CHAPTER XIII
The House of Commons Select Committee on Post Office Servants, 1906

On September 17, 1904, the Postal Telegraph Clerks’ Association unanimously resolved: “That this Conference expresses its indignation that the Postmaster General, having appointed a Committee of his own choosing to inquire into the Post Office wages … now, for no good reason, has rejected the Report. This Conference, therefore, calls upon the Postmaster General to adopt immediately, as dated from May 9, 1904, the whole of the ameliorative recommendations contained in the Bradford Committee’s Report; but the Postal Telegraph Clerks’ Association reserves to itself the right to object to, and protest against, any recommendations which may be considered by this Association to be of a restrictive and retrograde character.”225

In the evening of the same day a mass meeting was addressed by Mr. W. W. Rutherford, M. P., the head of the firm of Miller, Peel, Hughes and Rutherford, Liverpool. Mr. Rutherford had been Lord Mayor of Liverpool in 1902. He said: “He ventured to think that the great Postal and Telegraph Service was suffering because its position and its grievances had not been made thoroughly intelligible to the general public…. That was not a matter touching a few hundreds of people in a hole and corner of the country, but was one of extreme importance affecting no less than 185,000 people…. The real foes of the employees were the highly paid officials at the head of the Department, who were quite content to draw their salaries and show that the Government was making four or five million pounds sterling226 out of the public and the Postal Service.”

Mr. Rutherford’s speech recalls to mind the fact that the Australian cousins of the British civil servants have learned to deal with their “foes” by compelling the popular branches of the Australian Parliaments to reduce the salaries of offensive officials, or to drive them out of the Service by means of “fishing” Parliamentary Committees, appointed to report on—and to condemn—the offending officials.

On August 14, 1904, the London Branch of the Postal Telegraph Clerks’ Association held a meeting, at which Mr. C. H. Garland,227 the Secretary, spoke of Mr. Thomas Bayley, M. P., as one who “had rendered valuable service to their cause in the House of Commons.” The presiding officer, Mr. R. H. Davis, said: “In burking the recommendations of the Committee they could not help feeling that the Post Office authorities had been guilty of a breach of faith. Were they going to take the rebuff lying down? The London Committee were determined to fight the matter harder than ever. By the time Parliament assembled next year, they would have an effective organization at their disposal, and the enemy would feel their pressure very considerably.”228

The Special Conference of the Postal Telegraph Clerks’ Association held on September 17, 1904, resolved to hold mass meetings in all the district centres between then and next February [opening of Parliament] to protest against the action of the Postmaster General. The series to conclude with a “monster” demonstration in London immediately before the opening of Parliament.229

On July 6, 1905, while the House of Commons was in Committee of Supply, and was considering the vote upon the Post Office, there was a long and instructive debate upon the Report of the Bradford Committee.230 Lord Stanley, Postmaster General, opened the debate with a quotation from The Post,231 the Post Office employees’ organ. The statement quoted read: “Not only do we object to the composition of the [Bradford] Committee, but we take the strongest exception to its terms of reference. The inquiry as to whether our wages are adequate or otherwise becomes a farce if their adequacy is to be judged by the standard of wages of the open labor market. No such comparison would be reasonable or fair. There is no other employer who fixes his own prices or makes an annual profit of $20,000,000. There is no other class of work which can be compared to the Post Office work, neither any other employee who can be compared with the Post Office servants…. Surely Mr. Chamberlain does not think we should regard such an inquiry as final. If he does, the sooner his mind is disabused the better.” Lord Stanley next discussed the manner in which the Bradford Committee had made recommendations which were based on no evidence whatever. For instance, in order to improve the chances of promotion, the Committee had recommended the creation of additional higher posts—“for which there was no work.” In one Department of the Post Office that recommendation would mean the increase in the number of overseers from 250 to 900. Lord Stanley next made lengthy comparisons between the wages received by letter sorters and telegraphists on the one hand, and employees of equal intelligence and attainments in the service of private companies on the other hand. He showed that in London the maximum wage of the sorters and telegraphists was equal to the salary of the “non-college-trained certified teacher,” and that in such provincial cities as Hull, Swansea and Exeter it was larger. “The only comparison which was not entirely upon his [the Postmaster General’s] side was that with the clerks in the cable companies, who were paid more than the Post Office cable room operators. But the work of the cable companies’ operators was more arduous, and there was liability to be sent abroad at any moment. But he had granted the Post Office cable room operators an increase of pay.” He added that the ultimate aggregate cost of the increases in pay made since the publication of the Bradford Committee’s Report would be $642,000 a year.232

Lord Stanley, Postmaster General, concluded as follows: “But he would ask the House just to consider what was going to be the end of all these demands. This was really a question worthy of consideration on both sides of the House. What were the demands on the public purse for this particular office? It would be within the recollection of the Committee of Supply that at a deputation to his Right Honorable Friend and himself, one of the men stated that he thought the whole of the $20,000,000 profit, as he regarded it, made by the Post Office employees, ought to be devoted to the payment of those employees … that man made a deliberate statement, not on his own account, but as representing a particular section or organization in the Department. It was repudiated by others present….” Lord Stanley next stated that the demands made by the Post Office employees before the Bradford Committee would have called for $12,500,000 a year. He continued: “Honorable Members knew better than he how they were being bombarded with applications from Post Office employees and other classes of Civil Servants for increases of wages. This had taken a form which was not illegal, but which he could not help thinking was an abuse of their rights, to wit, the form of a political threat. They had circulated an appeal in which they expressed very clearly and very frankly their intention, and it was one of which the Committee would have to take note now, or it would be much worse in the future. They said: ‘Two-thirds at least of one political party are in great fear of losing their seats. The swing of the pendulum is against them, and any Member who receives 40 or 50 such letters will under present circumstances have to consider very seriously whether on this question he can afford to go into the wrong lobby. This is taking advantage of the political situation.’ It was indeed, but it was abusing, as it seemed to him, their rights as voters. It was nothing more nor less than blackmail. It was nothing more nor less than asking Members to purchase votes for themselves at the General Election233 at the expense of the Public Exchequer. Both sides would have to make up their minds that some means should be devised by which there should not be this continual blood-sucking on the part of the public servants.”

“How it was to be done, was not for him to say, but he had suggested, and he still thought that there would have to be some organization outside party politics altogether, and unconnected with and unmoved by Parliament and political considerations, to whom such questions should be referred and by whom an impartial opinion should be given…. He wanted now rather to anticipate a request that would probably be made by Honorable Members opposite—that he should appoint a Parliamentary Committee. To that request he would have to give a negative reply, and he would say why. First, too great political pressure would be brought to bear on the Committee; second, the whole case of the Post Office employees was before the House in the evidence taken by the Bradford Committee, and everybody could make up his mind as well as he would be able to if appointed to a Select Committee. Third, he would not throw the responsibility on to a Committee; it was his place to bear it himself.”

On July 18, Lord Stanley, Postmaster General, stated that he would neither withdraw nor modify the epithets “blackmail” and “blood-sucking” which he had used. He stated that those epithets applied “only to those who by speeches, letters or circulars, attempt unduly to influence the votes of Honorable Members with regard to the questions affecting Post Office wages, and to those who associate themselves with such action.”234

After the Postmaster General had spoken, Captain Norton moved a reduction of the Post Office Vote, for the purpose of drawing attention to the grievances of long standing of the Post Office employees. He said: “As regarded what had been said about undue influence, his contention was that so long as the Postal officials, or should he say the members of the Civil Service, and for that matter the members of the fighting services were allowed to maintain a vote, they had precisely the same rights as all other voters in the country to exercise their fullest influence in the defense of their rights, privileges and interests. He might mention that all classes of all communities, all professions, all trades, all combinations of individuals, such as anti-vaccinationists and so forth, had invariably used their utmost pressure in defense of their interests and views upon Members of the House….”235

Sir Albert K. Rollit supported Captain Norton’s motion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, spoke as follows: “The question at issue was not one between the two political parties. It was above parties. It was whether there was to be good economical government in the country at all, or whether the Civil Servants in the employment of the Crown could make such use of their votes, as citizens, for the purely selfish purpose of forcing the public to pay more for their services and so increase the expenditure of a great Department of State. He did not know how long they could go on in the position they had now reached, under which pressure was brought to bear on Honorable Members of all parties by their constituents. He was certain that if any scheme could be devised … so that they might take this question altogether out of the region of political life—not merely out of party life, but out of Parliamentary life—it would be a great advantage. It would tend to preserve the Civil Service free from that political influence and independent of the changing fortunes of party which had been their great boast and security in the past. If there were a general feeling in the House that an object of that kind was one on which all parties might well coöperate, then His Majesty’s Government, while maintaining as resolutely as they had in past years their objection to referring these specific grievances to a Select Committee appointed in the ordinary way for that particular purpose, would be prepared to assent to the appointment of a Committee of this House to consider the state of affairs which had arisen; to see if they could devise some remedy for it; to lay down the principles by which they should be governed in these matters; and to advise whether it would be possible to establish some permanent body or Commission, outside the sphere of electoral pressure and above and beyond any of our party conflicts, which might advise the Government in applying those principles to particular cases. Such a Committee could, of course, only be successfully conceded with the good will of all parties in the House, and if the whole House were animated by a desire, if possible, to set this question at rest. With that good-will, he thought, it might serve a useful purpose. The object to be attained was of such vast importance that he, for one, would not refuse any method by which they might hope successfully to compass it and to maintain the Civil Service in that high position of which, with its great traditions, they had such just cause to be proud and such good reason to be grateful for.”236

Captain Norton’s motion was lost by a vote of 249 to 205. The House divided on party lines, only two Members of the Opposition voting with the Government, and only nine supporters of the Government voting with the Opposition.237 Of the Members of the Opposition who voted in support of Captain Norton’s motion, two shortly afterward became members of the Cabinet in Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman’s Liberal Ministry, and fifteen others became members of the Ministry, but not of the Cabinet, or inner circle.238

Captain Norton himself became one of the four Junior Lords of the Treasury. The latter functionaries “are expected to gather the greatest number of their own party into every division [of the House of Commons], and by persuasion, promises, explanation, and every available expedient, to bring their men from all quarters to the aid of the Government upon any emergency. It is also their business to conciliate the discontented and doubtful among the ministerial supporters, and to keep every one, as far as possible, in good humor.”239

In The Nineteenth Century and After, for April, 1906, Mr. J. H. Heaton, in an article entitled: Wanted! An End to Political Patronage, discussed at length some of the after effects of the memorable debate of July 6, 1905. Mr. Heaton had been returned to Parliament from Canterbury in 1885, 1886, 1892, 1895, and 1900; the last four occasions as an unopposed candidate. He had carried the Imperial Penny Postage Scheme in 1888; he had introduced telegraph money orders in England; the parcel post to France, etc.; and the freedom of the City of London in a gold casket had been conferred on him in 1899.

Mr. Heaton opened his article with the statement: “Many years ago a great Prime Minister wrote to me as follows: ‘There can be no doubt that the organized attempts of servants of the State to use their political influence at the cost of the taxpayer is likely to become a serious danger. I agree with you in thinking that it can only be effectually met by agreement between the two sides of the House.’” Mr. Heaton continued: “The Civil Servants of the Crown are, taken as a whole, an admirable and efficient body of workers, of whom England is justifiably proud, and whom—as was held, I think, by the late Mr. Gladstone—she rewards on a generous scale…. It is the more to be regretted that large classes of them should have fallen into the hands of agitators, who incite to the systematic intimidation of Members of Parliament with a view to the extortion of larger and larger votes [appropriations] for salaries. This evil is rapidly becoming formidable…. Any official raising the cry of ‘higher wages’ is sure of popularity among his fellows, who instantly regard him as a born leader. The pleasant prospect of an increase of income without working for it is a bait that never fails to appeal most strongly to the least energetic and deserving. A postman or dockyard hand finds that he can win promotion and increased pay only by strenuous hard work, just as if he were a mere artisan or shop assistant. But the agitators point out that he can attain an equivalent result by bullying the local M. P., and so he joins the league or union formed for the purpose.”

“Where is this to stop? The late Sir W. Harcourt240 wrote (to me) that the demands of the Postal employees reached a depth, or abyss, which no plummet would fathom. We know now that they claim the Postal surplus, which amounts to nearly five millions [sterling]…. There are 192,000 of them, and of these probably 100,000 have votes. Adding these to the dockyard, arsenal, and stores factory hands, and other Government employees, we have a political force that may turn the scale at a General Election. Candidates are tempted to bid against one another with the taxpayer’s money. ‘Let us be charitable!’ said Sydney Smith, and put his hand into a bystander’s pocket. Our legislators were proof against the hectoring of the Tudors, the violence of the Stuarts, and the blandishments of the Georges; surely they will never yield to the menaces of demagogues.”

“At this point I would like to state briefly my own experience…. Last year great pressure was brought to bear in the House of Commons on Members of Parliament, and, with thirty other Members, I was threatened with the loss of my seat unless I voted to meet the demands of the Postal servants. It was further intimated to me that the Postal servants’ vote, 100,000 strong, would turn out any Government. A few minutes afterwards it fell to my lot to address the House on the question of increase of postmen’s wages…. I ended my speech by declaring that civil servants who threatened Members of Parliament for refusing to vote them increased salaries ought to be disfranchised. Result—a meeting called in my constituency, my opponent placed in the chair, and a vote of censure passed on me. The London postmen came to Canterbury and addressed my constituents at the meeting. It is not surprising, therefore, that at the recent election my agents informed me that 46 postmen voted solid against me.241 I do not blame the postmen; they were perfectly justified in using their power; but if I had not had at my back one of the most intelligent bodies of electors in the United Kingdom, I should have been defeated through the postmen’s action.

“It was some consolation to me to receive in the House of Commons, after my speech, hearty, though private, congratulations from hard-working, earnest workingmen representatives, who expressed their entire approval of what they were pleased to call my courage. But something ought to be done to prevent a recurrence of such a scandal.”

In view of Mr. Heaton’s closing remarks, it is interesting to note that four of the eight242 Labor Members voted, and that all of them favored the appointment of a House of Commons Select Committee.

In the campaign preceding the General Election of January, 1906, the several associations of Postal and Telegraph employees addressed letters to the candidates for Parliament, asking those candidates whether they would “support the claims of the Postal and Telegraph employees and vote for the appointment of a Select Committee of the House of Commons for the purpose of inquiring into their conditions of pay and service; and stating that on their part the workers pledged themselves to accept as final the decision of such a tribunal.” At the annual conference of the Postal Telegraph Clerks’ Association, held in March, 1906, the President of the Association said that nearly 450 of the 670 Members of the House of Commons243 had pledged themselves to support a motion for a Parliamentary Inquiry into the position of the Post Office employees.244

In the third sitting of the new Parliament, held on February 20, the Postmaster General, Mr. Sydney Buxton, announced that the Government had decided to appoint a Select Committee of the House of Commons.245 And on March 6, the Postmaster General introduced a motion for a Committee of seven to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. In response to the wishes of the House, the Postmaster General subsequently changed his motion to one calling for a Committee of nine, to be appointed by the whips of the several parties in the House.246

The motion was carried without debate upon the question whether a Committee should be appointed. In the course of the debate whether the Committee should be appointed by the Committee of Selection, or by the Party Whips, Lord Balcarres, who had been a Junior Lord of the Treasury in the Balfour Government, used these words: “As regards those Honorable Gentlemen who had entered Parliament for the first time,247 he thought he was fairly accurate when he said that they had given pretty specific pledges upon the matter [of the appointment of a Select Committee] to those who had sent them to the House.” Sir A. Acland-Hood, who had been Chief Whip and Patronage Secretary to the Treasury in the late Balfour Government, said: “There was a debate and a division [upon this question, last year,] and nearly the whole of the supporters of the Government voted against the appointment of the Committee. No doubt many of them suffered for it at the General Election; they either lost their seats or had their majorities reduced in consequence of the vote.” And, finally, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the new Prime Minister, expressed himself as follows in the course of an argument in favor of a Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection rather than by the House itself through the agency of the Party Whips. The Prime Minister said: “There was a great deal of force in what the Right Honorable Gentleman [Sir A. Acland-Hood] had said as to the fears that were entertained in many quarters of the effect on the Committee if appointed under pressure and insistence, and the retroactive effect of old promises extracted in moments of agony from candidates at the General Election.”248

The Select Committee on Post Office Servants consists of: 4 Liberals, Messrs. Barker, Edwards, Hobhouse and Sutherland; 2 Conservatives, the Honorable Claude Hay and Sir Clement Hill; 2 Liberal and Labor Members, Messrs. John Ward and G. J. Wardle; and 1 Nationalist, Mr. P. A. Meechan.249

The reference to the Committee is: “to inquire into the wages and position of the principal classes of Post Office servants, and also of the unestablished postmasters. To examine, so far as may be necessary for the purpose of their Report, the conditions of employment of these classes. To report, whether, having regard to the conditions and prospects of their employment, and, as far as may be, to the standard rate of wages and the position of other classes of workers, the remuneration they receive is adequate or otherwise.”

In the spring of 1907, the Committee reported that it had not had time to perform its task, and asked for reappointment. The evidence thus far taken by the Committee had not been published at the date of this writing, March 20, 1907.

Lord Stanley was one of the many Conservative candidates defeated in the General Election of January, 1906. When his defeat became known, hundreds of telegrams were showered upon him by postal and telegraph employees located in all parts of the United Kingdom. The telegram sent by Liverpool postal and telegraph employees was typical of the lot. It congratulated Lord Stanley upon his retirement to private life, and assured him that the senders at all times would do all in their power to make the retirement a permanent one.

CHAPTER XIV
The House of Commons, Under Pressure from the Civil Service Unions, Curtails the Executive’s Power to Dismiss Incompetent and Redundant Employees

The intervention of the House of Commons in the details of the administration of the Post Office Department and the other State Departments, is by no means confined to the raising of salaries and wages. It extends to practically every kind of question that arises out of the conflicts of the interests of the State servants and the interests of the public Treasury. The intervention is due to the organized action of the “civil service unions;” and it is exercised primarily on behalf of classes of employees, but not exclusively. The latter day spirit of the civil service unions is to make the cause of the individual the cause of the class, and that brings about much intervention through the House of Commons, by the organized civil service, on behalf of individual State servants. The ancient form of intervention on behalf of the individual who had claims that were based on personal influence or family influence, on family ties, or on friendship, has been abolished. In its place has been developed intervention on behalf of the individual, prompted by the fact that the individual in question is a member of a civil service union that seeks to enforce certain ideals as to the terms and conditions that shall prevail in the public service. Of the two forms of intervention, the latter is the more pernicious and demoralizing, partly because it is—or will become—more pervasive, partly because it rests on class bribery and class corruption, as distinguished from the individual bribery and the individual corruption upon which rested the old form of intervention. Of those two forms of corruption, the bribery of classes is the more difficult to eradicate.