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.
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 inPunchfor his pains. The postmen continued to make headway with their organisation. They were no longer beholden to the columns of thePost, having started an organ of their own, thePostman’s Gazette, June 1892. ThePostman’s Gazetteimmediately 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 eventenor 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, thePost-Office Journalwas 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 thePostal Journalin 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 thesun 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 widelypublic, 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 interferingwith 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.”
“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 interferingwith 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.”
“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 ostracisedleaders, 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.”
“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 liberalsentiment, 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 conferencewithout 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 inquiryinto 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 toretrieve 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 itin 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 thesame footingas those in other departments.
“That as regards the Parliamentary franchise there can be no question that its exercise is absolutely free frominternalinterference, although of course subject to the general obligation which affects the public servantin common with all other votersto use the franchise for the public good. The onlyrestriction 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 amodus vivendifor 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 Governmentto 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 theStandardin dealing with agitation among postmen at this time, and dismiss the leaders. The brutal frankness of theStandardon 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 protectand 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 notprecluded 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.”
“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 notprecluded 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 beencredited 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 theSun, 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 morningin 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 thecrême de la crêmeof 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 wasnot 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.