REORGANISATION OF THE POSTMEN—THE PROVINCIAL POSTAL
CLERKS—GENERAL CONDEMNATION OF THE DISMISSALS—THE NEWCASTLE
INTERVIEW—AN M.P. AND THE POSTAL AGITATOR—THE RIGHT OF
COMBINATION—CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. GLADSTONE ON RIGHT OF FREE
MEETING—ANOTHER BLOW AT COMBINATION—RIGHT OF FREE MEETING
CONCEDED BY MR. GLADSTONE—THE GRANTING OF AN INQUIRY.
The closer relationship between the postmen and the sorters, which it was
hoped would become stronger and permanent, was broken off in June 1892.
The postmen, besides not being in full agreement with the sorters on the
Parliamentary policy, had now become strong enough to walk alone without
any assistance, and struck out an independent line for themselves. They
were fast recovering from the terrific blow sustained by the strike,
and many of their dismissed comrades had been one by one reinstated
through the indefatigable efforts of Mr. George Howell, M.P., who, both
in the House and privately, worked hard for this end. It was owing to a
vigorous attack on Sir James Fergusson in relation to his obduracy in
this particular that he was caricatured in _Punch_ for his pains. The
postmen continued to make headway with their organisation. They were no
longer beholden to the columns of the _Post_, having started an organ of
their own, the _Postman’s Gazette_, June 1892. The _Postman’s Gazette_
immediately proved of great assistance in disseminating the principles of
their union among county and provincial men, and within a few months the
gratifying result was shown in a membership of over seven thousand.
While the postmen’s organisation was thus pursuing the even tenor of its
way, and waxing prosperous now that it had once more got on the smooth
metals of a constitutional line of action, the postal clerks and the
telegraphists were not idle. Soon after the introduction of the Raikes
scheme, their disappointment with its provisions found vent in the
preparation of a petition to the Postmaster-General; but his unlooked-for
death, of course, prevented its being carried forward at the time. But
shortly after Sir James Fergusson’s appointment application was made that
he should receive a petition from the executive of the Postal Clerks’
Association on behalf of their class generally. In reply, a request was
sent from the Secretary for a statement of their grievances, and this was
duly submitted the day following. They were then met with the refusal
of the authorities to receive petitions from an organised association
not recognised by the department. For a while the postal clerks strove
to obtain official recognition of their association, but to no purpose.
The original petition was then printed and forwarded from each branch
individually.
The postal clerks, like the postmen, had by this time recognised the
necessity for a representative organ, and accordingly, in the same month,
the _Post-Office Journal_ was started, June 20, 1892. Owing to its
similarity in title to the official Post-Office Circular, the department
lodged an objection, so that the organ of the postal clerks had to be
altered to the _Postal Journal_ in March 1893. The postal clerks were
prompt to recognise the blow that had been delivered against combination
in the Post-Office by the dismissals of the chairman and secretary of the
Fawcett Association, and one of the very first uses to which they put
their new organ was to protest most strongly against what appeared to be
an attack on the fundamental principle on which all postal organisations
based their existence.
With the advent of the Liberal Postmaster-General, Mr. Arnold Morley, it
was confidently expected that the wrong done by his predecessor would
at once be righted. Preparations were immediately set afoot, therefore,
to acquaint Mr. Arnold Morley with this their principal demand, the
reinstatement of their wrongfully-dismissed leaders.
In the meantime W.E. Clery was making hay while the sun shone, and
making the most of his new-found release from bondage by ventilating
his own and the sorters’ grievance before the public. To this end he
went to Newcastle on the eve of the election there, and arranged for
a meeting of postal and other civil servants; and it was sought to
obtain the Postmaster-General’s sanction for the meeting to be held. Mr.
Arnold Morley, however, merely sent a stereotyped telegram to the effect
that those of the Newcastle staff who desired the meeting must forward
application to him through the local postmaster. It had been hoped that
the required answer to Sir James Fergusson could have been given in a
public meeting of civil servants. The Postmaster-General’s reply and
the manner of it were the first indication that it was not a change of
methods but only of men. The public meeting convened by Clery was held
August 31, 1892, and the late Postmaster-General and his successor in
office came in for some free criticising. Mr. John Morley was the Liberal
candidate for Newcastle in this election, and it was as much with a view
to buttonholing the party chief as of holding the meeting that Clery had
come down from London. He met Mr. Morley by appointment to discuss two
points indicated by him in his request for an interview; the question of
civil rights for civil servants, and the means of dealing with discontent
in the Post-Office. Mr. John Morley expressed himself very fairly and
very freely on the two vexed questions, and promising to support the
demand for inquiry, led his interviewer to believe that he had no sort of
sympathy with the action of the late Postmaster-General. This attitude of
the Liberal leader was taken as setting a good example to his namesake at
St. Martin’s-le-Grand; and a manifesto to the civil and postal servants
of Newcastle was issued the same day by W. E. Clery, in which he urged
that they, as Government servants, had no option but to vote for Mr.
Morley and do their best to secure his return. There were five hundred
Civil Service voters in Newcastle, and in Civil Service circles it is
held that this manifesto secured the return of the author of the famous
“Newcastle programme.” It should be stated here that Mr. Pandeli Ralli,
Mr. Morley’s opponent, declined Clery’s request for an interview.
The question of the dismissals was now becoming widely public, and
Clery himself spared no pains to advertise the fact of the harsh and
unmerited dismissal of himself and Cheesman from that “civil servitude”
which they were only seeking to improve up to the level of model
employment. The London Trades Council adopted a resolution urging the
new Postmaster-General to reinstate the chairman and secretary of the
sorters’ organisation. But the Liberal Postmaster-General evidently
felt himself bound by the decision of his Tory predecessor, and
declined to reinstate in the service officers who had been dismissed
for “conduct directly subversive of discipline.” At the same time
the Postmaster-General claimed to reserve “to himself the right of
considering on its merits the general question of the rights of civil
servants in regard to the electoral franchise.” Clery immediately seized
on this as an opportunity of approaching Mr. Gladstone, and drew his
attention to it in a letter. The dictatorial attitude taken up by Mr.
Arnold Morley over this question of the franchise was by many interpreted
as a menace. Postal and civil servants had hitherto been under the
impression that no electoral disabilities now remained which any minister
desiring to hamper the freedom of election might take advantage of
legally. And as this was a vexed question concerning at least 200,000
electors in the Government service, Mr. Gladstone, as Prime Minister, was
asked to give some information. As the important concession of free and
unrestricted public meeting for postal servants afterwards granted by the
Prime Minister was undoubtedly resultant on the action taken by W. E.
Clery, the text of his letter to Mr. Gladstone is here given:—
“8 EAGLE COURT, ST. JOHN’S LANE, E.C.,
_August 31, 1892_.
“SIR,—I beg to draw your attention to what purports to be the
reply of the Postmaster-General to a resolution adopted by
the executive of the London Trades Council. In this letter,
written by the secretary to the Post-Office, it is stated that
Mr. Morley reserves ‘to himself the right to consider on its
merits the question of the position of the servants of the
Post-Office in respect to the Parliamentary franchise.’ I beg
to ask if, in your opinion, Mr. Arnold Morley has any right of
interfering with the exercise of the Parliamentary franchise
by his subordinates; if so, from whence he derives his power,
and what are the limitations, if any, of his interference?
I need hardly remind you that the removal of the electoral
disabilities of civil servants was effected by two measures.
One, which was passed in 1868, removed all disabilities, and a
supplemental Act in 1874 removed all remaining disabilities.
Many, like myself, are under the impression that none remain
now under which Mr. Arnold Morley or any other minister who may
desire to hamper electoral freedom, may derive the legal power
of doing so; and as this is a vexed question which immediately
concerns at least 200,000 electors in the Civil Service of the
United Kingdom—because the Acts for the removal of electoral
disabilities of civil servants are common to all departments—I
hope that you will be able to favour me with some definite
information on this constitutional problem.—I am, sir, your
obedient servant,
W. E. CLERY.”
To this a reply was received in the following terms:—
“10 DOWNING STREET, WHITEHALL, S.W.,
_September 10, 1892_.
“SIR,—In reply to your letter of the 31st August, Mr. Gladstone
desires me to say that he will take an early opportunity of
consulting his colleagues on the question raised by you.—I am,
sir, your obedient servant,
SPENCER LYTTELTON.”
While they were awaiting Mr. Gladstone’s definite reply, the
Postmaster-General carried his pretensions one step further. A general
meeting was arranged for on November 23, to consider the status and
pay of the London postal force, and in connection with this they
forwarded a petition to be allowed to have their exiled chairman and
secretary present. To this request a refusal was given, and the meeting
was therefore abandoned. From this it was evident that the Liberal
Postmaster-General was determined to drive home Sir James Fergusson’s
sentence of excommunication as far as possible. But with a view to
testing still further the Postmaster-General’s attitude of mind towards
their association and its two ostracised leaders, the sorters in
December 1892 forwarded a petition asking for an interview to discuss the
matter of their civil rights and reinstatement, at which Messrs. Clery
and Cheesman might be allowed to be present. This was signed practically
by the whole of the London sorters, but in vain. Mr. Arnold Morley would
not budge an inch towards conciliation.
The policy of reinstatement was from this time adopted more strenuously
than ever, and it indeed became accepted as the middle plank in their
platform. They obtained sympathy and support in unlooked-for quarters,
numerous public men and public bodies giving encouragement in various
ways, and their persistency in the prosecution of their central claim
elevating them to a position of respect among all trades-union bodies.
The question of civil rights arising out of the dismissals was
accepted by the Metropolitan Radical Federation for discussion at a
public meeting held in January 1893. It was at this meeting that the
long-waited-for reply from Mr. Gladstone anent the Postmaster-General’s
attitude in regard to electoral rights was read. But the missive was so
unsatisfactorily Gladstonian in its evasiveness that, beyond implying
that nothing was to be apprehended from Mr. Arnold Morley’s pretensions,
it was difficult of ordinary understanding.
There had been a wait of four months before Downing Street remembered
its promise; and it was only then remembered by the indefatigable postal
agitator Clery rapping at the front door with another postman’s knock.
He wrote again to Mr. Gladstone, and on January 11 received in reply the
following communication:—
“10 DOWNING STREET,
WHITEHALL, _January 11, 1893_.
“SIR,—I am desired by Mr. Gladstone to acknowledge the receipt
of your letter. He is not at present aware of any intention
to change the legal status of civil servants, or that public
opinion has opened the question of such a change, which is
quite apart from the discussion of ordinary administrative
improvements.—I am, sir, your obedient servant,
“SPENCER LYTTELTON.”
Mr. Gladstone’s reply to the questions put was at the time regarded as
unsatisfactory because of its vagueness, but the concession of free
meeting granted in the following August showed that he contemplated the
act of justice.
Some strictures having been passed on Mr. Cremer, M.P., for his alleged
refusal to attend this meeting, and the matter being brought under
his notice, that gentleman sent an invitation to Clery to attend a
forthcoming meeting of his constituents in Shoreditch, so that he, Clery,
might repeat his original charges against him of neglect of duty, &c.,
bringing with him “as many postmen as he was capable of influencing.”
Clery promptly replied to the letter accepting the invitation with all
becoming gravity, and enclosing a copy of the resolution he wished to
move at the meeting. The meeting, which was held at the Shoreditch Town
Hall, found Clery present; and Mr. Cremer, seeing the matter had passed
beyond a joke, introduced him from the platform and expressed the hope
that they would accord him a fair hearing. The resolution proposed
by Clery was “that in the opinion of this meeting of the electors of
Shoreditch, Mr. Cremer should have attended the public meeting recently
held in the Memorial Hall, to advocate the political freedom of civil
servants, or have given a satisfactory reason for his absence.” The
moving of this resolution in a crowded meeting of the M.P.’s constituents
was the signal for an uproar which was maintained throughout the
subsequent proceedings, opinion and feeling being pretty equally divided.
Whether the resolution was lost or carried was never accurately known.
But there were other matters also demanding the attention of the sorters;
there were workaday conditions to be improved, and the growing danger of
sweating and over-pressure to be combated. Mr. Arnold Morley, with all
the fair professions of Liberalism, had in November 1892 been pleased
to receive a deputation from an organised committee of the unemployed,
requesting him to abolish overtime, and to pay fair wages to all classes
of employés, and on that occasion he had expressed himself as desirous
that “the Post-Office should set an example to other large employers
of labour.” As the Postmaster-General had been known to father such a
liberal sentiment, it engendered the hope that at least in matters
of internal economy and working surroundings, he would not refuse to
make improvement where it could be shown that need for such improvement
existed. The enormous increase of business in the Post-Office of recent
years had given rise to new and peculiar grievances and hardships not
contemplated or made allowance for sufficiently in any previous remedial
scheme. It was not so much insufficiency of pay, the method of promotion,
or the pension prospect, but more immediate and more pressing were the
questions of inadequacy of staff, unhealthy conditions of work, and
harassing hours of attendance. Added to these were the growing necessity
for medical department reform, and the scandal of secret and confidential
reporting. Neither of the schemes of Mr. Fawcett or Mr. Raikes had
done more than touch the outside fringe of these matters. True, the
telegraphists and sorting clerks suffered from similar grievances, but
it was a question of degree of intensity. No other class of the service
suffered to such an extent from pressure and overcrowding as did the
sorters at this period. Based on these considerations, a memorial was
prepared and forwarded to the Postmaster-General in March 1893. But they
had to wait some months for a reply; and in the meanwhile it was thought
desirable to strengthen their Parliamentary policy, and to foster their
Parliamentary friends. Mr. Cremer, M.P., had forgiven the Shoreditch
incident, and promised to join in with their other pledged supporters in
the House, Sir Albert Rollit, Professor Stuart, Sir Charles Russell, Lord
Compton, Mr. John Morley, and the rest.
Of all their alleged Parliamentary advocates, however, perhaps Mr. Murray
Macdonald was at this time the most painstaking and consistent. Mr.
Macdonald had sought every opportunity to bring on a discussion of postal
claims generally, but had several times been defeated in his endeavour.
It was then arranged through him to hold a conference of M.P.’s and
postal representatives for a full discussion of the case, which it was
anticipated must presently be brought before the House. With this end
in view, Mr. Murray Macdonald asked the Postmaster-General privately if
he would guarantee that postal representatives might take part in this
conference without risk to their prospects or position. But Mr. Arnold
Morley squelched the intention by replying that such a course would be
“contrary to the regulations.”
Sooner than they expected came the Postmaster-General’s reply to the
March memorial dealing with pay, pensions, hours of duty, conditions of
work, &c., and the extra promptitude of the reply was perhaps explained
by its containing a refusal on every single point.
The uncompromising attitude of the Postmaster-General served only to
stimulate postal servants generally to the adoption of a vigorous
Parliamentary policy, and sorters, sorting clerks, and telegraphists were
now more than ever coming to join hands on questions of common interest.
This feeling of relationship was perhaps fostered not only by a sense
of common adversity, but by the fact that the telegraphists’ friends in
the House were also, for the most part, the friends of the sorters and
sorting clerks. The Parliamentary friends of the postal cause were now
representative of every shade of party politics, and included men of
widely divergent views. The question of Civil Rights for Civil Servants
was one that enabled men like Sir Albert Rollit, Professor Stuart, Mr.
William Saunders, and Mr. Keir Hardie to stand side by side on the same
platform; and this was actually the case on the occasion of a meeting
held at the Memorial Hall, June 8, 1893. With such advocates as these
and many others in the House to champion their cause, it seemed that
the coveted Royal Commission could not now be far off, or at any rate
the existence of such a solid phalanx of Parliamentary support must
surely overcome all the objections that could be centred in a single
Postmaster-General, even with a more powerful personality than that of
Mr. Arnold Morley.
But in spite of all the combined activity of telegraphists, sorters, and
sorting clerks, things in the Post-Office continued only to drag their
slow length along towards the hoped-for goal of improvement.
A year’s experience of Mr. Arnold Morley’s administration was sufficient
to convince all postal bodies that they had little generosity to expect
at his hands. While in opposition he had consistently voted for Earl
Compton’s motion for inquiry into postal grievances, but as soon as he
assumed the reins of office he as steadfastly opposed it, as perhaps
was only to be expected. The provincial postal clerks perhaps, least of
all, had cause to think of Mr. Arnold Morley as an indulgent master; for
an attempt to petition the Postmaster-General was the means nearly of
bringing about the downfall of their association, while it was seized on
as a sufficient excuse for reducing and disrating the whole executive.
The executive of the Postal Clerks’ Association, acting for and in
behalf of certain offices, desired to draw the Postmaster-General’s
attention to the fact that various irregular methods were in vogue,
and prayed for an independent inquiry. Mr. Arnold Morley threw doubt
on the allegations, and called on the signatories to the petition to
substantiate the truth of the charges by giving specific instances of the
“local maladministration” referred to. The executive promptly supplied
the demand for particulars. Then, to their astonishment, the allegations
were judged to be untrue. The executive were considered in fault for
allowing these charges to go forward, and it was decided that they must
be punished by stoppage of increments. The case of the association’s
secretary, Lascelles, was considered more serious, and he was disrated,
in spite of further overwhelming evidence immediately forthcoming that
the original charges were in point of fact true.
It was, perhaps, unfortunate for Mr. Arnold Morley’s popularity in the
Post-Office that two previous Postmasters-General had in a measure
dealt with the grievances of the various branches of the service. His
economical spirit as an administrator would not admit of the necessity
for further revision, and he early came to the conclusion that postal
agitation had no longer any justification in fact, and was only being
promoted for personal ends by a few individuals. That he honestly induced
himself to believe so there can be little doubt, though subsequent events
were to prove, possibly to his own surprise, the utter falsity of his
view and the precipitateness of his judgment. It is necessary to make the
same allowance for Mr. Arnold Morley in this position as for Mr. Raikes
or any previous Postmaster-General, but the sympathy and kindliness
of nature which in Mr. Raikes went to retrieve most of his earlier
mistakes, and the rare quality of tact which went far to rehabilitate
his popularity at last, were utterly lacking in Mr. Arnold Morley. His
freezing coldness of demeanour towards the staff who sought to approach
him with their grievances begot the conviction that if he were not
actively hostile to their interests, he had no real desire to understand
their difficulties, because he was instinctively prejudiced against their
claims.
Circumstances, however, were to conspire to bring about that which Mr.
Arnold Morley was from the first opposed to. As the result of Clery’s
persistent correspondence with Mr. Gladstone, the last shackle was
knocked off the right of public meeting among postal servants, August 8,
1893. From a postal point of view it was a great triumph of principle.
Much of the agitation of the last few years had centred round this
principle, and it was mainly as an academic vindication of it that the
unfortunate postmen’s strike was precipitated. It was round the demand
for free public meeting and as a protest against the presence of the
official reporter that the agitation among the telegraphists took the
course it did, and nearly ended in another strike. What was intended
as a safeguard by the department proved in reality a further menace to
contentment in the service, and a continual source of annoyance. It was
well, therefore, when after that careful consideration which he promised
in a reply to the letter from W. E. Clery as chairman of the Fawcett
Association, Mr. Gladstone at last saw fit to announce the concession of
free speech and free meeting. As Mr. Gladstone’s concession constitutes
one of the main charters of postal liberty, and will become memorable as
such, it may be as well to quote it _in extenso_. The Premier’s decision,
delivered on August 8, 1893, was as follows:—
“It is desirable that there should be uniformity throughout the Civil
Service, and that the servants of the Post-Office should be on the _same
footing_ as those in other departments.
“That as regards the Parliamentary franchise there can be no question
that its exercise is absolutely free from _internal_ interference,
although of course subject to the general obligation which affects the
public servant _in common with all other voters_ to use the franchise
for the public good. The only restriction by the custom of the public
service is that persons in the permanent employment of the State should
not take a prominent and active part in political contests, and it is not
intended that in the future any other restrictive rule should be imposed
on the servants of the Post-Office.
“As regards public meetings not of a political character, but relating to
official questions, the Postmaster-General has decided to withdraw the
instructions at present in force, but in the Post-Office, as in other
departments, it must be understood that the right must be exercised
subject to a due regard to the discipline of the public service.”
It was held by the Liberal members of the House to be a concession of
civil rights almost without restriction, and it removed with one stroke
of the pen the reproach that postal servants were not to be trusted in
the same manner as other civil servants. Hitherto it might be an offence
of the greatest magnitude to invite on their platform any but those
still in the service; thus not only were the dismissed officials of
their associations banned and banished from such public gatherings, but
they dared only at their peril permit the presence of any one of their
numerous Parliamentary supporters. Mr. Gladstone’s concession now removed
this anomalous state of things, and in respect to the right of holding
public meetings they were, nominally at least, as free as other British
citizens.
The recognition of this right could not but have the effect of bringing
the various postal movements in closer touch, while at the same time
it enabled each body to perfect their internal organisation. As a
further means to this end, the sorters affiliated to the London Trades
Council, January 1894, and thus for the second time in postal agitation
a postal organisation was gathered into the embrace of the general body
of London trades unions. During this time there was being established
a _modus vivendi_ for future Parliamentary and public action between
the telegraphists and the sorters especially. Following closely on
an interview reluctantly granted by the Postmaster-General—at which,
however, the concession of full pay in sickness was more definitely
granted—there came a conference of members of Parliament in the House of
Commons to discuss ways and means for inducing the Government to appoint
a Royal Commission on the Post-Office. A deputation of members waited on
Mr. Arnold Morley to urge on him the desirability of his promoting the
appointment of such an inquiry, but the Postmaster-General steadfastly
declined.
The Postmaster-General’s attitude towards postal combination was
interpreted as becoming more and more hostile, and it was feared in some
quarters that he would act on the injunction of the _Standard_ in dealing
with agitation among postmen at this time, and dismiss the leaders. The
brutal frankness of the _Standard_ on the occasion of a public meeting of
London postmen called forth some indignant protest on the part of postal
officials generally, and the postmen and sorters in particular.
But agitation in the Post-Office was becoming familiar to the public
mind, and the organised labour of the country had declared sympathy.
The affiliation of one postal body to the London Trades Council had in
a measure been a means of drawing the attention of all trades unions
to the merits of the postal case for inquiry, and was likely to give
postal servants an immense advantage, in London particularly. The London
Trades Council prepared a report for adoption in which the restrictive
system of discipline in the Post-Office was condemned, and a deputation
to the Government recommended; while, in addition to this, W. E. Clery,
the chairman of the Fawcett Association, interviewed the Parliamentary
Committee of the Trades Union Congress, by invitation of Mr. C. Fenwick,
M.P. With these influences at work, it did not seem possible that they
could remain persistently ignored in their demand for the searchlight of
a public inquiry.
As one result of the co-operation of the London Trades Council, a
deputation from that body waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir
William Harcourt, to discuss the rights of civil servants. W. E. Clery,
who had now become a postal representative on the London Trades Council,
was one of the deputation, and stoutly contested several important points
with Sir William Harcourt. But beyond the publicity given by the press,
little was gained from the deputation. Sir William promised to consider
the points raised and give a reply, but never did so.
Among the Parliamentary friends who had rendered themselves prominent in
the furtherance of the demand for inquiry were Sir Albert Rollit and Mr.
Keir Hardie, and their services were recognised in illuminated addresses
presented at an annual dinner of the Fawcett Association, January 10,
1895. But there was also another supporter in the House, Mr. Sam Woods,
who was to render a signal service, and effectually carry through what
Mr. Murray Macdonald had been only partly successful in doing.
On February 8, 1895, Mr. Sam Woods, true to his promise, but contrary
to the expectation of many, withstanding every insidious influence
and all overtures from behind the Speaker’s chair, pushed forward his
amendment to the Address. He had been requested to carry this to a
division by the Fawcett Association, and in spite of the strength of
the Government opposition actually lost only by eight. By the narrow
majority of eight the Government was saved, and from a postal point of
view it was something of an achievement. In whatever other light it might
be regarded, it was distinctly a moral victory for postal politics. The
Liberal press were naturally very wrath at pushing the joke so far, while
for the same reason the Tory journals were jubilant. The postal movement
was given credit by members of the Government for a desire to wreck the
Liberal administration, and the leaders of postal agitation were not slow
to accept the soft impeachment.
At this time the fellow-feeling and community of interests prevailing
between them induced the postmen and the sorters to once more try the
experiment of federation. The telegraphists were not included, but the
tracers, a small body of tracers of telegrams, attached to the telegraph
side of the service, were embraced, and the new Postal Service Federation
was formed, February 26, 1895. Simultaneously with this event came one
which was to prove of far greater importance and significance, the
publication of a remarkable letter from the Postmaster-General to the
Eleusis Club, affirming the right of combination among postal servants.
The Eleusis Club, Chelsea, had passed a resolution calling on the
Government to recognise postal employés and all servants in its employ
as citizens, with the right to combine to protect and further their
interests without any dread of departmental rules and regulations to
the contrary; and further it was deemed the duty of the Government to
reinstate those who had suffered in performing their citizen duties.
The reply of the Postmaster-General through his Assistant-Secretary was
calculated to affirm and emphasise the right recently accorded by Mr.
Gladstone, but better still, it removed any suspicions that the Liberal
Postmaster-General was only waiting to swoop down like the wolf on the
fold to destroy their various combinations. As this, in conjunction with
the Gladstone proclamation, was regarded as a valuable pronouncement on
liberty in the Post-Office, it is necessary here to reproduce it. The
following is the reply:—
“GENERAL POST-OFFICE, LONDON,
_February 14, 1895_.
“SIR,—I am directed by the Postmaster-General to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of the 8th inst., and to inform you,
in reply, that the political committee of the Eleusis Club
appears to be under a misapprehension in believing that the
rights of combination or citizenship are denied to Post-Office
servants. On the contrary, _I am to state there are no official
regulations restricting the right of Post-Office servants to
combine or to meet, when not on duty, when and where they
like_. In the same way, with certain exceptions not material to
the present purpose—such as the situation of process-server,
rate-collector, and such like—_they are not_ precluded from
serving in any office the duties of which do not interfere
with their official duties, _or from taking part in politics_.
As regards the latter part of the resolution, expressing
the opinion of the Eleusis Club that it is the ‘duty of the
Government to reinstate those who have suffered in performing
their citizen duties,’ I am to state that Mr. Morley is not
aware who those persons are.—I am, sir, your obedient servant,
(Signed) “H. JOYCE.”
Forgiving the pretended ignorance of the recent notorious dismissals,
to say the least it was reassuring, and was the more unexpected from
Mr. Arnold Morley, who had all along been credited with a ravenous
desire to swallow up everything in the shape of trades’ unionism in the
Post-Office. It is possible that had the concession been offered by Mr.
Raikes, it would have been offered by him in such a manner as would
have won him simultaneous and unanimous applause. Mr. Raikes would have
offered it with a genial smile, as if it gave him unbounded pleasure to
render this little service, but somehow coming from Mr. Arnold Morley’s
hand it was accepted differently; it was offered without the smile, and
with a cold and impassive air that indicated official boredom kept in
check only by mechanical good breeding. The Postmaster-General was too
indifferent or too indolent to make a good actor, so they merely accepted
this new concession to principle as a something thrown to them by an
unsympathetic hand. But no matter how they came by it, or whatever it
came wrapped in, it was thought none the less a gem, and they came to
prize it accordingly.
W. E. Clery, now that he was free from the trammels of Post-Office life,
devoted himself almost exclusively to the promotion of postal interests
through public and Parliamentary channels. He contributed numerous
articles to the press on postal grievances; he daily interviewed M.P.’s
both in the House and at their private residences; delivered a long
series of lectures on the need for postal reform; and generally did
all those things which no postal servant still in the service dared
openly do. By this time, having become well known as a writer and an
enterprising young journalist, he commanded no little influence with
the London press; and numerous articles that created a stir were either
from his pen or inspired by him. There had been some allegations of
wrong treatment of a patient by the postal medical department, to which
the premature death of a popular young officer was ascribed. An account
of this appeared in the _Sun_, and immediately there followed quite a
shoal of correspondence on postal maladministration generally. This
was continued for a considerable time, and the grievances of postmen
and sorters were reviewed from every possible standpoint. Following
on this, W. E. Clery delivered a lecture on the subject matter of the
correspondence at the South Place Institute, one Sunday morning in
March; and a report of the proceedings appearing in the press next
morning, the Postmaster-General was stirred so far as to direct a denial
of the truth of the allegations. Unfortunately for the departmental case
this denial only provoked still further criticisms, and brought forth an
abundance of fresh evidence, which elaborately proved that Mr. Arnold
Morley had been at least a little too premature in his denial of facts.
It could not have been want of evidence that stood in the way of the
Postmaster-General’s conviction that the postal dominion over which he
reigned was suffering from the effects of maladministration. Mr. Arnold
Morley may not have been responsible for it, and he might have remedied
it to some extent if only he had the power; but throughout he weakly
pretended that there was nothing to convince him, that there was really
nothing wrong with the service beyond the imaginary evils produced by
chronic discontent fomented by self-advertising agitators. Yet from top
to bottom the whole postal service was honeycombed with discontent,
and moth-eaten with the most squalid grievances. It was not only the
letter-sorters, the telegraphists, the postal clerks, and the still more
familiar postmen, who were now engaged in this battle for the betterment
of the service. These had now been reinforced by the postmasters and
sub-postmasters; and the _crême de la crême_ of the service were united
with the despised and outcast mail-cart drivers in a demand for better
pay, better hours, and better conditions generally. In the face of this,
Mr. Arnold Morley chose to put his fingers in his ears and forcibly shut
his eyes. The Postmaster-General appeared to think that by affirming
and reaffirming the right of combination among postal employés, there
his moral responsibility ended. It was gratifying to postal servants
throughout the kingdom to learn that on April 2, 1895, Mr. Arnold Morley,
in correspondence with Mr. Murray Macdonald, had once again reaffirmed
this right to combine. It so far pinned the department down, and was
a contract it could not decently depart from in future; but where was
the real value of this right, when the real and painful grievances from
which they complained were to remain ignored? But Mr. Arnold Morley
was not the first Postmaster-General who had played the part of Mrs.
Partington with her broom. The inevitable was to happen in this case
as in similar others; and at last the growth of discontent, backed by
the sympathy of the press and the public, was to bear down the barriers
of departmental opposition; and the Postmaster-General was forced to
capitulate. The matter was brought to this climax on May 17, 1895, when
Mr. Hudson Kearley, M.P., moved for a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry.
Mr. Arnold Morley, as the department personified, naturally resisted with
a brave show of strength, and then pretending to melt into a magnanimous
mood, agreed to, as a compromise, a Departmental Committee of Inquiry.
The pretence of magnanimity, however, was in serious reality intended
as a practical piece of cynicism, characteristic of its author, and
introduced solely as a means of contributing to the undoing of the enemy.
If the malcontents of the service would have edged tools to play with,
Mr. Arnold Morley was not to be blamed if they badly cut themselves.
And so it came about that the Inter-departmental Committee of Inquiry,
afterwards to become notorious as the “Tweedmouth Committee,” was
appointed, June 11, 1895.