letter carriers to become second class letter sorters in
order to improve their prospects of promotion. The grievance was that
the prospects of promotion of letter sorters had been curtailed by
the abolition of the sorterships of foreign letters in 1886, and the
abolition of the sortership of the first class of inland and foreign
newspapers in 1890. Mr. Irons alleged that he would have remained
a letter carrier had he foreseen the changes in question.[375] His
argument was that the civil servant must be exempt from the ordinary
chances and vicissitudes of life.
* * * * *
In 1890 some senior telegraphists protested that they ought to be made
assistant superintendents, alleging that they were performing the
duties of assistant superintendents. Mr. Raikes, Postmaster General,
found that some of the duties of the complainants were of the nature
alleged, but not all of them. Therefore, he made the complainants,
forty-nine in number, second class assistant superintendents. By 1896,
this new class had come to number sixty-five.
From 1881 to 1890, the proportion borne by the senior telegraphists to
the first class and second class telegraphists had ranged between 1 to
6.6 and 1 to 7.7. The promotion of forty-nine senior telegraphists in
1890, and of the others in subsequent years, raised the proportion in
question to 1 to 10, in 1895. But counting senior telegraphists and
second class assistant superintendents, there was, in 1895, one of
these superior officers to each 6.5 of first class and second class
telegraphists. In other words, the rate of promotion of first class
and second class telegraphists to appointments superior to the first
class of telegraphists, but inferior to the position of assistant
superintendent, had been more rapid in 1891 to 1895, than it had been
in 1881 to 1890.
In 1895, Mr. Nicholson, Chairman London Branch of the Postal Telegraph
Clerks' Association, appeared before the Tweedmouth Committee to voice
the grievance of the first class and second class telegraphists, which
was, that the rate of promotion from the second class and first class
had decreased, as shown by the fact that there was only one senior
telegraphist to each ten first class and second class telegraphists.
Mr. Nicholson contended that the increase of telegraphic messages
consequent upon the introduction of the charge of 12 cents for 12
words had necessitated the creation of a new class, the second
class superintendents; and that the first class and second class
telegraphists had a right to demand that they should derive benefit
from that increase of traffic and that necessity of creating a new
class of officers. That the Department's failure to fill the vacancies
created in the senior class of telegraphists by promotions to the
class of second class superintendents, had deprived the first class
and second class telegraphists of all advantage arising out of the
creation of a new class of officers, the second class assistant
superintendents.[376]
[Sidenote: _Right to Fixed Rate of Promotion_]
The nature of the claim made by the Chairman London Branch of the
Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association is forcibly illustrated by the
following incident from the proceedings of the Royal Commission
on Civil Establishments, 1888. Mr. H. A. Davies, the official
representative of the clerks in the Receiver and Accountant General's
Office of the General Post Office, had made a similar demand on behalf
of the men whom he represented. The Chairman asked him: "Does a man
enter the public service on the assumption that all the upper places
are to remain the same as when he enters.... If you and I enter the
public service finding a certain Department, the Post Office or any
other, with twenty posts above to which we had a reasonable hope, if we
behaved well, and showed merit; if administrative reform takes away
five of these posts, are we entitled to compensation, because that is
what it [your allegation of grievance] comes to? Can you say, there
being no contract whatever between me and the State when I entered
the office as a clerk, no contract whatever that I should attain to
a higher post, except when there is a vacancy, that I have a claim
[to compensation] when administrative reform takes away some of the
other places?" The spokesman of the Post Office clerks replied: "If
I were defending that [position] to Parliament, I think I should say
that the country has a certain duty toward men who, when they entered
the service, had, judging by the precedents of their office, a fair
prospect of reasonable promotion, and that if any economy is effected
by subsequent administrative reforms, the sufferers deserve some
consideration."[377]
* * * * *
From 1885 to 1888 Mr. Lawson, M. P.,[378] was a Member of the Royal
Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments. In
March, 1889, he intervened in the administration of the Post Office
by asking the Postmaster General how many vacancies there were in the
first class of telegraphists at the Central Telegraph Office, London;
how long those vacancies had been open, and whether the Postmaster
General had received a petition from the second class telegraphists for
their promotion; and whether there was anything to prevent him from
complying with the request. The Postmaster General replied that on
January 1, 1889, there had been 53 vacancies. "To thirty-four of those
vacancies I have made promotions within the last few days; and this,
practically, is an answer to the petition of December, 1888."[379] The
reader will recall that in February, 1888, Mr. Lawson had intervened on
behalf of a letter carrier who had been dismissed in 1882. In 1889 to
1892, and 1897 to 1904, Mr. Lawson was a Member of the London County
Council.
In June, 1902, Mr. Hay, M. P.,[380] asked the Postmaster General,
through the Financial Secretary to the Treasury: "With reference to
the fact that the proportion of appointments above $800 a year in the
Central Telegraph Office, London, now bears the same relation to the
staff below that salary as during the period when the circular [1881 to
1891] was issued promising a prospect of $950, whether he is aware that
during the years 1882 to 1892 the proportion was one appointment above
$800 to 5.5 below [that salary], and that the proportion at the present
time is one appointment above $800 to 6.4 below; and, seeing that this
difference of proportion represents nearly forty appointments, above
$800, whether he will take steps to readjust that proportion on the
basis of 1 to 5.5?"[381] In 1906, Mr. Hay was made a member of the
Select Committee on Post Office Servants.
In April and in August, 1902, Captain Norton asked the Postmaster
General, through the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to appoint
so many additional senior telegraphists that it should no longer be
necessary to call on men in the class below to act as substitutes
for the senior telegraphists who were taking their annual leave of
one month.[382] In 1906, Captain Norton became a Junior Lord of the
Treasury in the Sir Campbell-Bannerman Ministry.
In February, 1902, Mr. Plummer[383] stated that at Newcastle-on-Tyne
thirty-eight telegraphists, who had, on an average, served 27 years
each, were waiting for promotion. "Will the Postmaster General
facilitate promotion by enforcing in the future the Civil Service
Regulation with reference to retirement[384] at the age of sixty
years?" Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Financial Secretary to the Treasury,
replied: "The Postmaster General would not feel justified in
enforcing the retirement of any efficient officers for the purpose
of accelerating the promotion of others." On August 1, 1902, Captain
Norton repeated the request.[385]
On November 24, 1902, Mr. O'Brien asked the Postmaster to create more
rapid promotion at Liverpool by retiring all men who had qualified for
the maximum pension [two-thirds of salary], irrespective of the fitness
of such men to continue to serve.[386]
On June 19, 1902, Mr. Keir Hardie asked the Secretary to the Treasury,
as representing the Postmaster General: "Whether he will state the
special qualifications which necessitate the retention in the Postal
service of the assistant superintendent, Mr. Napper, and the inspector,
Mr. Graham, at the West Central District Office, after reaching 60
years of age; and if the probable date of retirement can be given?"
On July 28, 1902, Mr. Keir Hardie asked: "If he will state what are
the special qualifications which necessitate the retention of the
inspector, Mr. E. Stamp, at the North Western District Office, after
attaining the age of 60 years; and if he can give the probable date of
this officer's retirement?"[387]
Any officer who is retired with a pension, on account of ill health,
before he is sixty years of age, may, if he recovers his health, be
recalled to duty at the discretion of the head of his Department or of
the Treasury. Under such circumstances the officer receives the salary
of his new office and so much of his pension as shall be sufficient
to make his total income equal to the original pension. Under the
foregoing rule two officers were made respectively postmaster at
Bristol and postmaster at Hastings.
Before the Tweedmouth Committee, Mr. Uren, President of the
Postmasters' Association, protested against such "blocking of some
of the best offices by pensioners.... Here are two good offices,
one with $4,000 a year, and the other with $2,750, which are taken
up by pensioners who recover their health, and so block a line of
promotion.... I only mention these as the two most recent cases with
which this sort of thing has happened, but they are not the only
occasions by a good many, which I am instructed to bring before your
Committee as a fair subject for consideration." Mr. Crosse, another
witness, added: "The Postal Clerks' Association also desire to
endorse the evidence put forward by the Postmasters' Association as
to the anomaly and injustice of certain postmasters being retained
in the service who are in the receipt of pension and salary from the
Department."[388]
[Sidenote: _Mechanical Equality Demanded_]
Prior to August, 1891, the postmen of metropolitan London were divided
into two classes: the second class, with wages rising from $4.50 a week
to $6, by annual increments of $0.25 a week; and the first class, with
wages rising from $6 a week, to $7.50, by annual increments of $0.25
a week. In consequence of the rapid growth of the postal business,
however, the postmen frequently passed through the second class into
the first class, not in six years, but in from two to five years. But
the rate of promotion from the second class into the first differed
materially in the several metropolitan branch offices, because of the
unequal growth of business at those several offices. That inequality of
promotion violated the ideal[389] of the civil servants, which is, that
all should fare alike; and therefore, the postmen demanded that the
division into two classes be abolished, and that every postman should
rise, by stated annual increments, from the initial wage of $4.50 to
the final wage of $7.50. But the abolition of classification would put
an end to the possibility of those rapid passings through the stages
between $4.50 and $6 that had been of frequent occurrence in the past
in some of the metropolitan branch offices. By way of compensation for
the loss of that chance the postmen demanded that the annual increment
be increased beyond $0.25 a week.
The Department, in August, 1891, abolished the classification of the
postmen, but it refused to raise the annual increment. It said that
the rapid promotion from $4.50 to $6 that had characterized the past
had been an accident, that it had not been foreseen, and that the men
who had entered the service while it had obtained had not acquired a
vested right to it. In 1896 the men who had been postmen prior to the
abolition of classification appeared before the Tweedmouth Committee
with the statement that they "were under the impression that it was an
official principle that no individual should suffer by the introduction
of a new scale of promotion or wages." They demanded compensation for
the fact that they had lost, in 1891, the possibility of passing in
less than the regular time from the wage of $4.50 to that of $6. They
stated that they were prepared to show that "they had suffered material
pecuniary loss ... amounting in some cases to about $500."[390] All
of which goes to show that in the British Post Office service the
abolition of a grievance can in turn become a grievance.
[Sidenote: _Equality, not Opportunity_]
Before the Tweedmouth Committee appeared also the representatives
of the telegraphers, to demand the abolition of the division of the
telegraphers into classes, with promotion by merit between the classes.
They demanded amalgamation into a single class, in which each one
should pass automatically from the minimum pay to the maximum, provided
he was not arrested by the efficiency bar, to be placed at $800 a
year. Mr. E. B. L. Hill, Assistant Secretary, General Post Office,
London, began his discussion of this demand by quoting with approval
the conclusion of the Telegraph Committee of 1893, which was: "We have
taken great pains to investigate this matter. Almost without exception
the provincial postmasters and telegraph superintendents were opposed
to an amalgamation of the classes, and gave the strongest testimony
to the value of the present division [into classes] as a means of
discouraging indifference, and encouraging zeal and efficiency. We
think ... that for purposes of discipline it is desirable to maintain
the division of the establishment into two classes." Mr. Hill continued
by saying that in the course of the last three or four years he had
changed his opinion, and had come to the conclusion that amalgamation
into one class must come. "The staff seems to desire, first of all,
equality, and the abolition of classification seems to insure the
fulfillment of that wish. At the same time classification is a valuable
incentive to exertion and efficiency...."[391]
[Sidenote: _Opportunities Rejected; Increased Pay Demanded_]
In 1896 the proportion borne by the supervising officers above the rank
of first class sorting clerks to the total staff of sorting clerks
was 18.85 per cent., whereas the proportion borne by the officers
above the rank of first class telegraphists to the total staff was
12.59 per cent. At the same time the proportion borne by the first
class clerks to the total of first and second class clerks was 20.17
per cent. on the postal side of the service, and 24.64 per cent. on
the telegraph side. In other words, the chances of promotion to a
supervising position are much better in the postal branch than in the
telegraph branch; so much so, that to an able and energetic man, the
postal branch is more attractive than the telegraph branch, even though
the chances of reaching a first class clerkship are somewhat better in
the telegraph branch than in the postal branch. But the letter sorting
clerk's work is more irksome than the work of the telegraphist, and
therefore "the telegraphists are usually reluctant, notwithstanding the
better prospects of promotion, to accept work on the postal side." For
example, in the four years ending with 1896, only ten telegraphists at
Birmingham had themselves transferred to the postal side, and three of
those ten had themselves re-transferred to the instrument room, because
the work on the postal side proved too hard for them. Again, on March
6, 1896, Mr. Harley, the postmaster at Manchester, issued the following
notice: "I should like to afford an opportunity to telegraphists in
this office of becoming acquainted with letter sorting duties, and,
with this view, if a sufficient number of officers apply, I will
arrange an evening duty of from 2 to 3 hours in the sorting office for
a month in every three, such duty to form a portion of their 8 hours'
duty. About 50 officers would be required to enable me to carry this
suggestion into effect, and I shall be glad if all officers who are
disposed to avail themselves of this opportunity of acquiring postal
knowledge will submit their names." At the end of three weeks Mr.
Harley had not had a single response, though he had in person explained
to a number of "representative telegraphists the advantage which a
knowledge of postal work would give them."
The telegraphists, as a body, decline to avail themselves of the
opportunities offered them to improve their chances of promotion; none
the less they allege they have a grievance in the fact that their
chances of promotion are not so good as are the chances of the sorting
clerks. They demand that the Post Office redress their grievance,
either by increasing the number of telegraph supervising officers, or
by raising the salaries of the first and second class telegraphists
sufficiently to compensate the telegraphists for their smaller chance
of becoming supervising officers.[392]
[Sidenote: _Parliamentary Intervention_]
The telegraphists even try to bring pressure on the Government to stop
the Post Office from forcing them to learn letter sorting. For example,
in 1896, the Post Office required the telegraphists and sorters
employed in the Oxford Central Post Office to work at the pleasure of
the Oxford postmaster at letter sorting or at telegraphing. The Oxford
telegraph clerks argued that they had contracts with the Government to
work as telegraph operators, and that the Government had no right to
force them either to do sorting, or to suffer transfer to some other
office where the convenience of the Government would not be affected
by their refusal to act as sorters. The clerks kept up their agitation
for years, and in December, 1902, they induced Mr. Samuel,[393] M. P.,
to champion their cause in the House of Commons.[394] Mr. Samuel, in
1895 and 1900, had contested unsuccessfully South Oxfordshire. He took
"First Class Honors" at Oxford, and he has published: _Liberalism,
Its Principles and Purposes_. In 1906, Mr. Samuel became Under Home
Secretary in the Campbell-Bannerman Ministry.
In June, 1904, Mr. William Jones asked the Postmaster General:
"Whether he is aware that for some time past endeavors have been made
to compel the telegraph staff at Oxford to perform postal duties, and
that they have been informed that they would be removed compulsorily
to other offices in the event of the men declining to perform those
duties; and whether, in view of the declaration of previous Postmasters
General, that telegraphists who had entered the service before 1896
are exempt from the performance of postal work, he will explain the
reasons for his action?" Lord Stanley, Postmaster General, replied:
"The telegraph work at Oxford has of late considerably fallen off
[in consequence of the competition from the telephone], and there is
consequently not sufficient work to keep the officers in the telegraph
office fully occupied. Their services have therefore been utilized
for the benefit of the Department in such manner as the exigencies
of the service require. All officers of the Department are expected
loyally to perform any work required of them which they are capable
of undertaking; and unless some means can be found of utilizing
the services of redundant telegraphists at the offices where they
are at present employed, a transfer to another office is the only
alternative."[395] Mr. Jones had sat in Parliament since 1895. He is a
private tutor at Oxford; has been assistant schoolmaster at Anglesey;
and has served under the London School Board.[396]
Within ten days of the Jones episode, Mr. Dobbie,[397] who had just
been sent to Parliament to represent Ayr Burghs, Scotland, intervened
on behalf of the Glasgow Post Office clerks, who objected to being
compelled to do dual duties.[398] At about the same time Mr. Henderson,
who, before entering Parliament, had been a Member of the Newcastle
Town Council, intervened on behalf of one Chandler, a sorting clerk
and telegraphist at Middlesbrough, who had been informed that his
increment would be withheld because of his ignorance of telegraphy. The
Postmaster General replied: "All the circumstances of his case have
already been examined more than once both by my predecessor and myself,
and I am quite satisfied that he has received proper treatment."[399]
In October, 1906, Mr. Parker, M. P., intervened on behalf of some
telegraph clerks at Halifax who were being made to sort letters.[400]
The Bradford Committee on Post Office Wages, 1904, reported: "... it
was pointed out that in the larger offices promotion is better on the
Postal side.... This is admitted, though we understand that it is open
to any telegraphists to acquire a knowledge of Postal business, and
so qualify for promotion on either side. It is found that this is not
done, however, as the men prefer the Telegraph work to the more irksome
Postal duties."
[Sidenote: _Sundry Vested Rights_]
The Post Office gives those counter men of London and Dublin who
receive or pay money over the counter, a risk allowance, for the
purpose of reimbursing them for any errors that they may make in
dealing with the public. No such allowance is given to the postal
clerks in any other city; nor are such allowances paid by railway
companies or other private employers. Upon the provincial Post Office
clerks making a demand for equal treatment with the London and Dublin
clerks, the Department decided to discontinue the allowances in London
and Dublin "as to future entrants to the postal service," and under
"the most sacred preservation of all existing interests."[401] The
Tweedmouth Committee endorsed this resolution, with the statement that
"the rights of existing holders of risk allowances should, of course,
in all cases be maintained."
The Tweedmouth Committee suggested a new scale of pay for the several
kinds of letter sorters in London. That new scale was suggested for two
reasons: for the purpose of discontinuing the complex system of special
allowances that had sprung up; and for the purpose of reducing the pay
of several classes of sorters, the existing scale of payment being too
high. The Committee proposed that all existing rights be safeguarded,
saying: "Present holders of allowances should enter the [new] scale
of salary at a point equal to their previous salary and allowances
combined, and wherever the maximum of the present scale together with
the allowances exceeds the maximum of the new scale, that, but no
further excess, should be granted."[402]
The Tweedmouth Committee also reported: "We think that the holidays of
the Dublin and Edinburgh [telegram] tracers should for the future be 14
week days, the same period as London men performing the same duties,
instead of 3 weeks as at present, the change as to holidays of course
not applying to present members of the class."[403]
The Tweedmouth Committee concluded that the holidays given to the
letter sorters and the telegraphists in London and in the provincial
towns were excessive. It proposed that the annual vacation of 21 week
days during the first 5 years of service and of one month after 5 years
of service, be reduced, to respectively 14 week days and 21 week days.
It added: "It is not, however, suggested that this change should apply
to those officers already in the service who receive a leave of 3 weeks
during the first 5 years, nor is it proposed to curtail the leave
granted to those officers who have already served 5 years, and are,
therefore, in enjoyment of a month's holiday."[404]
Before the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, 1888, Sir
Reginald E. Welby, Secretary to the Treasury, testified that throughout
the Civil Service the Upper Division Clerks had 48 working days'
vacation a year, besides the usual holidays. He said that but for
custom, which had become "almost common law," there was no reason for
giving such a "very liberal" annual vacation. But he added that any
change should be made to apply only to future entrants to the public
service.[405]
In 1892 the Department increased from 21 week days, to one calendar
month, the annual leave of all men in the Central Post Office, London,
who were in receipt of $750 a year, or more. In the following year,
1893, the Department gave the same increase to men with $750 a year, or
more, in the branch offices of Metropolitan London, and in the offices
of the provincial towns. In 1895 the representatives of the men who had
not obtained the increase of annual leave until 1893, appeared before
the Tweedmouth Committee with the demand for ten days' pay by way of
compensation for the fact that, in 1892, they had "lost ten days."[406]
The tenacity with which the civil servants resist any change in
the conditions of service that is to their advantage, is further
illustrated by the following incidents.
Down to 1880, the overseers in the postal service, who are on their
feet all day, had one day a week of relief from duty. In 1880 that
allowance was reduced to half a day; and in 1893 it was discontinued
altogether. In each case the change was made to apply only to the
future entrants upon the office of overseer. In 1896 the new entrants
upon the office still were complying under protest only with the
requirement of the Department that they sign a paper stating that they
were not entitled to any weekly "relief leave of absence."[407]
There are four Monday Bank Holidays in the year; and for several
years prior to 1892, the Telegraph Branch, as an act of grace, gave
a Saturday holiday to those "news distributors" whose services could
be spared on the Saturdays preceding Monday Bank Holidays. In 1892 it
ceased to be possible to continue this act of grace without employing
men on over-time, and therefore the practice was discontinued. In
1896 the news distributors complained before the Tweedmouth Committee
that the withdrawal of "the days of grace was a grievance with which
they would like the Committee to grapple." The spokesman of the news
distributors said: "After having enjoyed the privilege for [several]
years it was withdrawn, an arbitrary course, almost, it is thought,
without precedent. To grant a privilege, and then take it away,
displayed a lamentable want of that courtesy that we think should be
inseparable qualities of power and position."[408]
[Sidenote: _Intervention by Members of Parliament_]
In June, 1904, Mr. Shackleton[409] intervened in the House of Commons
on behalf of some men in the Liverpool Post Office, whose grievance was
that an interval of 15 minutes, given as "an act of grace," had been
reduced to 10 minutes.[410]
In July, 1905, Mr. James O'Connor, M. P. for Wicklow, intervened in a
similar matter on behalf of the men at the London West Central District
Office.[411]
* * * * *
Before the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, 1888, Sir Lyon
Playfair was asked whether it would not be better to replace by boy
clerks the "writers" employed in the past. Sir Lyon replied: "I think
that would be better for the civil service and better for the boy
clerks themselves. Of course, regard should be had to the writers
who are employed now, and the change should be made by not taking
on more, and not by dispensing with those that are now employed." A
moment before, Sir Lyon Playfair had been asked: "The writers are now
a very large and very important body in the public service, are they
not?" He had replied: "Yes, and they make you feel their largeness
and importance by Parliamentary pressure."[412] Sir Lyon Playfair had
been Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service which had
sat from 1875 to 1876; and he had been the author of the Playfair
Reorganization of the civil service in 1876.
Before the Committee on Civil Services Expenditure, 1873, Mr. W. E.
Baxter, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said: ... "but I may say
at once in regard to the matter of the travelling expenses of county
court judges, that I think the whole thing has hitherto been in such
an unsatisfactory state that it would be very difficult to defend the
action of the Treasury in various matters connected with it." Thereupon
Mr. West, a Member of the Committee, queried: "Acting in accordance
with that view last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer endeavored
to reform the system as to existing judges and as to future judges,
did he not?... Is that reform being now pursued with regard to the
existing judges?" The Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied:
"Not in regard to existing judges. I have always been of opinion that
it is very difficult to go back upon arrangements which have been made
in the past, however injurious to the public service and uneconomical
they may have been, and that it would be better for economists [persons
desiring to effect economy] to direct their attention to preventing
new arrangements of a similar character."[413]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _Unbusinesslike Spirit Further Illustrated_]
The thoroughly unbusinesslike spirit of the postal employees is
illustrated still further in the following "grievance" laid before the
Tweedmouth Committee by the official representatives of the postal
employees, who spoke, not as individuals, but as the instructed
representatives of their respective classes of public servants.
Mr. G. McDonald presented the grievance of the "news distributors,"
who "are the picked men of the Telegraph Service, chosen on the ground
of exceptional merit." He complained that there was not sufficient
opportunity for promotion, since [the automatic] promotion was limited
to postmasterships worth from $1,000 to $1,250 a year, and there were
not enough postmasterships of that kind. Mr. McDonald admitted that
men under 35 years "by competitive examination," could rise out of the
class of News Distributors to surveyors' clerkships; but he argued that
since such promotion was attained by competitive examination, "it must
be credited to the man himself who wins his position, and I therefore
beg to suggest that it cannot count as promotion in the ordinary
sense."[414]
Another grievance of the News Distributors was that they were not
"treated and classed" as Major Division Clerks, though they were paid
on the scale of such clerks. They were compelled to work 48 hours a
week, whereas Major Division Clerks worked only 39 hours a week.[415]
Mr. Alfred Boulden presented the telegraphists' grievances as to
pensions. He demanded that retirement on pension should be optional at
the age of fifty; and that if a man died in harness, such deduction
as had been made from his salary toward the pension fund, should be
paid to his heir-at-law. Mr. H. C. Fischer, Controller London Central
Telegraph Office, replied that "optional retirement at 50 years of age
would result in the more healthy members of the staff retiring at that
age, and seeking other employment to add to their income, leaving the
less healthy and less useful persons to hang on in the service as long
as they could."[416]
Mr. A. W. North presented another grievance, namely, that a female
telegraph clerk can become a female superintendent in 21 years, whereas
a male telegraph clerk can reach the corresponding position only after
27 years of service.[417]
[Sidenote: _The Malingerers' Grievance_]
Mr. J R. Lickfold appeared as the representative of the postal
employees to demand that in the case of an employee having failed to
appear for duty, the Department should accept without any inquiry
whatever the medical certificate of any physician. At this time it was
the practice of the Department to doubt the genuineness of the illness
and the _bona fides_ of a medical certificate only in case "the man had
a bad record for frequent short sick absences," "though it was a well
known fact that private [physicians' as distinguished from departmental
physicians'] certificates could be obtained for 12 cents without even
the doctor seeing the patient, but on a mere statement of his symptoms
from somebody else." In support of this request, Mr. Lickfold, as the
instructed representative of the postal employees, could make no better
argument than to cite the dismissal, early in 1894, of two railway
Post Office sorters, W---- and J----. In the evidence in rebuttal, Mr.
J. C. Badcock, Controller London Postal Service, gave the following
account of the episode in question. W---- and J---- were absent from
duty from January 8 to 11 inclusive. On January 10 they sent in medical
certificates dated the 8th, but the date of one of the certificates had
apparently been changed from the 9th. W----'s landlady testified that
W---- and J---- had returned to W----'s lodgings on the 8th, shortly
after the departure of the mail train, saying that they had missed
the mail, but saying nothing of illness. She added that both men had
been repeatedly at W----'s lodgings on the 8th and 9th. Both W----
and J---- were absent from their lodgings during the greater part of
the three days from the 8th to the 10th. The Post Office inspector
found J---- in bed on the night of the 10th. J---- told him he had
not seen W---- since the 6th, gave evasive answers, and contradicted
himself. The inspector also found W---- on the night of the 10th, and
gave an equally unfavorable report upon W----'s answers. On the 11th,
the Departmental Medical Officer found both men in W----'s room, and
reported there was no reason why both men should not have been on duty
from the 8th to the 10th.
Mr. Spencer Walpole, Permanent Secretary of the Post Office and a
Member of the Committee, said to the witness: "Have you any doubt that
the Department would not have taken the extreme course of dismissing
any of its servants on the divided opinion of two medical men, if there
had been no previous cases against them?... These men are described as
deliberate malingerers?" The Chairman of the Committee added: "Do you
not think it would be wise that before bringing forward a particular
case of this sort, you should inform yourself thoroughly as to the
nature of the case, and as to the character of the men to whom you
refer?"[418]
* * * * *
Avery large portion of the evidence presented before the Tweedmouth
Committee, which evidence covered upward of a thousand closely printed
folio pages, affords a melancholy comment upon the theory which is
rapidly spreading from the German Universities over the English
speaking countries, to wit, that the extension of the functions of the
State to the inclusion of business enterprises automatically creates
a public spirit which strengthens the hands of the political leaders
in charge of the State, even to the point of enabling those leaders
to reject the improper demands made upon them by organized bodies of
voters, and to administer the State's business ventures with an eye
single to the welfare of the community as a whole, particularly the
long-run interest of the taxpayers. The so-called Norfolk-Hanbury
compromise, the appointment and Report of the Bradford Committee,
and the appointment, in 1906, of the Select Committee on Post Office
Servants--the last act not having the support, by speech or by vote,
of a single man of first rate importance in the House of Commons--are
melancholy instances of what that most discerning of statesmen, the
late Marquis of Salisbury, used to call "the visible helplessness of
Governments."
FOOTNOTES:
[363] _Third Report from the Select Committee on Civil Services
Expenditure_, 1873; q. 4,641 and 4,418.
[364] That is, the claim to additional pay for seven hours' work.
[365] That is, the Civil Service Inquiry Commission, 1875-76, of which
Sir T. H. Farrer was a member.
[366] _Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into
the Civil Establishments_, 1888; q. 10,545 and following, and 20,043
and following.
[367] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 13,279, 13,301 and following.
[368] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, November 21, 1902, p. 147.
[369] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 16, 1897, p. 352. Mr. R.
W. Hanbury, Financial Secretary to the Treasury and representing the
Postmaster General: "But there were in the senior class certain men
who, owing to the fact that they had been promoted by seniority without
passing any examination, were not quite up to the normal average of the
senior class."
The reader will note that in 1890 no effort was made to remove the men
not up to the standard of the senior class. The Government had to await
the retirement or the death of the incompetent men.
[370] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; Mr. H. C. Fischer, Controller London Central
Telegraph Office; q. 2,305.
The examination covers: (1) "Crossing and looping wires with facility
and certainty. (2) Tracing and localizing faults in instruments.
(3) Tracing and localizing permanent and intermittent earth contact
and disconnection faults on wires. (4) Methods of testing the
electro-motive force and resistance of batteries, and a general
knowledge of the essential features of the various descriptions of
batteries. (5) System of morning testing, both as regards sending and
receiving currents, with the necessary calculations in connection
with the same. (6) Making up special circuits in cases of emergency.
(7) Joining up and adjusting single-needle, single-current, and
double-current Morse, both simplex and duplex, and Wheatstone
apparatus. (8) Fitting a Wheatstone transmitter to an ordinary
key-worked circuit. (9) A general knowledge of the principles of
quadruplex and multiplex working. (10) Measuring resistance by
Wheatstone bridge."
These subjects are the same as those prescribed for superintendents and
assistant superintendents, but the examination is less severe.
[371] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; Appendix, p. 1,083.
[372] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; Appendix, p. 1,078; and q. 2,320, Mr. Nicholson,
Chairman London Branch, Postal Telegraph Clerks Association. See also:
q. 3,919, 4,135, 13,333, 13,344, 13,415, 15,142, and Appendix, p. 1,083.
[373] The wages of the sorters of inland letters at the time were: $10
to $14 for the first class, and $4.50 to $10 for the second class.
[374] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; Mr. J. C. Badcock, Controller London Postal
Service; q. 2,190 _et passim_, and Appendix, pp. 1,063 and 1,074.
[375] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 719 and following.
[376] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 2,292 to 2,366, and 3,945 and following.
[377] _Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments_,
1888; q. 20,291 to 20,346.
[378] _Who's Who_, 1905, Lawson, Hon. H. L. W.; Lieutenant-Colonel and
Honorable-Colonel commanding Royal Bucks Hussars; e. s. of 1st Baron
Burnham. Education: Eton; Balliol College, Oxford. M. P. (L.) West St.
Pancras, 1885-92; East Gloucestershire, 1883-95; L. C. C. West St.
Pancras, 1889-92, and Whitechapel, 1897-1904.
[379] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 28, 1889, p. 1,022.
[380] _Who's Who_, 1905, Hay, Honorable C. G. D., M. P. (C.) since
1900; partner in Ramsford & Co., Stock-brokers; founder, manager, and
director of the Fine Art and General Insurance Co., Ltd.
[381] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, June 2, 1902, p. 1,096.
[382] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, April 15, 1902, p. 283; and
August 1, 1902, p. 396.
[383] _Who's Who_, 1905, Plummer, Sir W. R., Kt. cr. 1904; M. P.
(C.) Newcastle-on-Tyne since 1900; merchant; member of City Council;
Director of Newcastle and Gateshead Gas Co.
[384] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, March 25, 1903; Mr. Austen
Chamberlain, Postmaster General: "The regulation is that all
pensionable officers of whatever grade whose conduct, capacity, and
efficiency fall below a fair standard shall be called upon to retire at
sixty; but retirement at sixty is not enforced in the case of officers
whose conduct is good, and who are certified by their superior officers
to be thoroughly efficient."
[385] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, February 4, 1902, and August
1, 1902, p. 396.
[386] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, November 24, 1902, p. 231.
[387] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, June 19, 1902, p. 1,101; and
July 28, 1902, p. 1,346.
[388] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 12,537 to 12,551; and Appendix, p. 1,108. See
also: _Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments_,
1888, p. xxiii; and _Third Report from the Select Committee on Civil
Services Expenditure_, 1873; Mr. R. E. Welby, Principal Clerk for
Financial Business in the Treasury; q. 507 to 515.
[389] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; Mr. E. B. L. Hill, Assistant Secretary General
Post Office, London; q. 15,134.
[390] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; Mr. H. Symes, representative of the London
Postmen; q. 10,115 to 10,197; and Mr. J. C. Badcock, Controller London
Postal Service; q. 11,492.
[391] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 15,134 _et passim_.
[392] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary General
Post Office, London; q. 15,135 to 15,142; Mr. T. D. Venables, General
Secretary Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association; q. 4,620 _et passim_;
and Mr. Jno. Christie, first class telegraphist at Edinburgh; q. 5,117
_et passim_.
[393] _Who's Who_, 1904, Samuel, Herbert, (L.) M. P., Cleveland
Division of N. Riding, Yorkshire, since 1902. Contested unsuccessfully,
South Oxfordshire, 1895 and 1900. Education: University College School;
Balliol College, Oxford. First Class Honors, Oxford, 1893.
[394] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, December 10, 1902, p. 658.
[395] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, June 6, 1904, p. 780.
[396] _Who's Who_, 1905.
[397] At the by-election of January 29, 1904, Mr. Dobbie was elected
by a majority of 44; at the General Election of January, 1906, he was
defeated by 261 votes. The number of electors in the Ayr District is
8,031.
[398] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, June 14, 1904.
[399] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, June 13, 1904.
[400] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, October 29, 1906, p. 669.
[401] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; Mr. E. B. L. Hill, Assistant Secretary General
Post Office, London; q. 15,180; and Mr. S. Walpole, Secretary to the
Post Office; q. 15,274.
[402] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897, p. 11.
[403] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897, p. 18.
[404] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897, p. 8.
[405] _Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments_;
q. 10,590 to 10,595.
[406] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 4,215 and following, and 3,198.
[407] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 3,631 to 3,636, 3,583, and 4,397 and
following.
[408] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 3,037 to 3,060.
[409] _Who's Who_, 1905, Shackleton, D. J., M. P. (Lab.), since 1902.
Secretary of Darwen Weavers' Association; Vice-President of the
Northern Counties Weavers' Amalgamation; Member of Blackburn Chamber of
Commerce.
[410] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, June 6, 1904, p. 779.
[411] _Hansard's Parliamentary Debates_, July 24, 1905, p. 34.
[412] _Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments_,
1888; q. 20,114 and 20,115.
[413] _Third Report from the Committee on Civil Services Expenditure_,
1873; q. 4,729 to 4,731.
[414] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 3,035 and 3,065.
[415] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 2,985 and following, and 3,035 to 3,036.
[416] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 2,777 and following, and Appendix, pp. 1,079
and 1,084.
[417] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 2,576.
[418] _Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office
Establishments_, 1897; q. 671, 660 to 663, and 1897 to 1914.