BENEFITS OF THE RAIKES SCHEME—A MARTINET POSTMASTER-GENERAL—A
NEW PARLIAMENTARY POLICY—A PARTING OF THE WAYS—POLITICAL RIGHTS
OF POSTAL SERVANTS—A BLOW AT COMBINATION.
Looking at all the circumstances impartially, it must be acknowledged
that the late Mr. Raikes had bestowed very substantial benefits on the
postal service. In the face of opposition to his proposals, and despite
hostility from several sides at once, he had manfully tackled the complex
and bewildering problem, and had set himself the task of adjudicating on
the thousand divergent and multifarious class interests. It was a labour
worthy of an intellectual Hercules to seek to cleanse such an Augean
stable as the Post-Office, but he had done as much as it were possible
for one man to dare attempt, meeting with the growls probably of the
watch-dogs of the Treasury, and with little gratitude from those who
benefited by the result. The late Postmaster-General had, though chary
of it at first, at last set himself to the stupendous task of satisfying
the wants and serving the conflicting interests of the discontented
army under his control. He had set himself to the task, but he had
materially shortened his days for his pains. Both the London sorters and
the provincial sorting clerks were fairly well satisfied with the result
of the Raikes scheme, but the telegraphists and the postmen were but
little satisfied with their measure of relief, and remained hardly less
discontented than before. The flowers had scarcely faded on the grave
of their departed chief before the mutterings of discontent were again
heard, from the ranks of the postmen and the telegraphists particularly.
It was not so much that they were guilty of ingratitude as that their
grievances as Government servants so far outmeasured the well-intentioned
remedy.
Shortly before his death Mr. Raikes had outlined in the House of Commons
the revision he intended to bring in for the London and provincial
postmen. But when the scheme came to be applied it was found that the
London town postmen did not fairly participate, that in fact there was
no rise in wages for them, their action in regard to the ill-starred
Postmen’s Union and the strike period being considered deserving of
punishment by exclusion from benefits. The discontent consequent on
this had brought about, just before Mr. Raikes’s death, the suggestion
for another experiment at organisation, and on August 15, 1891, a large
and enthusiastic gathering of postmen met to condemn the revised scales
of pay recommended by the Departmental Committee and recently adopted
by the Postmaster-General. At this meeting a resolution was carried
which led to the immediate formation of a Postmen’s Federation of town
and provincial men, C. Churchfield being appointed general secretary,
and A. F. Harris treasurer. The provisional committee at once issued a
manifesto to all postmen, inviting London offices to send delegates to
a meeting on September 19, 1891, to elect an executive. The conference
was held, and the executive formed. The executive of the newly-formed
Postmen’s Federation worked with a will, and obtaining for themselves the
right enjoyed by the sorters, that of free meeting outside Post-Office
buildings, a series of meetings was started in every part of London.
Having as yet no organ of their own by which to establish a means of
communication with the various branches, they approached the Fawcett
Association with a view to the _Post_ being placed at their disposal.
The monthly report of progress among the postmen appeared in the _Post_
regularly up to June 1892, when the _Postmen’s Gazette_ was started.
On September 16 of the same year the first annual conference of the
Postmen’s Federation was held, W. Rouse, an E.C. postman, and long
known as a powerful advocate of their claims, being elected president.
Thirty-three London and thirty-eight provincial men attended this
conference. They adopted a programme which consisted of a claim for
a 20s. minimum, with a yearly increment of 2s. and a maximum of 40s.
a week in all towns where fifty or more postmen were employed; three
weeks’ holiday; eight hours’ work within a twelve hours’ limit; and the
abolition of stripes on condition that the maximum rate of pay be raised
to 40s. A national petition was soon afterwards drafted, which contained
in addition a claim for exemption from parcel-post work as then combined
with ordinary letter-carrying duties; unestablished auxiliaries and
rural postmen to be merged into the established force; citizen rights;
and an improved Superannuation Act for all postmen. This programme was
distributed to over five hundred towns. About two hundred and fifty towns
adopted the programme completely and subscribed to the national petition
based thereon. The new Postmaster-General’s reply was unequivocal refusal
to all the points raised. That, however, was not exactly the first move
in the game of postal chess which Sir James Fergusson, as Mr. Raikes’s
successor, had sat down to play.
Meanwhile the sorters already had come to realise that whatever the
benefits vouchsafed to them by the provisions of the Raikes scheme, they
still suffered disabilities sufficient to entitle them to make a further
effort to gain their removal. Sir James Fergusson had come to them with
the reputation of a stern disciplinarian, but that did not accuse him
of want of justice. As the result of much deliberation and a general
meeting, a memorial was drawn up and presented February 18, 1892. The
memorial, in pleading for an interview, stated that the object was to
urge (1) that the London sorting force may be placed in, at the least,
an equal position as regards scales of pay, &c., with the telegraphists
at the Central Station; (2) that they be designated “sorting clerks”
instead of “sorters”; (3) that they may be eligible for promotion to
higher positions, including clerkships; and (4) that the number of higher
appointments be regulated strictly according to the number of duties
corresponding. Sir James Fergusson’s reply was in the negative on every
single count, nor would he grant an interview on any pretence. He issued
an official circular, March 25, 1892, to the staff reminding them of
the benefits already procured to them by Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Raikes,
and expressing a regret—clearly intended as a rebuff—that they should
reiterate their claims, which were so fully answered by his predecessor.
To the refusal of the Postmaster-General the Fawcett Association drew up
a reply, respectfully expressing dissent from the view taken of their
case, reiterating their claims, and urging that, while they were not
unmindful of the material advantages lately gained by many of those
they represented, they were none the less convinced that many of those
concessions, with the additions they now asked for, should have been
conceded years earlier. They trusted that their renewed request for
investigation would not be thought unreasonable, or other than in the
interest of the public service. This was signed and forwarded, May 6, by
the committee of the Fawcett Association on behalf of the London sorting
force. This met with scant courtesy, and a few days afterwards it was
intimated to them that Sir James Fergusson directed that they be informed
that his previous reply was to be taken as final, that the reiteration
of requests which after full consideration had been refused, and the
objectionable tone adopted, presumably because of that, was an abuse of
the privilege of presenting memorials to the head of the department.
The uncompromising attitude taken up by the Postmaster-General caused
the sorters to strike out a new line of policy from that moment. Clery
had become impatient of the slow and unsatisfactory methods of pressing
their claims on the attention of the department. The methods had availed
them well with Mr. Raikes, but in Sir James Fergusson they soon had to
recognise a master of a different calibre. It was not only the slowness
of the hackneyed method of seeking redress with almost the certainty of
refusal that decided them on their course of action. There were other
things in addition. The general attitude of the officials towards them
and their organisation had undergone a marked change almost from the
moment that Sir James Fergusson set foot in St. Martin’s-le-Grand. One
of the first acts was to prohibit the distribution of the _Post_, their
official organ, within Post-Office buildings, and there was a growing
and well-grounded suspicion that it was the first expression of a desire
to smash the union of postal employés. There were indeed a hundred
different influences in evidence everywhere about them which decided
the most impulsive of their members to urge the immediate adoption of a
vigorous Parliamentary policy and to press for a Committee of Inquiry
into the Post-Office. If such a policy was not novel, it was a bold
one. Clery himself, three or four years before, had advocated such a
policy, and it was only owing to the conciliatory treatment meted out to
them by Mr. Raikes that its further consideration was so long shelved.
There were serious differences of opinion between the chairman of the
association, J. H. Williams, and a section of the committee in regard
to this question. Williams’s colder, more cautious nature put him in
opposition to the more daring line of policy in which he discerned strong
possibilities of personal risk to those adopting it. No man could suspect
Williams of want of nerve; he had proved his high courage sufficiently;
it was only that he thought the old and more familiar methods the safer,
and probably the surer. Clery, the more impetuous, eventually gained
over by far the greater following to his own way of thinking, and in the
result the question was definitely settled at a general meeting, June 15,
1892. At this meeting it was resolved “that immediate action be taken to
secure from Parliamentary candidates a pledge to support a motion for a
Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry.” This was carried with enthusiasm,
and practically unanimously.
The association had now entered on one of the most important steps in
the history of postal trades-unionism. Clery on this occasion for the
first time occupied the chair, Williams being absent. After the general
meeting there were but few dissentients to the policy; and Williams, with
deep regret, though with firm resolve that his view was the correct one,
felt constrained under the circumstances to relinquish the leadership.
On the adoption of such a policy, to which he was opposed, his position
as chairman was no longer possible, and much as the members shared his
regret at the necessity of it, Williams laid down the epaulettes he
had worn with so much distinction, and resigned his commission. From
that moment the chairmanship was by unanimous approval filled by W. E.
Clery, and the recognised leadership fell into his hands, while the
secretaryship vacated by him was taken up by W. B. Cheesman of the
Western District Office. Clery was now the recognised leader of the
association, but as a matter of fact for a considerable time previously
his strong personality had marked him as the virtual leader when the
moment arrived for more decisive action.
In view of the impending General Election, presumably the
Postmaster-General took the association’s adoption of the new line
of policy as a challenge to his administrative authority, for almost
immediately afterwards a Post-Office Circular, dated June 17, 1892, was
issued as special information for postal servants. The Postmaster-General
desired to warn Post-Office servants that it “would be improper for
them, whether in combination or otherwise, to extract promises from
candidates for election to the House of Commons with reference to their
pay and position.” No small amount of curiosity was at first felt at
its introduction on the notice-boards of the General Post-Office, but
immediately a whip was issued to the members of the association by W.
E. Clery, the newly-elected chairman, which was as decisive as it was
prompt. If Sir James Fergusson’s new order was intended to intimidate,
it did not have the desired result. The Postmaster-General had only
just stated in the House of Commons that “there is no Act of Parliament
regulating such a matter,” yet he had suddenly made a law unto himself.
Within an hour or so of the appearance of the Post-Office Circular
containing this order or instruction from the departmental head, the
following whip was sent the round of the association:—
“The notice in the current number of the Post-Office Circular
does not affect the policy of the association.
(Signed) “W. E. CLERY, _Chairman_.”
Accordingly within the next few days, the General Election being now
close at hand, a letter as from the Fawcett Association was addressed to
Parliamentary candidates all over the country. The circular-letter stated
that, in accordance with the resolution passed at the general meeting of
their members, they begged to lay before the Parliamentary candidate a
brief statement of facts in explanation and support of the position they
had adopted, and soliciting an early and definite reply to this question:
“Will you, in the event of your being elected a member of Parliament,
support a motion for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee of
Inquiry into the Post-Office, such as was advocated by Earl Compton, and
largely supported during a recent session of the House of Commons?”
The circular went on to disavow any intention on their part to act
otherwise than as ordinary citizens in the enjoyment of the franchise;
and to offer the assurance that it was only because they believed such
an inquiry would put an end to discontent in the postal service that
they felt it their duty to thus ask for Parliamentary support. This
circular was signed by W. E. Clery, as chairman, and W. B. Cheesman, as
secretary. The circular was at once a means of canvassing public support
and sympathy, and a protest against the interference with their public
rights and public duties as citizens. It was a protest against being
taken back to the days when Mr. Monk, the member for Gloucester, fought
for them a strenuous uphill battle of years to obtain what was now so
lightly to be taken from them. In thus exercising their right as citizens
in approaching Parliamentary candidates, they were doing so not only in
their own behalf but in the interest of every other class in the postal
service throughout the United Kingdom, embracing the telegraphists,
the sorting clerks, the Savings-Bank men, the postmen, themselves, and
others. And they were doing so totally irrespective of party bias or
motive. Within a few days replies from candidates, for the most part
favourable, poured in by the hundred; and presumably not one of the
politicians thus replying saw anything reprehensible in their being thus
approached by postal servants in search of a legitimate inquiry into
their alleged grievances. Among the successful Parliamentary candidates
who favourably replied were the names of many who were to undertake much
work in the future in furtherance of postal claims. These included Sir
Albert Rollit, Mr. James Rowlands, Mr. Naoroji, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Keir
Hardie, Mr. James Stuart, and that sturdy veteran of previous postal
campaigns, Mr. Geo. Howell; while occurring in the list were the names of
Mr. John Burns, Mr. Thomas Burt, Mr. Pickersgill, and a number of other
eminent and equally well-known public men.
The provincial male telegraphists had in the meanwhile issued a precisely
similar circular to Parliamentary candidates, and Sir James Fergusson
marked his disapproval of such action by specially calling attention to
it in the House on June 14. The circular emanating from the telegraphists
he quoted at some length, and, referring to the fact that the sorting
branch of the service had adopted the same proceedings on the eve of a
General Election, he strongly condemned their action as improper. He
appealed to the members of the House to decline to give any such pledge
as was solicited, and stated that he had the member for Midlothian (Mr.
Gladstone) and the member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in full
agreement with his observations. Mr. Geo. Howell strongly criticised the
attitude taken up by the Postmaster-General, and stoutly contended for
the right of postal servants to combine, and further to carry out all the
legitimate functions and obligations of combination. He was supported by
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Story.
It was hoped by the rank and file of postal servants that the
Postmaster-General, Sir James Fergusson, would sustain a defeat at the
poll; but North-East Manchester sent him back to the House of Commons,
and for a time to his place at St. Martin’s-le-Grand, by a narrow
majority of 110. Sir James Fergusson temporarily resumed his position as
head of Post-Office affairs on July 18, immediately after the result of
the election was known, and he as immediately made his presence felt.
The very same day he reassumed office he called on the chairman and
secretary of the Fawcett Association to explain their action in regard
to signing and sending out the circular to Parliamentary candidates. In
explaining their conduct, they took up the very natural position that
they were simply carrying out the instructions of a general meeting, and
had acted in a representative capacity; that they had been careful not to
transgress the official warning as expressed by the Postmaster-General;
and that they had been careful not to solicit pledges relative to their
duties and pay. They thought that in the absence of any official order,
and in view of the fact that they had been allowed to carry out the
behest of their constituents, they were justified in thinking they had
not contravened any official rule, since no intimation of such had been
conveyed to them. On July 22 the Postmaster-General gave his decision on
their case, which was that for their “insubordination” they be dismissed
the service. This was a direct blow at the very root of representative
principle, and the strongest rebuff that the spirit of trades unionism
had yet sustained; besides, it had in one moment reduced the franchise
for postal servants to the flimsiest mockery. The blow was regarded as
so unnecessary and so unjust that there was an immediate outcry against
it both from within the walls of the Post-Office and from without. To
have been consistent, the Postmaster-General should have dismissed the
whole body of sorters who were responsible for the instruction acted
on. In twenty-four hours practically the whole of the London sorting
force, Chief Office men and District men, had signed a memorial to the
Postmaster-General, asking his reconsideration of the dismissals on the
ground that they fully identified themselves with the policy adopted
and the instruction given Clery and Cheesman as two officers of their
association. Not only from the class directly affected, but from the
postmen, the postal clerks all over the country, the telegraphists, and
others, came an almost unanimous cry of indignation and disapproval.
And this indignation was echoed with surprising unanimity by the press,
both Tory and Liberal joining in condemning Sir James Fergusson’s action
as intolerant and unjustifiably severe. Even the few organs that were
induced to say a word in favour of the Postmaster-General’s action,
based their conclusions for the most part on the supposition that
insubordination had been committed; whereas there was no insubordination,
and no contravening of any known existing rule of the department in
asking merely for a public inquiry. Others, while opining that discipline
must be maintained in a great public department of State, nevertheless
agreed that it was neither fair nor constitutional that the political
rights of citizens should in this free country be at the mercy of
official caprice.
The Fawcett Association promptly carried the question one step further,
and obtained counsel’s opinion that the action of Sir James Fergusson was
illegal and unconstitutional, a view in which Sir Charles Russell, the
present Lord Chief-Justice, fully concurred, as did also Mr. S. D. Waddy,
Q.C., M.P.
Yet despite all appeals, all arguments, and all criticism, Sir James
Fergusson stuck to his position with the dogged pertinacity of an
old-time soldier and a martinet. Rightly or wrongly, he had taken the
step, and he owed it to his pride and his reputation to stand by it. And
he stood by it, a solid rock of obstinacy against which the waves of
protest splashed in vain.
The dismissed chairman and secretary of the Fawcett Association remained
in their respective offices, and the members of the organisation rallied
round them stronger than ever. There was a feeling that they had been
made the martyrs of an injustice for their sakes and for promoting their
cause, and they stood by them to a man.
The case of the dismissals, involving as it did the question of the right
of combination in the Post-Office, occasioned no little public comment at
the time, and the interest was to an extent kept alive by the publication
of a brochure by W. E. Clery, entitled “Civil Servitude,” containing a
full and detailed statement of the facts. The General Election by this
time was over, and political fate had given her decision in favour of
the Liberal party. Sir James Fergusson, therefore, was now reduced to a
passing shadow; but it was still hoped by many that, like a repentant
political sinner, he would use his last few hours of office in retrieving
the great mistake that had certainly damaged his popularity with the
service for evermore. But Sir James Fergusson chose to leave office with
the cry for justice still ringing in his ears, and pursuing him even in
the House of Commons. On August 9, Mr. Sam Woods took up the matter of
the arbitrary dismissals by asking the Postmaster-General if it were
not possible on reconsideration to reinstate the two officials. Sir
James Fergusson was most aggressive in his replies, and stated, amidst
the cheers of his own party, that he did not intend to reinstate the
two dismissed representatives of the sorters; nor would he withdraw the
warning to Post-Office servants on the subject. Mr. Cobb, M.P., bearing
on the same subject, put questions which implied that higher officials
of the Inland Revenue had been guilty of circularising candidates on
personal matters, but Sir James Fergusson was possibly saved from
awkward admissions by the ruling of the Speaker that the question
could not stand. The trades unionists of the country were particularly
strong in their sympathy towards the two dismissed leaders of postal
combination; and expressions and resolutions of sympathy poured in upon
them from every part. There were resolutions expressive of sympathy with
the Fawcett Association, and of condemnation of Sir James Fergusson;
and amidst a perfect shower of such trades-union condemnations the
Postmaster-General in the middle of August departed from the stage to
make way for his Liberal successor. If the villain had now been cut out
of the piece, all hopes were centred on the new-comer as the hero.