On April 27, 1900, Mr. Steadman moved the reduction of the Postmaster General’s salary by $2,500.193 He said: “I rise for the purpose of advocating the claims of the 160,000 persons employed in the Post Office for a fair and impartial Committee of Inquiry to be elected by this House to look into their grievances.”

The contention that there were grievances, Mr. Steadman supported with the following arguments. From 1881 to 1891, the Civil Service Commissioners, in issuing notices that they would hold competitive examinations for intending entrants into the telegraph service, had stated that in London telegraphists had “a prospect of obtaining [ultimately] $950 a year.” That, argued Mr. Steadman, was a contract between the Government and the telegraphists who entered the London service between 1881 and 1891, that every such telegraphist should rise to $950. The Government therefore had committed a breach of contract when, in 1892, it had announced that good character and good skill as an operator would not secure a telegraphist promotion to the senior class, in which the salary rose from $800 a year to $950. To be eligible for promotion to the senior class, a man must be not only an excellent telegraphist, but must, in addition, possess such executive ability as would enable him to act as an overseer, or as assistant to the Assistant Superintendent.

Mr. Steadman continued: “Now I come to the question of the postmen. Goodness knows where all that $1,950,000 a year has gone to. You cannot get away from the fact that the postman to-day in London commences [at the age of 16 years to 18 years] with a minimum wage of $4.50 a week…. Fancy that, Mr. Chairman, a man commencing on $4.50 a week, and employed by the State in a Department that has a clean profit of between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000.” Mr. Steadman next contended that a good conduct stripe—worth $13 a year—should be given every three years; that the present period of five years was too long. Moreover, the Department was altogether too rigorous in withholding good conduct stripes for breaches of discipline. Mr. Steadman cited the following instances to prove the necessity of an inquiry by Members of the House of Commons into the discipline enforced by the Department. A man who had served nine years as an auxiliary postman had been arrested on the charge of stealing a postal money order. Though found not guilty by the Court, he had been dismissed, without a certificate of good character. Postman Taylor, of Stirling, after suffering an accident, was unable to cover his route in the time fixed by the Post Office. Thereupon the local postmaster had asked Taylor to retire on a pension. “The latest information that I have in regard to that case is that the man who is now doing Taylor’s duties, in order to get through his round in the time allotted, has his son to help him.” Again, the annual increment had been withheld from one Lacon, a telegraphist at Birmingham, and the local Secretary of the Postal Telegraph Clerks’ Association. The Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Hanbury, had told Mr. Steadman that the Superintendent at Birmingham reported that Lacon’s increment had been withheld because Lacon had been insubordinate while on duty. Lacon had told Mr. Steadman that he had been disciplined because of his connection with the union. Mr. Steadman added: “I will not for one moment attempt to stand up in the House and attack permanent officials who are not able to defend themselves; it would be unmanly for me to do so. But I do say that I have as much right to believe the statement of Lacon, as the Right Honorable Gentleman [the Secretary to the Treasury] has to believe the statement of the Birmingham Superintendent. There is only one way of proving these cases, and that is for a Committee of impartial Members of this House to be appointed before which the permanent official can state his case and the men theirs. If that is done, the Members, if their minds are unbiassedunbiased, will very soon be able to judge as to who is telling the truth.”

Sir Albert Rollit seconded Mr. Steadman’s Motion, saying: “and we ought not to overlook the fact, that, rightly or wrongly, these men now have votes, and if they cannot obtain redress for their grievances here in the House of Commons, they will try to obtain it from our masters, the electorate.”

Mr. R. W. Hanbury, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and representative in the House of Commons of the Postmaster General, the Duke of Norfolk, “on principle” opposed the request for a Select Committee. “Well, I say that the House of Commons is the last body which ought to interfere in these questions of the payment of our public servants. It is the last body which ought to be appealed to as regularly as it is by civil servants to raise their salaries, because that, after all, is the real object of this proposed committee. Already I think the pressure brought to bear on individual Members, and especially on Members who have a large number of civil servants in their constituencies, has become perfectly intolerable, and civil servants may depend upon it that it is the general opinion in this House, although they may have their cause advocated by Members upon whom they may be able to bring particular pressure, because large numbers of them happen to live in the constituencies of those Members; I repeat that they may depend upon it that in the opinion of the great body of the Members of this House they are taking a highly irregular course, and are in no way making their position more favorable in the minds of the great majority of Members. Nothing will induce me personally to agree to any committee such as has been suggested. And while I object on principle, I object also because absolutely no necessity has been shown for the committee…. The Duke of Norfolk and I, because we were so desirous that no case of the slightest grievance should be left untouched, inquired into every grievance which was said to have been left unredressed by the Tweedmouth Committee…. Every Member of the House had a right to attend our [Norfolk-Hanbury Committee] meetings, and to cross-examine the witnesses…. It is the intention of the Post Office and of the Treasury to carry out the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee to the very fullest extent, and if the honorable Member [Mr. Steadman] is able to show me any case whatever in which that has not been done, even in the case of an individual postman, or sorter, or telegraphist, I will go into it myself, and I will do more: I will promise that the grievance shall be redressed.”

Mr. Steadman’s Motion was lost by a vote of 66 to 46. It was supported by forty-one members of the Opposition and by four supporters of the Government.194

On June 7, 1901, while the House of Commons was in Committee of Supply, Mr. Thomas Bayley195 asked for a Select Committee of the House of Commons to investigate the grievance of the Post Office servants.196 He said: “This House shows a want of moral courage by throwing the responsibility for redressing the grievance of the Post Office servants on the other House [Lord Tweedmouth] or the permanent officials of any Department whatsoever.” Mr. Bayley had begun his political career as a Town Councillor in Nottingham.

After many Members had supported the request for a Select Committee, the Prime Minister, Mr. A. J. Balfour, said: “I have listened with great interest to this debate, and, I confess frankly, with considerable anxiety as to the future of the public service if pressure of the kind which has been put upon the Government to-night is persisted in by this House. This House is omnipotent. It can make and unmake Governments. It can decide what, when, and how public money is to be spent. But with that omnipotence I would venture to urge upon Members their great responsibility with a subject like this. Everyone knows that a great organized body like the Post Office Service has in its power to put great pressure upon Members, but I earnestly urge upon honorable Gentlemen that unless we take our courage in both hands, and say that, although most desirous that all legitimate grievances shall be dealt with, we cannot permit the Government as a great employer of labor to have this kind of pressure put upon it, I think the future of the public service is in peril. I assure the committee that I speak with a great sense of responsibility. In this very case the Post Office employees have brought forward their grievances year after year. Two Commissions have been appointed, and no one ever ventured to impugn the ability or impartiality of the members of those Commissions. These Commissions made the fullest examination into the case put before them, and reported at length, and as a consequence of that report the British taxpayers are now paying $2,500,000 more of money than they paid before…. In none of the speeches has any specific complaint been brought forward, or any point urged which suggests the necessity for further inquiry, but only the statement that there is a feeling of uneasiness, and a desire for further examination, and that when such a desire is expressed, the House should listen to it. We cannot keep the Civil Service in a sound and healthy condition if we are going to examine into it by a committee every five years. If the House of Commons were to yield to the very natural temptation of granting a committee such as had been asked for, though we might escape an inconvenient division, we should be unworthy, in my opinion, of bearing any longer the great responsibility of being the enormous employer of labor that we are. We should not be carrying out our duty to the public, and, worst of all, we should aim a blow at the Civil Service, which is the boast of this country and the envy of the civilized world, because we should become the parliamentary creatures of every organized body of public servants who chose to use the great power which the Constitution gives, for ends which I am sure they believe to be right, but which this House could not yield to in the manner now suggested without derogating from the high functions and spirit of pure impartiality which the House must maintain if Members are to do their duty by their constituents.”

Mr. Bayley’s Motion was lost by a vote of 148 to 103; it being supported by ninety-one members of the Opposition and nine Government supporters.197

On April 18, 1902, while the House of Commons was in Committee of Supply, Captain Norton198 moved the reduction by $500 of the item: Salaries and Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service: $12,056,250.199 He said: “The case briefly was this, that the Government had been guilty of a distinct breach of faith in connection with a certain number of worthy Government officials. He knew that to make this statement of breach of faith was what must be called a strong order, but he was prepared to prove that he was not exaggerating in the smallest degree.” He went on to state that the telegraphists who entered the service in London in 1881 to 1891, when the Civil Service Commissioners had advertised that entrants had “a prospect of obtaining $950,” had a contract with the Government that the possession of “ordinary manipulative ability, with regular attendance and good conduct” would insure advancement to a position paying $950. The Government had broken that contract by prescribing, in 1892, that men “must be equal to supervising duties” in order to be promoted to the positions carrying $950.

Sir Albert Rollit200 supported Captain Norton with the words: “For a long time past there had been a very strong and general feeling in the service that many of the men had been the victims of something amounting almost to an imposition, however unintentional, on the part of a public Department. Strong terms had been used in the course of the debate, but he should endeavor to deal with the matter on the basis of what he believed to have been a contract between those employees and the Post Office. It was not difficult to show that that implied—or, he might even say, express—contract had induced many to enter the service, only to find that the contract was afterward departed from by one of the contracting parties, the State.”

Mr. Keir Hardie supported Captain Norton’s Motion with the argument that the concessions made by the Tweedmouth Committee had imposed no additional burdens upon the taxpayers, for that committee merely had allocated a small portion of the extra profit made by the Post Office to the Post Office servants who made that profit. Mr. Keir Hardie at one time has held the office of Chairman of the Independent Labor Party,201 an organization that brings to bear upon the British municipal governments a pressure similar to that here shown to be brought upon the House of Commons.

Mr. Gibson Bowles said: “He was aware that many honorable Members who brought forward the position of servants of the State, did so against their own desires, because of the almost irresistible pressure placed upon them by the servants of the State, who were at the same time electors…. He supported the Secretary to the Treasury in resisting this particular amendment, because it was one of many which tended to illustrate a form of tyranny that was becoming unbearable, and which tended seriously to injure the character of this House as making its Members the advocates of classes, sections, and little communities, instead of being trustees not for them alone, but for the whole community.”

Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and representative in the House of Commons of the Postmaster General, the Marquis of Londonderry, said he “supposed it would not be unfair to say that an officer joining the British Army had a prospect of becoming a field marshal.” As to the telegraphists, “all that the Government ever had held out to them was a prospect of a certain number of them attaining something beyond the ordinary maximum” of $800, to which any man could rise by the display of ordinary manipulative ability and the observance of good conduct. Under Mr. Fawcett, in 1881 to 1884, one telegraphist out of every 6.3 telegraphists had risen beyond $800. In 1890 the proportion in question had been exactly the same. In 1902, the proportion was one in six, or, “practically the same.”

Mr. Austen Chamberlain continued: “When I consider the great concessions that were made [by the Tweedmouth Committee], and the great burden that was placed upon the taxpayers, the care that was given to that inquiry, and the opportunity that was afforded to every one to have their grievances heard, I cannot pretend to think that a case has been made out for trying, not fresh matters, but for retrying the same matters and changing the tribunal, merely because all its decisions [i. e., some of its decisions] were not agreeable to one of the parties concerned. I hope the House will not do anything so fatal to the efficiency and the organization of our Civil Service, as to allow any large body of civil servants to think that they have only to be importunate enough to secure in this House repeated inquiries into their grievances, no matter what previous care has been given to their consideration. I trust this House will have confidence in the desire of the Postmaster General to deal fairly with all his employees, and believe me when I say that there is nothing easier for us to do than to give way; and that it is only because we believe it to be our duty to the taxpayers that we find it necessary to refuse these recurring and increasing demands.”

Captain Norton’s Motion was lost by a vote of 164 to 134. It was supported by one hundred and twenty-three Opposition members, and by seven Government supporters.202

A few hours later, Mr. Thomas Bayley203 moved a reduction of $500 on the salary of the Postmaster General, in order to call attention to the grievances of the officials of the Post Office.204 He said there should be a Court of Appeal for the civil servants, and that Court should be the House of Commons alone; whenever a dispute arose between the Government of the day and its servants, the House should constitute itself the Court of Appeal. Mr. Bayley added: “It had been distinctly laid down that it was no part of the duty of the Post Office to make a profit, but it should be worked for the future convenience of the public and not reduced to the level of a mere profit making machine. It was this desire on the part of the Post Office officials to make profit which lay at the root of all the troubles which the House had been discussing in the debate that evening.”

Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and representative, in the House of Commons, of the Postmaster General, replied: “I refuse to resign one particle of my responsibility, or to accept the suggestion that the Government should wash their hands of their responsibility, and throw the subject, as an open question, before the House of Commons, and ask a Committee of this House, without aid or guidance from responsible Ministers, to judge upon the multitude of conflicting interests and details incident to the administration of so great a service as the Post Office. I, for one, will not be party to putting off that responsibility on to the House of Commons…. But we consider that it would be a grave dereliction of duty on our part to throw this great service into the turmoil and confusion of a Parliamentary inquiry, with the knowledge that such an inquiry would not be final—honorable Gentlemen who have supported this Amendment have declared that to talk about finality in this matter is absurd—with the knowledge that what is done to-day for the Post Office, must be done to-morrow for every other Department employing a large number of Government servants, until elections to this House will depend more and more on the willingness of Members to purchase the support of those who are in public employment by promises of concessions at the public expense, instead of securing their support, like that of other citizens, on public grounds and national interests.”

On April 30, 1903, while the House was in Committee of Supply, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Postmaster General, prefaced the discussion by the Committee of the Post Office Vote, with the following statement:205…. “The demand is that a Select Committee of this House should be appointed to examine into the grievances of the Post Office staff. I have made it my business since I have been at the post office to see that every memorial from the staff dealing with their grievances, addressed to me, should come before me personally…. Even though I have felt that many of the matters thus brought to my notice were very small details of administration. I am determined that an official [employee] of the Post Office, going to the head of his service, should receive as fair and careful consideration of his appeal, if he applies to me direct, as if he sought Parliamentary influence to urge his claim. And I venture to think that nothing has occurred during the time that I have been responsible which can justify any servant of the Post Office in saying that he is unable, except by Parliamentary influence, or by Parliamentary exposure, to obtain the attention of the head of the Department. The other day at the request of several Members on both sides of the House, I met the Members themselves, and consented that if they wished, they should be accompanied by members of the Post Office Staff, who should make before them, and in my presence, a statement of the grounds on which they asked for this inquiry by a Select Committee, in order that then and there I might discuss it with my honorable friends. The Vote comes on to-night, and I intend to take this opportunity of making a few observations on the grounds for this Parliamentary inquiry as put forth by the Staff. There are three main grounds alleged by the spokesman for the staff for a Parliamentary inquiry—wages, sanitation [i. e., the sanitary condition of certain offices], and meal reliefs, or the time allowed out of working hours for taking refreshment. If a person does eight hours’ continuous work he is allowed half an hour out of that time for a meal, reducing his actual working hours to seven and a half hours…. I only wish to draw the attention of the committee to what was described to me as a typical grievance by the spokesman of a deputation which waited on me shortly before Christmas. Certain men are on duty from 10 a. m. to 2 p. m., and from 4 p. m. to 8 p. m., and complain because they are not allowed 20 minutes for tea. In the judgment of any impartial person, was that a reasonable grievance…? I myself have come to the conclusion, … that while a great number of the complaints made have no foundation in justice, and that a great number of the men who think themselves aggrieved would find it difficult to get, elsewhere than in the public service, such good employment as they have now, there are other cases which are open to improvement and for which further inquiry is needed to fix exactly what should be done. The Government is unalterably opposed to a Select Committee of the House of Commons for the decision of this question. Honorable Members know, and it is no use blinking it, the kind of pressure which is brought to bear, or is attempted to be brought to bear, upon Members in all parts of the House by the public servants, servants of the Post Office, I am afraid, especially, though not entirely [exclusively], at election times. I have had Members come to me, not from one side of the House alone, to seek from me, in my position as Postmaster General, protection for them in the discharge of their public duties against the pressure sought to be put upon them by the employees of the Post Office. Even if the machinery by which our Select Committees are appointed were such as would enable us to secure a Select Committee composed of thoroughly impartial men who had committed themselves by no expression of opinion, I still think that it would not be fair to pick out fifteen Members of this House and make them marked men for the purposes of such pressure as is now distributed more or less over the whole Assembly. But if I am opposed to the appointment of a House of Commons Committee for fixing wages in the Post Office, I am still more opposed to thrusting upon it, or, indeed, on any Committee, the duty of regulating in all its details the daily administration and work of the Post Office. The wages paid are not in all respects satisfactory, some are too low, others are too high. Advice from men of practical and business experience would help me, the Minister in this matter. Therefore, I propose to take such advice—of men as free from any kind of political and electoral pressure, as they should be free from any departmental influence. I should suggest a body of five to report for my advice and information on the wages paid in the Post Office Department to the four great classes of employees, the letter sorters and the telegraphists in London, and the letter sorters and the telegraphists in the provinces.”

After reiterating that he proposed to get the advice of business men only on the question of the scale of wages paid in the Post Office Department, and that he in no way proposed to surrender to any Committee of any sort the general duties of the Postmaster General, Mr. Austen Chamberlain closed with the words: “I ask the Committee [of Supply] to give me all the confidence it can, and when it is unable to give me that confidence, I say that that is no reason for granting a Select Committee to do my work, but only a reason for transferring the office of Postmaster General to someone who is more competent.”

Mr. Thomas Bayley replied that “he was not willing to give up the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, whose duty it was to remedy the grievances of the public service…. And although he had been assured by those whom he represented [i. e., post office servants] that the Post Office officials would loyally abide by the decision of a Committee of the House of Commons, the Right Honorable Gentleman [the Postmaster General] could not expect the same loyalty with regard to the decision of the Committee he proposed to appoint.”

Sir Albert Rollit said: “The Tweedmouth Committee was a one-sided tribunal; the officials were represented on it, but the men not at all….”

Captain Norton replied: “The Right Honorable Gentleman had also referred to the question of Members on both sides of the House coming to him for protection. That was very startling, because the reason they were there at all was that they might represent every section of their constituents,206 … but presuming the Post Office servants were organized, he submitted they were within their rights to appeal to their Members…. If the postal officials were such terrible tyrants he hoped they would take note that they could never hope for fair play from the present Government. The Right Honorable Gentleman had appointed a packed jury of five individuals to deal with a fraction of the question…. In other words, he was going to take shelter behind this bogus committee…. He was going to appoint five Members, possibly sweaters, to determine the rate of wages…. It would be astounding if the postal officials accepted any such bogus arbitration. If it was to be a Board of Arbitration, why should not they have five postal servants added to the five employers of labor?” Captain Norton is a Junior Lord of the Treasury in the present Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman Ministry.

On May 17, 1903, the National Joint Committee of the Postal Association unanimously resolved: “That this National Joint Committee views with extreme dissatisfaction the appointment of a Court of Inquiry which is not composed of members of Parliament, but is an altogether irresponsible body, and protests against the scope of the inquiry being limited to a single grievance and to a minority of the Staff. It pledges itself to continue to use every legitimate endeavor to obtain an impartial Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into the causes of discontent in the postal and telegraph service.207

In August, 1903, the Postmaster General appointed a “Committee to inquire into the adequacy of the wages paid to certain classes of the postal servants.” The Committee consisted of: Sir Edward Bradford, until lately Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police; Mr. Charles Booth, a Liverpool Merchant, and the author of “The Life and Labor of the People in London;” Mr. Samuel Fay, General Manager of the Great Central Railway; Mr. Thomas Brodrick, Secretary of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, Manchester; and Mr. R. Burbridge, Managing Director of Harrod’s Stores.208

CHAPTER XII
The Bradford Committee Report

In the preceding chapter it was stated that the Government in August, 1903, appointed Sir Edward Bradford, Mr. Charles Booth, Mr. Thomas Brodrick, Mr. R. Burbidge, and Mr. Samuel Fay a Committee “to inquire into the scales of pay received by the undermentioned classes of Established Post Office Servants, and to report whether, having regard to the conditions of their employment and to the rates current in other occupations, the remuneration of (a) Postmen, (b) Sorters (London), (c) Telegraphists (London), (d) Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists (Provincial) is adequate.” No further question was submitted to the Committee.

The Committee, in May, 1904, reported: “We have not seen our way to obtain any specific evidence as to the comparative rates of wages current in other occupations. So far as regards this portion of the reference to us,209 we came to the conclusion that no really useful purpose would be served by asking employers of labor to furnish precise details of the wages paid by them. Certain official information is already available, being obtained and published from time to time by the Board of Trade. This information, supplemented by our own experience, affords more reliable data than any particulars we could hope to obtain in the way of evidence within the limits of an inquiry of reasonable duration.

“Moreover, it is difficult to make any valid comparison between a National Postal Service and any form of private industrial employment, the entire conditions being necessarily so different; payment by results and promotion or dismissal according to the will of the employer being inapplicable if not impossible under the State.”210

The Committee’s report covers nineteen pages, but only these two paragraphs are in answer to the reference given to the Committee. In them the Committee reports its failure; and with that report of failure the Committee should have contented itself, under all of the rules of procedure governing Committees and Commissions appointed by the British Government. But the Committee ignored the established rules of procedure, roamed about at will, and reopened many of the questions settled by the Tweedmouth Committee, which had sat two years, and had taken upward of a thousand closely printed folio pages of evidence. The Bradford Committee did this in violation of the established usage of the country, as well as in spite of the fact that Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Postmaster General, had closed the speech in which he announced his resolve to appoint the Committee, with the words that he wanted advice on the question of comparative wages only and that he refused to transfer to “any Committee the duty of regulating in all its details the daily administration and work of the Post Office.”

Upon the Report of the Committee, The Economist211 (London) commented as follows: “This Committee was asked to compare the wages of Post Office servants with those paid for corresponding work outside. Their answer was, in effect, that no such comparison could be instituted. Why, when postal servants are taken from various ascertained classes [of society], it should be impossible to compare their pay with that ordinarily received by the same classes in other employments is not obvious. What is obvious is that the Committee either mistook the inquiry entrusted to them, or did not choose to enter upon it.”

The Times212 said: “The reference here is explicit, … The specific question they were asked was the question to which, as our Correspondent says, the taxpayer really wants an answer—namely, are postal servants fairly paid…? This question the Committee has neither answered nor attempted to answer. Passing by the terms of reference altogether, the Report declares that ‘it is difficult’…. But, as an answer to the specific question addressed to the Committee; it is, in our judgment, in the literal sense of the word, impertinent. However, having rejected the criterion propounded to them by the Postmaster General, the Committee proposed to apply a criterion of their own….” The Committee made some general statements as to the rates of wages that should prevail in the public service. They were: “We think that Postal employees are justified in resting their claims to remuneration on the responsible and exacting213 character of the duties performed and on the social position they fill as servants of the State. The State, for its part, does right in taking an independent course guided by principles of its own, irrespective of what others may do; neither following an example nor pretending to set one. It must always be remembered that in the working of a monopoly by the State, the interest of the public as a whole is the paramount consideration, and every economy consistent with efficiency must be adopted. The terms offered by the State should, however, be such as to secure men and women of the requisite character and capacity and ought to be such as will insure the response of hearty service.” If one seeks to find in the foregoing statements an answer to the very matter-of-fact question whether the postal servants’ wages are too high or too low, compared with wages in outside employment, he will have to conclude, with Alice in Wonderland, that “it seems very pretty, but it’s rather hard to understand; somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas, only I don’t know exactly what they are.”

The Committee concluded with the statement that the adequacy of the wages obtaining among the postal employees could be tested by the numbers and character of those who offered themselves; by the capacity they showed on trial; and finally, by their contentment. It found that there was no lack of suitable candidates; that there was no complaint as to their capacity; but that there was widespread discontent. It added that the Tweedmouth and Norfolk-Hanbury settlements did not give satisfaction at the time; and that that dissatisfaction had been “aggravated by the general rise in wages and prices and in the standard of life which took place to some extent even during the two years occupied by the Tweedmouth inquiry (1895 and 1896) and had continued since, culminating, however, in 1900, since when there has been some slight reaction. The same period has seen a great development of Postal and Telegraph business, causing greater pressure of work. This has been combined with lower charges to the public and a considerable increase in Postal Revenue. We therefore consider there is a just claim for revision.”

Taking these statements in their order, one finds, first of all, that the Committee took no evidence on the question how Post Office wages had compared with wages in outside employment previous to the rise in wages and prices in the period from 1895 to 1900, nor on the question of the rise in wages in the Post Office Service in 1896 to 1900, compared with the rise in wages in outside employment and in prices in 1895 to 1900. The first statement of the Committee, therefore, was supported by no evidence, it was a mere assertion. The second statement, namely, that the growth of the Postal and Telegraph business had caused greater pressure of work, also was not supported by evidence. On the other hand, it was absolutely essential that such a statement should be supported by evidence, because it is a fact that in both branches of the Postal Service the policy obtains of having so large a body of employees “that the maximum of work, as a rule, can be dealt with without undue pressure.”214 As to the Post Office having lowered its charges to the public in the period from 1895 to 1900, it is to be said, first, that it does not follow therefrom that wages should be raised; and second, that the penny rate on domestic letters was not lowered, and that the carriage of penny letters is the only work upon which the Post Office makes a profit.215 Finally, as to the statement that there had been, in 1895 to 1904, “a considerable increase in Postal Revenue,” the facts are, first, that the net revenue of the Post Office as a whole increased from $14,640,000 in 1895, to $18,166,000 in 1896, and to $18,781,000 in 1897; but that in the subsequent years, 1898 to 1904, it did not again reach the high-water mark of 1897, and averaged $17,642,000. Second, that in the period, from 1895 to 1904, the Telegraph Branch did not earn operating expenses, the expenses on account of wages and salaries having risen from 11.9 cents per telegram in 1897, to 13.7 cents in 1904. That is a matter of importance, for the recommendations of the Committee extended to the Telegraph Branch as well as to the Postal Branch proper. Again, the Committee had stated that “in the working of a monopoly by the State, the interest of the public as a whole is the paramount consideration, and every economy consistent with efficiency must be adopted.” In the 20 years ending with 1903, the proportion of the Post Office’s gross revenue available for defraying the general expenses of the State had declined steadily from 33 per cent. to 20 per cent.216 Still, again, in the year 1903, the expenses of the Post Office had been increased by $3,000,000 through the Tweedmouth and Norfolk-Hanbury settlements.217 In the face of those facts, the Bradford Committee made recommendations that Lord Stanley, Postmaster General, said would cost $6,500,000 a year.218 The Bradford Committee sought to justify its recommendations with the simple statement that there was “widespread discontent” among the Postal employees. The Postal employees themselves had made demands before the Committee that would have called for the expenditure of an additional $12,500,000 a year. Their attitude to the Committee’s amiable proposal to conciliate them by giving them $6,500,000 a year, is shown in the subjoined extract from the official organ of the telegraph staff. “It is perfectly plain, … that the recommendations of the Committee, well-meaning as we frankly admit them to be, cannot be accepted as a full settlement of the case of the Post Office workers, or as one carrying with it the character of finality. They can only be accepted as an instalment of a long overdue account; and Postal Telegraphists, even if they have to fight alone for their own hand in the future as they did for many long years in the past, will combine for the payment of the balance.”219

That a body of five men, of whom four were respectively a Liverpool merchant and ship owner, a general manager of a railway, a manager of a large wholesale coöperative society, and a manager of a large department store, could make a Report such as the foregoing one, affords a melancholy illustration of the fact that no matter how far popular governments may go in assuming the conduct of great business enterprises, they never will succeed in creating a public opinion that will sustain them in their efforts to conduct their business ventures on the commonly accepted principles of the business world.

In the House of Commons, Lord Stanley, the Postmaster General, said: “As to the Committee’s Report, it did not comply with the reference, because no comparison was made with the rates of pay in other occupations … but they conclude that as there was discontent there ought to be an increase of wages. That was a direct premium on discontent, a direct encouragement to the employees to say among themselves that if they were to be discontented and to agitate, they would get more in the future. The Committee, on the other hand, went outside the reference, because they proposed a complete reorganization of the Post Office, including overseers, who were not referred to in the reference. On this particular subject they took no evidence…. Since the employees of the Post Office had said in a circular: ‘We wish to make it perfectly clear that we do not regard the Committee as in any sense an arbitration board,’ that was rather against the argument that the Report ought to be accepted as an arbitration award. He did not complain of the ordinary circulars of the employees [sent to Members of Parliament], but he did object to one circular [sent to every Member of the House of Commons], at the bottom of which was a paragraph, which could be torn off, for Members to sign [and mail to the Postmaster General], informing him [the Postmaster General] that he ought to do this or that.220 That [circular] he [Lord Stanley] would not receive…. Coming to the main question, he thought it was obvious that it was impossible for either side when in power to go on for long being swayed in all these questions of increases of wages by any pressure, political or otherwise, that might be put upon them. [Cheers.] The Post Office was not the only party concerned. There was not a class employed by the Government, who, if it saw another class getting an increase of wages by agitation, would not try the same method. He supported cordially the suggestion which had been made in the debate that all questions of pay of employees of the Government should not be referred to the House, but referred to some judicial body on whom no outside influence could be brought to bear, who would look at the matter in dispute as between employer and employee with the object of giving to the employee the wages which in the open market a good employer would give, while at the same time protecting the master—in this case the State—from any outside influence.”221 In conclusion, Lord Stanley made the statement that the adoption of the Committee’s Report would cost “well over $5,000,000 a year.”

Sir Albert Rollit acted as the spokesman of the Postal employees. He is a Solicitor in Mincing Lane and at Hull; a steamship owner at Hull, Newcastle and London; and a Director in the National Telephone Company, which pays its employees materially less than the Post Office pays the employees of the Post Office Telephone system.222 He has been President of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, as well as of the London and Hull Chambers of Commerce. He was Mayor of Hull from 1883 to 1885; and for several years past he has been the President of the Association of Municipal Corporations. Sir Albert K. Rollit was not re-elected to Parliament in the General Election of January, 1906; and in the following March, the Postal Telegraph Clerks’ Association passed a resolution “expressing appreciation of the services rendered to the Postal movement in and out of Parliament by Sir Albert K. Rollit, and regret that they were no longer able to command his championship in the House of Commons.”223

After the Balfour Government had rejected the Report of the Bradford Committee, in the interest of the taxpayers, Lord Stanley, Postmaster General, instituted “a careful comparison between Post Office wages and those current in other employments; and, as the result of the comparison, he felt justified in recommending to the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury certain improvements of pay” aggregating $1,861,500 a year.224 The improvements of pay were granted to sorters, telegraphists, sorting clerks and telegraphists, postmen, assistant and auxiliary postmen, and various smaller classes throughout the United Kingdom.