CONTINUANCE OF TELEGRAPHISTS’ AGITATION—NATURE OF
GRIEVANCES—“TELEGRAPHISTS’ CRAMP”—AN OUTCOME OF THE
SUNDAY QUESTION—THE CARDIFF EXILES—CONDEMNATION OF
POSTMASTER-GENERAL—THE “NO OVERTIME” PROTEST.
For several years after the introduction of the Fawcett scheme in 1881,
the telegraph service had remained in a state of sullen discontent. The
formation of the Postal Telegraph Clerks’ Association in the December
of the same year in which Mr. Fawcett introduced his measure, did much
to keep alive, for the next ten years, the memory of their wrongs.
The grievances of the telegraph clerks, notwithstanding Mr. Fawcett’s
intention, were still so numerous and so genuine, that on the face of
it it seemed questionable whether it had brought them any benefit worth
speaking of at all. The same measure of relief which the sorters were
clamouring for and agitating because, as they thought, it was being
withheld from them, was, from its very inadequacy to meet the justice
of their demands, the main cause of discontent among the telegraphists.
What the sorters thought it would be a boon to get in its entirety,
the telegraphists were now discontented with; and not only were they
discontented with the scheme itself for the reasons already shown, but
that discontent was still further promoted by the systematic manner
in which its few benefits were minimised in their application. The
majority of telegraphists were still compelled to bolster up their meagre
incomes by means of extra duty, and they were still, after all their
agitation, face to face with the hated system of classification and all
its attendant evils, irregularity and stagnation of promotion. Since
the introduction of the Fawcett scheme the quality and value of their
work had greatly improved, while their duties had become yearly more
arduous and responsible. Their hours of duty were longer and far more
irregular, the pay was insufficient, and daily growing more so when the
cost of living and rent was considered, and their privileges were fewer
than ever. The few prizes offered by the Fawcett scheme, the few higher
promotions from their ranks to the supervising and superintending staff,
brought no comfort or satisfaction to the hungry and underpaid army of
the lower ranks. Even the overtime, the one means by which they could
set up a barrier between themselves and actual want, which, indeed, they
were forced to accept to preserve their respectability, was badly paid
for and unjustly distributed. Owing to the constant fluctuation in the
amount of work, the telegraphists were frequently required to perform
overtime at a minute’s notice at almost all hours of the day and night.
Overtime became morally and officially compulsory, and it was only by
means of it that they could earn a respectable income. In the same manner
that the postmen’s Christmas-boxes were used against them as a means of
keeping down their wages, so was compulsory overtime, paid for at slender
rates, forced on the telegraphists in extension of their nominal eight
hours’ day. The confining of a day’s work to eight hours, even had it
been allowable, would for the vast majority have spelt privation and
poverty. So that a decent week’s earnings, representing what is now known
and accepted as a decent living wage, meant for the telegraphist, not the
working week of eight hours’ days, but a week of twelve, fourteen, and
more hours daily. The extensive and increasing use of code and cipher
messages requiring the most delicate discrimination in transmission,
the many added responsibilities, the strain on the mental faculties and
nervous system continued and sustained during these long working hours,
caused in many cases premature breakdown and too early superannuation.
An analysis of the superannuation report for 1885-86 showed that of
the total number of telegraph clerks pensioned during that period no
less than fifty per cent. were compelled to retire at a comparatively
early age, owing to affections of the brain and nervous system induced
by the constant strain. These facts alone were sufficient to notify the
existence of discontent among them. But there were other grievances too
numerous to be catalogued, generally speaking, although Mr. Fawcett had
enunciated the principle of payment for work according to its quality.
The adoption of the Fawcett scheme was made the medium for greatly
adding to the responsibilities of juniors, while imposing on the seniors
supervising duties hitherto paid for at a higher rate. They felt that
the value and quality of their work was far from accurately measured by
the department. Whether their work consisted of transmitting ordinary
messages in the ordinary manner, or the selected duties appertaining to
special events, such as race meetings, political speeches, &c., in which
rapid and accurate manipulation was essential, they were all too poorly
recompensed and too little regarded.
These things are mentioned to show that it was not merely a love of
agitation for itself that animated the telegraphists at this period.
To fully recount their grievances, it would be necessary to go into a
mass of technical detail that would only confuse, and no better convince
than the few general facts recorded. Added to all this, there was much
dissatisfaction regarding the holiday question. The annual leave was
distributed throughout the year, so that many went for years without
a summer holiday, while for the loss of Bank holidays there was no
equivalent given. Then, again, the conditions and environments of their
work were not everything to be desired. There was, too, such a thing as
“telegraphists’ cramp,” analogous to writers’ cramp, which the growing
pressure of telegraph work had introduced among the operators. True, it
was not of very frequent occurrence, but it was something to be reckoned
with, and no man knew when his turn might come. Telegraphists’ cramp, it
appears, is a nerve-wringing, brain-torturing malady, varying in degree
of intensity. In one individual it may be confined to simply the nervous
inability to signal particular letters, in itself a fatal defect in a
telegraphist. Whatever be the pathological explanation of this very
curious nervous phenomenon, it undoubtedly affects telegraphists more or
less, and is something to be feared, more particularly in its ultimate
results. It is a malady of such a peculiar nature that those to the eye
physically able yet may be absolute wrecks as regards their nerves and
the operation of signalling particular things.
Such, then, were the grievances under which the telegraphists laboured
between 1881 and 1890. During the interval of that eight or nine years
there was, of course, a plethora of petitions and applications for
interviews; there were public meetings, a few suspensions here and there,
inflammatory speeches, annual conferences, and more or less sympathetic
notices in the press of their doings. But there was nothing actually
achieved by the agitation so far. Some splendid individual efforts were
made, however, meanwhile; and the names of Hughes, most prominent during
1884, North, Norman, and others, will long be remembered as men who
fearlessly led the van when it was a perilous and delicate task to do so.
The individual efforts of these men did much to secure the co-operation
of Parliamentary friends and public men, and among those whose services
were so secured may be mentioned Sir John Puleston, Mr. Henry Broadhurst,
and Mr. Charles Bradlaugh. Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, it will be remembered,
did much to promote the earlier postal agitation of 1872-74, and he
once more came on the scene to help the telegraphists as he had helped
the letter-carriers. He later identified himself particularly with the
question of payment for Sunday labour for telegraphists. It was left
to Mr. Charles Bradlaugh in the House to take the ballot for a direct
motion, and it is not too much to say that it was owing to the number
of promises procured by him to vote for this special motion that it
was prevented from becoming a very close one. He procured the promises
of many Conservatives as well as the bulk of the Liberal party. The
Postmaster-General, after first previously declining to grant this Sunday
concession, as the result gave in, and the victory of this question was
complete. Altogether too much gratitude cannot be given to Mr. Bradlaugh
for the manner in which he generally worked for the telegraphists at this
time.
There was a deal of work, a laying-in of stores and ammunition for
future use, a deal of speech-making, letter-writing to M.P.’s, and a
general tightening-up of the telegraphists’ forces. But there was no
immediate and actual benefit secured, and nothing of an exciting nature
worthy of being recorded as an event till 1889-90. The telegraph staff,
in common with the rest of Government servants, had been cajoled into
the belief that the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments would come
to afford them some relief, or at least listen to their plaint. Much of
the work in which they had latterly been engaged was occupied in the
preparation of evidence for this expected inquiry. The disappointment
that ensued only gave a stronger impetus to the agitation, and from
theorising and pursuing debating-society methods they adopted a firmer
and more aggressive attitude. As with the letter-sorters, they found
that the evidence they had prepared and the weight of facts they had
accumulated, so far from being waste material and a deadweight, came in
very useful now for powder and shot with which to enforce their demands.
What was regarded as an unduly harsh interference with the right
of combination at Cardiff some little time afterwards, tended very
considerably to arouse the fighting spirit in them, and to bring things
to the climax of an open struggle. It was only necessary at this juncture
to give the telegraphists a few martyrs to emphasise their grievances,
and arouse them to action.
In the August of 1889 a disgraceful state of affairs appears to have
existed at Cardiff, telegrams being frequently seriously delayed owing
to want of sufficient staff. A paragraph appeared in a local paper, the
_Western Mail_, complaining of the delay. On this editorial peg, numerous
articles, leaders, and letters were hung, till the whole correspondence
assumed voluminous proportions. The Cardiff telegraphists, from this
realising a sense of their injustice, commenced agitating by meeting
and petitions. They complained of the undermanning of the staff and
consequent overworking; the insanitary condition of the office itself;
the fact that Cardiff was one of the worst classified offices in the
kingdom; that supervisors had to perform instrument work to the neglect
of their proper duties; that they were punished for errors unavoidably
due to lack of supervision; favouritism, non-payment of Sunday duty,
and sundry minor grievances. In consequence of representations made by
Sir John Reed, M.P., a revision took place, and most of the cause of
complaint was removed. So far, so good. But a sequel was to come. In the
following November, the Postmaster-General, Mr. Raikes, was announced
to attend a Church Congress in the neighbourhood, and he telegraphed
to a certain colonel at Llandaff, stating his intention to arrive at a
certain time. Through the medium of the acting postmaster, so it was
alleged, this piece of news found its way into the _South Wales Daily
News_. The Postmaster-General on learning this took a very severe view
of the case, and in consequence the official was compelled to retire
from the service. While the Postmaster-General was in the Principality
a number of the Cardiff staff requested him to receive an interview
on the vexed question of Sunday work at that office. This resolve was
communicated to several provincial offices, and the result was that some
thirty telegrams were received, asking him to receive the deputation on
the general question. The Postmaster-General promised the Cardiff staff
that he would consider. Mr. Raikes, however, left the town early next
morning, and the Cardiff men were left disappointed. Further, the various
provincial offices, which had sent the telegrams in all good faith, were
soon afterwards called on to apologise for their conduct. Appointments
becoming due at the Cardiff office, eight of the men eligible were
informed by the surveyor that they would receive the higher appointments
only on the condition that they proved that they did not write the
paragraph which had appeared in the _Western Mail_, complaining of the
delay of telegrams. Failing this negative proof of their innocence, or
their inability to name the person who made public what was now held to
be a secret communication, the promotions would be withheld, and they
would be transported. As this punishment of transportation to other
distant towns where they were strangers meant the breaking-up of their
homes, and the severance of family ties and friendly relationships, the
telegraphists concerned felt they were the victims of injustice. They
were informed that the transference would be made within eight hours; and
in this short time were compelled to make what arrangement they could
for the future, not even knowing to what distant part of the kingdom
they would be severally deported. They, against whom nothing more than a
suspicion rested of having communicated an innocent item of news, were
actually transferred, with little time for leave-taking, next day. They
were sent away to various offices. On the night that the first two were
ordered away the staff held an impromptu meeting, and the places of the
eight men who formed the secretaries and committee of the local branch of
the association were filled up. But these officers were also, as soon as
it was known, promptly given orders to hold themselves in readiness for
transference. It has to be noted here, that Sunday pay was at the time
an important item in the general programme, and these men at Cardiff had
prepared to urge it strongly; for it was not till some months later that,
through the instrumentality of Mr. Bradlaugh in the House of Commons, the
question was settled in their favour.
The despotic treatment meted out to the Cardiff men induced Sir E. J.
Reed, M.P., to take up their case in real earnest. For the supposed
dereliction of duty they were to be penalised by the loss of a £25
increment, besides being packed off to unknown regions within a few
hours. Besides Sir E. J. Reed, other influential public men took the
matter up, and the case of the Cardiff “exiles” commanded some attention
in the House. But the Postmaster-General was not to be moved by any
argument, and contended that it was not intended as punishment, and was
ultimately for the men’s own good. Yet while it had been stated that the
men were transferred for no other reason than that of communicating this
piece of information to the local paper, the First Lord of the Treasury,
in reply to Mr. Hanbury in June 1888, distinctly stated that such
communications could not be considered as an offence against departmental
regulations. So that if Mr. Raikes’s treatment was not arbitrary, it was
inconsistent. It was doubly inconsistent, seeing that a higher postal
official, and not a telegraphist in the first instance, had been accused
and made to leave the service for this so-called offence.
The case of the Cardiff “martyrs,” as they were called, produced a very
strong feeling against the Postmaster-General amongst the telegraphists;
and principally because of this they could not be induced to share that
good opinion held of him by the sorters. And in truth it must be said
that the Postmaster-General’s conduct towards both the letter-carriers
and the telegraphists at this period contrasted somewhat strangely with
the leniency and indulgence shown towards the sorting staff, and the
facilities offered the latter for promoting a constitutional agitation.
Certainly the sorters’ agitation was conducted with great caution and
very little heat, while it has to be allowed that, however Mr. Raikes may
have been convinced of the existence of grievances generally throughout
the service, the over-zeal of the letter-carriers, and the importunities
of the telegraphists in some quarters, may have caused him to draw
invidious distinctions.
All the evidence and all the circumstances of the Cardiff case tend
to show that Mr. Raikes, by some unaccountable means, was induced
to commit an unworthy blunder, which helped to render him extremely
unpopular with the telegraph service. The ebullition of feeling, openly
and widely expressed by public meeting everywhere among the London
and provincial telegraphists, and sympathetically reported by the
press, so far convinced Mr. Raikes that he had made a mistake, that he
afterwards modified his charge against the Cardiff men. This incident, in
conjunction with other things, helped very considerably to tighten the
sinews of the organisation. And in the meantime, while indignation at the
inquisitorial treatment of their Cardiff brethren was at its height, the
London telegraphists, who hitherto had been but loosely hanging on to
the skirts of the Postal Telegraph Clerks’ Association, closed up their
ranks, and on December 17, 1889, went over in a solid and enthusiastic
body. Great was the rejoicing when the London men definitely joined hands
with the provinces. The accession of 7500 Metropolitan men was certainly
something to be jubilant over.
With the fresh reinforcements everywhere, the tide of indignation and
dissatisfaction spread over the United Kingdom. For two months nearly,
each day saw some expression of the feeling which had taken possession
of the telegraph service, and some of the papers discerned all the
preparations for an early strike among telegraphists everywhere. It
became not a question of Cardiff particularly, but one in which the whole
telegraph service was involved and identified with. From Land’s End to
John o’ Groats there was an eruptive unrest; and the whole press of
the country—Liberal and Tory, Radical and Independent—was kept busy in
recording the utterances and commenting on the doings of telegraphists
in meeting assembled everywhere. The Postmaster-General was inundated
with a steady flow of petitions from every quarter; and besides being
heckled from within the service and without, in the press and on the
platform, Mr. Raikes experienced a very lively time of it in the
House of Commons. There can be little doubt that during this busy and
exciting period, with newspaper censure hurled at him from everywhere,
and threats and prognostications of direful postal strikes filling the
air, the Postmaster-General must have been far more severely punished
than the victims of his mistake, the martyrs of Cardiff. This kind of
thing lasted unceasingly till April 15, 1890, when the whole question of
telegraphists’ grievances was ventilated in the House of Commons by Earl
Compton. Earl Compton minutely traversed the ground of their grievances,
and was ably supported; but Mr. Raikes defended his administration to
the satisfaction of the House, and the motion was in due course lost by
thirty-nine votes.
But although the telegraphists’ case was defeated, it was manifest that
the matter could not long rest where it was. The feeling by this time
was too strained and too acute to be allayed by an official refusal. All
the dormant energies of the telegraphists were put forth, and grievances
which had remained quiescent and unexpressed for years now loudly
demanded redress and readjustment.
Immediately after the defeat of Earl Compton’s motion in the House, Mr.
Raikes promulgated a new order restricting the right of public meeting
outside the Post-Office. The acute stage at which the telegraphists’
agitation had now arrived was contemporaneous with the trouble among
the postmen. The growing aggressiveness of the two postal bodies, the
telegraphists and the postmen, and the free use they were making
of public meeting, induced the Postmaster-General to restrict their
freedom in this respect by reviving Lord Stanley’s order of 1866.
What, however, was a restriction in the case of the telegraphists was
a distinct concession to the postal branches of the service, and the
sorters especially, who had hitherto been compelled to meet inside
Post-Office buildings, greatly appreciated the wider liberty. What in the
circumstances was regarded by the sorters as a boon and a concession was,
after the wider liberty enjoyed by the telegraphists, regarded by them as
a direct attempt on personal rights, and the introduction of terrorism
and espionage. And after the assertion of the right of outside public
meeting by the postmen, this view was fully shared by them. Indeed, it
was the introduction of this restrictive rule that afforded a further
excuse for the Postmen’s Union resorting to extreme methods. In so
regarding it, the postmen and the telegraphists were at the time greatly
upheld by the press, and the Postmaster-General was subjected to a deal
of sharp criticism for his action.
The question of free public meeting for all postal employés, and other
matters arising out of the new Post-Office order, so strenuously objected
to by the telegraphists, were brought under the notice of the House
of Commons on April 24, 1890, Mr. Pickersgill, himself an old postal
servant, and other members, strongly urging on the Postmaster-General the
desirability of modifying the regulation. Mr. Raikes, however, was firm
in his attitude, and maintained that the new order was really to relax
the stringency of a rule which for nearly a quarter of a century was
absolutely prohibitory in its effect.
The day following this discussion in the House, April 25, a deputation
of telegraphists waited on the Postmaster-General to urge that he would
not only modify the rule as to public meeting, but also that he would
give immediate attention to the many grievances of which they complained,
and on which they were agitating. Mr. Raikes promised he would refer
the whole question of their grievances to the Departmental Committee
then sitting for the purpose of assisting him to come to a decision. The
telegraphists had therefore to accept his word for it that their case
should receive attention in good time.
But meetings still continued to be held in different parts in spite of
the presence of the official reporter. His presence was objected to at
Leicester in a characteristic manner by the suppression of the names of
the speakers, so that Mr. Raikes might know all that was said of him, but
not the identity of the speakers. The new regulation became so notorious
throughout the country that, in one instance at least, the police
authorities in Bucks actually became imbued with the idea that these
gatherings were of the nature of proclaimed meetings, as in Ireland under
the Coercion Act, and thought it part of their duty to keep a watchful
eye on all such meetings of telegraphists. Such was a case specially
referred to in the House of Commons by Mr. Bradlaugh in a question put
May 20.
The question of compulsory overtime was soon afterwards forced to
the front by an admission made by Mr. Raikes in the House, June 12,
in answer to Earl Compton, that officers of the telegraph department
were not compelled against their will, but were asked to volunteer for
overtime. For some time after that the telegraph clerks in London and
Dublin decided to take their stand on that admission, but the evil
still continued with irritating regularity. Numerous were the published
contradictions to the Postmaster—General’s statement in the House,
and the press with striking unanimity, excepting the _Times_, which
consistently stood by Mr. Raikes throughout, strongly denounced the
system of enforced overtime and Mr. Raikes’s incorrect denial of its
existence. After the authoritative declaration from the official head
the “no overtime” movement was taken up enthusiastically among the men,
and spread rapidly, not only in London, but throughout the leading
provincial offices. At the Central Office in London about 90 per cent.
of the male staff pledged themselves to decline to work overtime, and it
was decided to put this pledge into force on a certain date unless the
Postmaster-General meanwhile announced some measure of relief for their
various grievances. It was alleged that the total number of overtime
hours worked in the Central Telegraph Office alone reached the enormous
weekly total of from ten to twelve thousand, or 30 per cent. on the day’s
ordinary work, so that the sudden withdrawal of this amount of work
would have meant a serious public inconvenience.
In connection with this attitude a somewhat curious and sensational
method of protest was used by the telegraphists on the occasion of the
Post-Office Jubilee. Arrangements were made by the authorities that, at
a signal sent by the Duchess of Edinburgh from the Jubilee conversazione
at South Kensington, the whole of the postal and telegraph service on
duty at the moment should burst forth into simultaneous cheering for the
Queen. The intended pleasing tribute of loyalty was, however, spoilt in a
manner that made Mr. Raikes exceedingly indignant with the telegraphists
especially. At ten o’clock, the precise moment having arrived, some four
hundred telegraphists being assembled in the central galleries at the
Chief Office, the superintendent called for three cheers for the Queen.
But silence was steadfastly maintained for some moments, and then with
one accord, instead of the cheers expectantly waited for by royal ears at
the other end of the telephones, the clerks, to show their resentment,
burst out into a deep groan. Three cheers for Mr. Raikes were then
asked for, but this was met with a volume of groans deeper than before.
The telegraphists, who were afterwards officially interrogated as to
the meaning of the demonstration, strongly repudiated any intention of
disloyalty or disrespect towards her Majesty the Queen, and explained
that the demonstration was spontaneously made as a protest against the
manner in which their repeated petitions for redress of grievances had
been treated by the higher officials surrounding Mr. Raikes. Their
explanation was not deemed satisfactory; there was much writing and
further questioning over the incident. A number of representatives were
asked to wholly dissociate themselves from what took place, and were
called on to sign a paper to that effect. The matter was discussed, and
the official memorandum was rejected by eight to three. The names of
the eight clerks who voted against the suggestion were asked for, but
they unanimously declined to give the required information. The official
memorandum of dissociation was circulated and a number of signatures
obtained, chiefly from female telegraphists, but the large majority of
the staff declined to sign the document.
The incident was reported in most of the papers, but while it showed the
telegraphists in no very creditable light on this occasion, it none the
less served as a big advertisement and had the effect of turning closer
attention to the nature and extent of their grievances. The telegraphists
were not applauded for their action, but the Postmaster-General was in
some quarters mercilessly taken to task for what seemed like giving
countenance to a silly piece of snobbery on the part of toadying
officials.
The “no overtime” agitation continued among the telegraphists, and so
intense did the feeling become that a large proportion were for striking
against the enforcement of the obnoxious overtime at a certain date. The
feeling had gained headway so far that a large number had actually signed
a paper set in circulation promising to obey the call to arms when the
moment arrived. But before the dramatic moment arrived the Controller
suddenly sent for a few of the more prominent ringleaders to discuss the
situation. After some parrying and courteous preliminaries the official
suddenly confronted them with the question as to whether they would
promise then and there to use their influence with their followers to
restrain them from adopting the course decided on. There was some demur,
and the question was objected to as unfair in the circumstances. The
official gave them half-an-hour to decide and left them, turning the key
in the door as he went out. They were virtually held prisoners in the
official’s private room. After some consideration the leaders of the
agitation thought discretion the better part of valour, and decided to
give the required promise in writing, and this was done. They were then
released and went back to their duties. One of the men, however, was
rash enough to telegraph the news to Newcastle, with the intimation that
the promise given was not seriously intended. The message, as might have
been anticipated, was immediately “tapped” and conveyed to headquarters,
with the result that the operator was on the spot suspended from duty.
He was accordingly dismissed, and though it was not a case in which
the victim could be made either a hero or a martyr, the telegraphists,
with the generous impulse of comradeship, rallied round him and raised
a subscription, which in a short time realised the sum of £500. The
incident gave a set-back to the “no overtime” agitation for the time, but
the feeling against the Postmaster-General was by no means modified by
its remembrance.
With the hostile criticism of the press and a section of the House, and
engaged in driving a pair of spirited steeds, the telegraphists and the
postmen, that threatened every moment to break away and overturn the
chariot, Mr. Raikes’s position was no enviable one. In the circumstances
too ready compliance with the demands on either hand would probably
have been interpreted as weakness, if not by the men themselves, by
Parliament, and still more probably by the Lords of the Treasury. Mr.
Raikes was an able man, but pride generally overrules conscience and
sometimes wisdom. He was but human; and most men in a position of power
would prefer to be accused of tyranny rather than weakness. So the
tension continued and increased till, reaching the breaking-point in
the case of the postmen, as has been shown, it almost seemed as if the
telegraphists must follow their desperate example.