CHAPTER XThe Tweedmouth Committee Report

Raikes Revision of 1890-91

With the increase of the number of telegraphic messages transmitted, from 33,278,000 in 1884-85, to 62,403,000 in 1889-90, the average sum spent on wages and salaries per message transmitted, fell from 13.72 cents in 1884-85, to 10.62 cents in 1889-90. In the following year, 1890-91, Mr. Raikes, Postmaster General, inaugurated an extensive scheme of increases in wages, reductions in the hours of work, and other “improvements in the condition” of the telegraph employees, that again raised to 12.28 cents per message in 1894-95, the average sum spent on wages and salaries. Mr. Raikes, Postmaster General, raised the wages of the supervising staff, as well as the wages of the rank and file;144he granted payment at one and one-quarter rates for over time, granted payment at double rates for all work done on Sunday, gave extra pay for work done on Bank Holidays, and increased from half pay to full pay the sick-leave allowance. The annual cost of thoseconcessions Mr. Raikes estimated at $500,000 a year. The cost of the concessions granted at the same time to the employees in the postal branch of the Post Office Department, he estimated at $535,000 a year.145

Mr. Raikes’ schemes were based largely upon theReport of Committee of the Indoor Staff. That Report has not been published; but in 1896, Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary General Post Office, London, stated before the so-called Tweedmouth Committee,146that the majority of the committee on the Indoor Staffhad signed the Report because they believed that if the concessions recommended in the Report were granted, “that would be the end of all agitation.” Mr. Hill added: “I remember myself saying [to the Committee] whatever else happens, that will not happen. Do not delude yourselves with the notion that the men will cease to ask.” He continued: “Mr. Raikes’ improvements were received with the greatest gratitude, and there were any number of letters of thanks from the staff; but the ink was scarcely dry when the demands began again, and they have been going on ever since, and will go on…. There is, unfortunately, a growing habit among the main body of Post Office servants to use their voting power at elections to get higher pay for themselves, and it is well known that in constituencies in which political parties are at all evenly balanced, the Post Office servants can turn the election.”

Earl Compton demands a Select Committee

The Committee on the Indoor Staff appointed by Mr. Raikes in March, 1890, had not had the approval of the rank and file of the civil servants, nor had it had the approval of the representatives of the civil servants in the House of Commons, on the ground that it consisted of government officials, who were not responsible directly to the voters. Therefore one of the leading representatives in the House of Commons of the Post Office employees, Earl Compton,147on April 15, 1890,had moved: “That, in the opinion of the House, the present position of the telegraphists in London and elsewhere is unsatisfactory, and their just grievances require redress.”148In the course of his argument, Earl Compton said: “Perhaps the Right Honorable Gentleman [the Postmaster General] has been cramped [in the administration of his department] by what is called officialism. In that case, if the present motion is passed, the Right Honorable Gentleman’s hands will be strengthened [against his permanent officials], and he will be able to redress the grievances which have been brought under his attention.”

Baron F. de Rothschild followed Earl Compton, with the statement: “The Postmaster General may well say it is no business of ours to interfere between the civil servants and himself, but here I would venture to ask him whether the civil servants are not quite as much our [i. e., the public’s] servants as they are those of the Postmaster General?” Baron de Rothschild went on to say that through an error made in the course of the transmission of a telegram his betting agent had placed his money on the wrong horse, causing him to lose a considerable sum of money. Such mistakes would not occur if the telegraphists were better paid.

Sir A. Borthwick regretted “the increasing tendency to invoke the direct interposition of Parliament between the Executive Government and the Civil Service.”

The Postmaster General concluded his statement with the words: “I hope that after the statement which I have been able to make, the House will recognize the claim of every Government that the House shall not interfere with matters of Departmental administration, except where it thinks fit to censure the Minister in charge. So long as a Minister occupies his position at the head of a department, he ought to be allowed to occupy it in his own way. I venture to hope that the House will leave questions of this sort in the hands of those who are directly and primarily responsible for them, in the belief that grievances of the servants of any department are not likely to lack careful consideration, and, I believe, just and fair treatment.”

A few months later, the Postmaster General made this statement in the House of Commons: “I wish to correct one misapprehension. It is supposed that the position of the Government is that only the market value should be paid for labor of this sort [the nonestablished post office servants]. Those who sat in the Committee [of Supply] will remember that I laid down a different doctrine the other day. My own view is, that while the market value must be the governing consideration, because we are not dealing withour own money, but with the money of the taxpayers, the taxpayers would wish that, in applying that standard to those in the Public Service, we should always bear in mind that a great Government should treat its employees liberally.”149

Earl Compton failed to carry his motion in 1890; and in the following year he made another unsuccessful attempt, moving: “That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Administration of the Post Office.”150

Mr. Ambrose, speaking against the motion, said: “Questions between capital and labor and between the Government and its employees should not be influenced by motions in the House. We are all subjected as Members of this House to all manner of whips from employees of the Civil Service and the Post Office, and I know that when thestatusof the Civil Service clerks was being settled some time ago, there was, among Members generally, a feeling of disgust at the telegrams and letters being received almost very minute from people seeking to influence our votes on some particular question of interest to them.”

Mr. Raikes, Postmaster General, enumerated in detail the concessions made to the telegraphists and letter sorters in 1890 and 1891, at a cost of $1,035,000 a year, and added: “and to all this, not one single referencehas escaped those who have spoken.” He concluded with the words: “It would never do if, in order to encourage the vaporings of three or four of those gutter journals which disfigure the Metropolitan Press, Members of this House were to make the grave mistake of throwing discredit upon a body of men like the permanent officials [Executive Officers] of the Post Office, of whom any country might be proud, with whom, I believe, any Minister would be delighted to work, and of diminishing the authority in his own Department of a Minister, who, whatever may be his personal deficiencies, at heart believes that he has done nothing to forfeit the confidence of this House.”

A few months later, when the House was considering the Estimates of the Post Office Department, the Postmaster General said: “Economists [advocates of economy] of former days would have been interested and surprised by the general tenor of the debate to which we have just listened. The great point used to be, as I understand, to show a large balance of revenue to the State [from the Post Office], and to make a defense against charges of extravagance in the past. But we have now arrived at a time when the opposite course is to be taken, and the only chance a Minister has of enjoying the confidence of this House is to point to a diminished balance of revenue and to a greater expenditure on the part of the department….” In 1891-92 our telegraph expenditure will increase by $3,000,000, while our revenue will increase by $1,700,000;“the reason is to be found in the very comprehensive measures framed in the course of the last year for the improvement of the position of the staff.”151

Civil Servants circularize Members of Parliament

Mr. Raikes died in August, 1891; and in June, 1892, Sir James Fergusson, his successor, asked the House of Commons to permit him to call attention to a circular addressed to Candidates at the [impending] General Election, and also sent to Members of the [present] House. The circular had been issued by “The Provincial Postal Telegraph Male Clerks” to “Candidates at the General Election,” and contained the following statement: “We have, in addition, to ask you whether you will, if elected, vote for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the working of the Telegraph Service, as we believe such an investigation would be of great utility, and could not but tend to the improvement of the service, the state of which is causing great public dissatisfaction, as will be seen from the subjoined newspaper extracts. In conclusion, we beg to state that we await your reply to these few questions of vital importance with considerable anxiety, and trust that you will give them your careful consideration.”

Sir James Fergusson added that another branch of the Post Office servants was issuing similar circulars.152He said, “I think that there would be an end to the discipline which should characterize members of the Public Service if encouragement were given to such attempts to bring pressure to bear on Members of the House and Candidates on the eve of a General Election…. I have to say that the leading Members of the Opposition, including the right honorable Member for Midlothian [Mr. W. E. Gladstone], and the right honorable Member for Derby [Sir Wm. Harcourt], fully concur in the observations I have made.”153

A few days later, the Postmaster General issued the following notice: “The Postmaster General at the same time warns Post Office servants that it would be improper for them, in combination or individually, to endeavor to extract promises from any candidate for election to the House of Commons with reference to their pay or duties.”

In the House of Commons Sir James Fergusson defended this notice in these words: “I in no way deny the right of Members of the Public Service to appeal to Members of this House to get their case represented here, but there is all the difference between Members being asked to represent aprima faciecase, and candidates being asked to pledge themselves upon an ex-partestatement to support a revision [of wages and salaries] or a commission of inquiry—in fact, to prejudge the case. To ask for such a promise as a condition of giving a vote does seem to me inconsistent with the duties of a public servant, and to go beyond his constitutional privileges. In that view the warning has been issued. By what law or right has this been done, the honorable Member asks? By the right and duty which belongs to the head of a Department to preserve proper discipline.”154

In August, 1892, the Salisbury Government was succeeded by the Gladstone Government, and Mr. Arnold Morley became Postmaster General. On August 28, 1893, Mr. W. E. Gladstone, First Lord of the Treasury, in reply to a question from Mr. Macdonald, said: “Questions may be raised, on which I have no judgment to give on the part of the Government, as to how far, for example, it is desirable for the public functionaries to make use of their position as voters for the purpose of obtaining from candidates promises or engagements tending directly to the advantage of public servants in respect of pay and promotion. These are matters which we deem not undeserving of consideration; but still they do not form the subject of any decision on the part of Her Majesty’s Government in the nature of a restraint.”155In accordancewith the policy thus announced, the Gladstone Ministry rescinded Sir James Fergusson’s order of June 17, 1892.156

Mr. Macdonald demands a Select Committee

In September, 1893, while the House was in Committee of Supply, Mr. Macdonald157moved “a reduction of $500 in respect of the Salary of the Postmaster General”, in order to bring before the committee the demand of the Post Office employees for “an independent inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee.” He stated “that in 1891 the present Postmaster General [Mr. Arnold Morley] voted in favor of an inquiry such as that for which he [Mr. Macdonald] now asked, and he wished to know whether anything had occurred to cause the Right Honorable Gentleman to change his view since that time.”158

The Postmaster General, Mr. Morley, replied: “He was asked how he could account for his vote in 1891 when he had supported the Motion of the noble Earl, the Member for Barnsley [Earl Compton]? He accounted for it on two grounds: He had supported the proposal, which was an unprecedented one, because there was an unprecedented condition of discontentprevailing throughout the Postal and Telegraph Service—or, he confessed, he was under that impression at the time. The condition of things in various branches of the Service was serious. There had been anémeutein the Savings Bank Department, and whether with reason or without reason, the whole of the Services were discontented with their position. The condition of things at present, however, did not bear out the idea that there was anything like general discontent prevailing. He accounted for his action on another ground. Since 1891 large concessions had been made, with enormous additional expense to the country, and that made the state of things very different to what it was when he supported the noble Earl’s Motion.”

Earl Compton said: “He had several times in past years stood up and spoken for the telegraph clerks, and as the Amendment before the committee related practically to them, it would be dishonest and mean on his part, if, having taken a strong course [while sitting] in opposition, he did not take the same course now his friends were in power.”

Mr. Macdonald’s Motion was lost.

Mr. Kearley demands a Select Committee

In May, 1895, Mr. Kearley159moved: “That in the opinion of this House, it is highly desirable that theterms and conditions of employment in the Post Office should be made the subject of competent and immediate inquiry, with a view to the removal of any reasonable cause of complaint which may be found to exist.”160The Motion was seconded by Sir Albert K. Rollit.161Mr. Kearley stated at the outset, that his remarks would be directed to the advisability of granting some inquiry. He was not in a position to assert that any particular alleged grievance really existed as stated by the employees; but there could be no doubt that there was general discontent. Mr. Kearley next stated that the most serious grievance alleged by the Post Office employees was inadequacy of pay arising from stagnation of promotion. It was true that at the time the blocking extended only to the more highly paid portions of the rank and file, but it must soon extend to the general body of employees unless relief were afforded. In 1880, and in 1890, Parliament had sanctioned respectively the Fawcett revision of wages, and the Raikes revision, for the purpose of correcting inadequacies of pay arising from stagnation of promotion.The employees now demanded the abolition of the classes into which were divided the various grades of the rank and file of the Post Office employees; they demanded assured promotion to a definite maximum wage or salary.

That demand rested on the assumption that the employees had a vested right to the rate of promotion that had obtained under the extraordinary increase of telegraphic business that had followed the transfer of the telegraphs to the State in 1870, and had followed the adoption of the 12 cent tariff in October, 1885.162

Mr. Kearley supported his argument by reference to the telegraphists, who enter the service between the ages of fourteen and eighteen, as second class telegraphists, and in the course of fourteen years rise by annual increments from the wage of $3 a week to $10 a week. At the latter wage they remain, unless they are promoted to be first class telegraphists, whose wages rise by annual increments, from $10 a week to $14 a week—payment for over-time, and so forth, being excluded in all cases. Mr. Kearley argued that promotion from the second class to the first class was blocked, stating that in Birmingham, in the last 4¾years, only 11 men in 168 had been promoted from second class telegraphists to first class telegraphists; and that in Belfast and Edinburgh the annual rate of promotion had been respectively 1.14 per cent. and 2 per cent. Those instances, said the speaker, were typical of the larger cities; the conditions in the smaller cities and in the towns being still worse.

Mr. Arnold Morley, Postmaster General, replied to this part of Mr. Kearley’s argument with the statement that there were in London and in the Provinces 3,308 second class male telegraphists, and that out of that number only 65 were both eligible for promotion and in receipt of the maximum wage of the second class, namely $10 a week. He added that the average wage of the men telegraphists who had been promoted from the second class to the first in 1894 had been $8.46. That meant that, on an average, the men in question had been promoted three years before they had reached the maximum wage of the second class. The Postmaster General characterized as “extraordinarlyextraordinarilymisleading” the source from which Mr. Kearley had taken his statements of fact, namely, a table in a pamphlet issued by the telegraphists in support of their contention that promotion was blocked. The compilers of the table had left out promotions “due to causes other than what were termed ordinary causes, namely promotions due to appointments to postmasterships and chief clerkships, to transfers from provincial offices to the central office in London, and to reductions ofofficers on account of misconduct.” Thus at Birmingham there had been, not 11 promotions, but 16; at Liverpool, not 8, but 37; at Belfast, not 4, but 14; at Newcastle, not 5, but 24; at Bristol, not 6, but 13; at Southampton, not 2, but 8.

The second alleged grievance brought forward by Mr. Kearley related to the so-called auxiliary staff, which consisted of men who supplemented their earnings in private employment by working for the Post Office in the mail branch. It was stated that the Post Office was paying the auxiliary staff from $3.75 to $4.00 a week, whereas it should pay at least $6.00 a week. The third grievance related to the so-called split duties, which involved in the course of the 24 hours of the day more than one attendance at the office. The abolition of those duties was demanded. The fourth grievance was that some of the younger employees were obliged to take their annual three weeks’ vacation [on full pay] in the months of November to February.

Sir Albert Rollit,163in seconding the motion, termed “reasonable” the demand of the telegraphists that the wages of the London telegraphists should rise automatically to $1,150 a year; and those of the provincialtelegraphists to $1,000 a year. At the time the maximum wage attainable in London was $950, while the maximum attainable in the provinces was $800. Sir Albert Rollit added that the recent order of the Post Office that first class telegraphists must pass certain technical examinations or forego further promotion and further increments in pay, “amounted almost to tyranny,” and he further reflected that “where law ended, tyranny began.” Sir Albert Rollit, an eminent merchant and capitalist, contended that when the existing body of telegraphists had entered the service, no knowledge of the technics of telegraphy had been required, and that therefore it would be a breach of contract to require the present staff to acquire such knowledge unless it were specifically paid for going to the trouble of acquiring such knowledge. That contention of Sir Albert Rollit was but one of many instances of the extraordinary doctrine of “vested rights” developed by the British Civil Service, and recognized by the British Government, namely, that the State may make no changes in the terms and conditions of employment, unless it shall indemnify by money payments the persons affected by the changes. If the State shall be unwilling to make such indemnification, the changes in the terms and conditions of employment must be made to apply only to persons who shall enter the service in the future; they may not be made to apply to those already in the service. This doctrine is supported in the House of Commons by eminent merchants,manufacturers and capitalists. Sir Albert K. Rollit, for instance, is a steamship owner at Hull, Newcastle and London; a Director of the National Telephone Company, and he has held for six years and five years respectively the positions of President of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom and President of the London Chamber of Commerce.

When Sir Albert Rollit argued that the Government had broken faith with the telegraphers, those public servants, acting under instructions from their leaders, were neglecting to avail themselves of their opportunities to learn the elementary scientific principles underlying telegraphy, and were even repudiating the obligation to acquire knowledge of those principles. The state of affairs was such that the Engineer-in-Chief of the Telegraphs, Mr. W. H. Preece, began to fear that before long he would be unable to fill the positions requiring an elementary knowledge of the technics of telegraphy.164

Mr. Arnold Morley, Postmaster General, began his reply to Mr. Kearley’s Motion with the statement that “he understood the mover of the Motion spoke on behalf of those in the Post Office service who had taken an active part in the promoting what he might call an agitation, and that his [Mr. Kearley’s] position wasthat, in the condition of feeling in the service, some steps ought to be taken which would enable the real facts to be brought not only before the public, but before Parliament….” He [Mr. Morley] had made a careful examination of most of the alleged grievances during the three years he had been at the Post Office, and though he had satisfied himself that in the main they were not well founded, he recognized that a very strong feeling existed not only among a portion of the staff, but also among the public, and among Members of the House.

The Civil Servants’ Campaign of Education

The feeling in question the Postmaster General attributed largely to the manner in which the case of the telegraphists had been presented by the telegraphists in the House of Commons, and in the newspaper press. He spoke of the “extraordinarily misleading” table of promotions published by the telegraphists. He then went on to state that recently the Postmaster at Bristol had reorganized the local telegraph office. By reducing the amount of over-time work, and by abolishing four junior offices, he had effected a saving of $3,000 to $3,500 a year. Thereupon a local newspaper had come out with the heading: “A Premium on Sweating;” and had made the statement, which was not true, that the local Postmaster had received a premium of $500 for effecting a saving of $3,800 at the expense of the staff.165Mr. Morley continued withthe statement that in June, 1894, a deputation from the London Trades Council had complained to the Postmaster General that skilled electric light men were often employed by the Post Office at laborer’s wages at its factory at Holloway, citing the case of one Turner. Upon inquiry the Postmaster General had learned that Turner had been employed as a wireman, had been “discharged from slackness of work,” and, upon his own request in writing, had been taken back “out of kindness” as a laborer. The same deputation had mentioned the case of one Harrison, alleged to be earning on piece work, at the Holloway Factory, $1.75, $2.25, and $3.75 a week. On inquiry the Postmaster had ascertained that Harrison was able to earn $10 a week and more, but that “for the purpose of agitation, he had deliberately lowered the amount of his wages by abstaining from doing full work.” After the Postmaster General had informed the London Trades Council of the facts of the case, that body had passed resolutions denouncing the postal authorities at the Holloway Factories. Again, Mr. Churchfield, Secretary of the Postmen’s Federation, in an interview with the representative of a London newspaper had stated that the shortest time worked by the men on split duties was 12¾ hours, while the longest was 22 hours [in the course of one day andnight]. A duty of seven hours lasting from 8 p. m. to 10 p. m., and from 12 p. m. to 5 a. m., Mr. Churchfield had called a continuous duty of twenty-two hours, lasting from 12 p. m. to 10 p. m. The public also was “grossly misled” as to the condition of the auxiliary postmen. For example, one Mears was alleged to earn, after 27 years’ service, only $3 a week. Inquiry showed that Mears worked in a warehouse during the day, and received from the Post Office $3 a week for duties performed between the hours of 6 p. m. and 10 p. m. Other cases had been reported, but in not one instance had the figures been correct. One man in receipt of $3.94 a week, had been put down at $2.62. The London auxiliary postmen received from 12 cents to 18 cents an hour; they were mainly small tradesmen, shop assistants, and private watchmen. In the country, the auxiliary postmen received from 8 cents to 10 cents an hour.

The Postmaster General continued with the statement that the increases in wages and the concessions granted by Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Raikes had augmented the combined expenditures of the postal branch and telegraph branch by $3,750,000 a year.166“In 1881, the wages formed 48.7 per cent. of thegross expenditure, whereas now they formed 59.9 per cent…. He did not think that he need add to those figures, except to say that in addition to salaries there were a large number of allowances for special duties. In the circulation office in London were 4,000 sorters, of whom 250 had each an allowance of $2.50 a week, while a very large number had allowances of $1.25, $0.75 and $0.50, of which never a word was said when complaints were made about salaries.” The demands made by the telegraphists would increase the State’s expenditures by $3,250,000 a year, “taking into account the consequential advances which other classes in the Public Service, treated on the same footing, would naturally receive.” Similarly, the letter sorters made an application involving a direct increase of $635,000, and an indirect increase of another $2,500,000.

Mr. Morley next recited some statistics to show, “first of all, the desire among people outside to come into the Post Office Service, and secondly, the disinclination of those inside to go out.” The Post Office recently had called for 650 male letter sorters, and had received 1,506 applications. A call for 188 “telegraph learners,” had brought out 2,486 candidates. In London, in 1894, there had been no resignations among 1,261 first class sorters, and 23 resignations among 2,958 second class sorters. Out of 5,000 London postmen, 19 had resigned in 1894; and in the 5 years ending with 1894, a total of 5,700 telegraphists had furnished348 resignations, including the resignations of women who left the service in order to marry.167“He could not help thinking that when the working men got to know to the full extent the terms and prospects of Postal Service, the sympathy which they had so freely bestowed on Post Office employees would be largely withdrawn.”

The Government compromises with the Civil Servants

Mr. Morley, Postmaster General, summed up with the statement that “he should be the last to deny that change and amelioration might be required in certain respects, but, having examined all the cases, he believed the men of the Postal Service, the Telegraph Staff as well as the Postal Staff, were better treated than people from the same class in private employment. But that opinion was not altogether shared by the public, or by certain Members of the House of Commons, andtherefore the Government was prepared to appoint a strong Committee, composed of men who would have special and practical knowledge and experience of administration, and who would, he hoped, be assisted by a Member of the Labor Department of the Board of Trade…. There must be upon the Committee one official of the Post Office in order to assist the Committee, but apart from that one appointment, he proposed that the Committee should be appointed from executive officers of the Government not connected with the Post Office.”

Sir James Fergusson, who had preceded Mr. Morley as Postmaster General, said: “He could not shut his eyes to the fact that there was no difficulty whatever in finding candidates for employment in the Post Office. In fact, it was impossible to meet the wishes of many of those who desired to enter the Department. In those circumstances he thought it could hardly be contended seriously that the remuneration offered was grossly inadequate, or that the conditions of service were unduly onerous.”

The House of Commons accepted the compromise offered by the Government. Lord Tweedmouth, Lord Privy Seal and a Member of the Cabinet, was made Chairman of the Committee, which consisted, in addition, of Sir F. Mowatt, Permanent Secretary of the Treasury; Sir A. Godley, Under Secretary of State for India; Mr. Spencer Walpole, Permanent Secretaryto the Post Office; and Mr. Llewellyn Smith, of the Labor Department of the Board of Trade.168

FOOTNOTES:120Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 15,119; Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary, General Post Office, London.121Return to an Order of the Honorable, The House of Commons, dated March 16th, 1898.122Parliamentary Paper, No. 34, Session of 1876, Lord John Manners, Postmaster General; andReport of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897, Mr. L. Hill, Assistant Secretary, General Post Office, London; Appendix, pp. 1,095 and 1,099.123Report of a Committee Appointed by the Treasury to investigate the Causes of the Increased Cost of the Telegraph Service since the Acquisition of the Telegraphs by the State, 1875, p. 5;First Report of the Civil Service Inquiry Commission, 1875, p. 9; andReport from the Select Committee on Post Office(Telegraph Department), 1876; Mr. E. Graves, Divisional Engineer; q. 1,566 and following.124Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, 1888; Sir Lyon Playfair; q. 20,124 to 20,194; Sir Reginald E. Welby, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, 10,557 to 10,560; and Appendix, p. 570 and following.125Parliamentary Paper, No. 286, Session of 1881.126Report from the Select Committee on Revenue Departments Estimates, 1888; Appendix No. 12, Mr. C. H. B. Patey, Third Secretary to the Post Office.127Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, August 16, 1881, p. 128.128That is, he had given the telegraphists an interview.129Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, August 16, 1881, p. 141.130The narrative ignores the parts of the scheme affecting theletter carriers and letter sorters.131For an account of the organization and the duties of the Treasury, as well as of the position and the duties of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, see Chapter XVII.132Parliamentary Paper, No. 286, Session of 1881.133In consequence of the fact that wages and salaries rise by annual increments from the minimum to the maximum, some years must elapse before the full effect of the increase in pay granted in 1881 would be felt. It was assumed that in the first year the total increase in expenditure would be $85,000, and that ultimately it would be $700,000. In that connection it was common to speak of a mean increase of $450,000.134Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, June 26, 1882, p. 429 and 431.135Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 29, 1883, p. 1,016.136Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 24, 1884, p. 572.137From 1874 to 1880 Sir S. A. Blackwood had been Financial Secretary to the Post Office.138Report from the Select Committee on Revenue Departments Estimates; q. 403 and 404.139Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 11,641 to 11,648.140Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 10,562-3, 10,742 to 10,749, and 10,772 to 10,783.141Who’s Who, 1903, West, Sir Algernon E.; Was a clerk in the Admiralty: Assistant Secretary to Sir C. Wood and Duke of Somerset; Secretary to Sir C. Wood at India Office, and to Mr. Gladstone when Prime Minister; Chairman of Board of Inland Revenue.142Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 17,438 to 17,447.143Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 20,238.144Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897, Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary, General Post Office, London; q. 15,123 and 15,119.The subjoined table shows the changes made in the wages of the second class provincial telegraphists, who enter the service as boys and girls, from fourteen years upward, and are taught telegraphy at the cost of the Department.Age of theTelegraphistWage Under theFawcett SchemeWage Under theRaikes SchemeYears$$164.003.50174.374.50184.755.00195.125.50205.506.00215.876.50226.257.00236.627.50247.008.00257.378.50267.759.00278.129.50288.5010.00298.8710.00309.2510.00319.5010.00145Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, August 1, 1890, p. 1,623 and following; April 17, 1891, p. 883; and August 1, 1891, p. 1,059 and following.146Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 11,706.147Who’s Who, 1903, Compton, family name of Marquis of Northampton.Northampton, 5th Marquis of, Wm. Geo. Spencer Scott Compton; was in Diplomatic Service; Private Secretary to Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Cowper), 1880 to 1882; Member of Parliament (G. L.) 1889 to 1897; owns about 23,600 acres.148Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 15, 1890, p. 581 and following.149Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, July 31, 1890, p. 1,441.150Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 17, 1891, p. 851 and following.151Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, August 1, 1891, p. 1,059 and following.152Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, February 18, 1898, p. 1,109. S. Woods quotes as follows from the circular issued by the Fawcett Association in June, 1892: “Will you, in the event of being elected a Member of Parliament, support a motion for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into the Post Office Service, such as was advocated by Earl Compton, and largely supported during the recent Session of the House of Commons?”153Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, June 14, 1892, p. 1,123 and following.154Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, June 20, 1892, p. 1,565 and following.155Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, August 28, 1893, p. 1,218.156Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, May 17, 1895, p. 1,455, Sir A. K. Rollit, one of the most aggressive champions of the demands of the civil servants.157Who’s Who, 1903. Macdonald, J. A. M.; Member of Parliament for Bow and Bromley, 1892 to 1895; Member of the London School Board for Marylebone since 1897; Education: Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities.158Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, September 16, 1893, p. 1,453 and following.159Who’s Who, 1905, Kearley, H. E., J. P., D. L., Member of Parliament (G. L.), Devenport, since 1892. Director of Kearley and Tonge, L’t’d., tea importers and merchants; owns 1,200 acres. In 1906 Mr. Kearley became Political Secretary of the Board of Trade in the Campbell-Bannerman Ministry.160Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, May 17, 1895, p. 1,446 and following.161Who’s Who, 1905, Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye, J. P., LL. D., D. C. L., D. L., Member of Parliament, South Islington, since 1886. Partner in Bailey and Leatham, steamship owners at Hull, Newcastle and London; Director of National Telephone Co.; Mayor of Hull, 1883 to 1885; President Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, 1890 to 1896; President London Chamber of Commerce, 1893 to 1898; Chairman Inspection Committee Trustee Savings Bank since 1890; President of Association of Municipal Corporations.162In 1891-92 to 1894-95 the number of telegrams transmitted had remained practically stationary.Number of Telegrams1890-9166,409,0001891-9269,685,0001892-9369,908,0001893-9470,899,0001894-9571,589,000163Who’s Who, 1905, Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye, J. P., LL. D., D. C. L., D. L., M. P., South Islington, since 1886. Partner in Bailey and Leetham, steamship owners at Hull, Newcastle and London; Director of National Telephone Co.; Mayor of Hull, 1883 to 1885; President Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, 1890 to 1896; President London Chamber of Commerce, 1893 to 1898; Chairman Inspection Committee Trustee Savings Bank since 1890; President of Association of Municipal Corporations.164Report of Bradford Committee on Post Office Wages, 1904; q. 1,024; Mr. E. Trenam, Controller London Central Telegraph Office; and q. 1,048, Mr. W. G. Kirkwood, a principal clerk in Secretary’s department, General Post Office.165Compare also,Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 4, 1890, p. 1,774. Mr. Cunninghame-Grahame: “I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is the custom of the Post Office to give bonuses to Inspectors or other officials for cutting down working expenses, and whether continual complaints are being made of the arbitrary stoppage of payment for over-time?” “No,” was answered to both questions.166In April, 1896, Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary to General Post Office, stated that on the basis of the staff of 1896, the Fawcett and Raikes schemes were costing the Post Office Department $6,000,000 a year in increased expenditure. The Postmaster General’s statement of an increase of $3,750,000 in the expenditure had been made on the basis of the members actually employed in 1881 and 1891 respectively.Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,382 and 15,123.167CompareReport of Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary to General Post Office; q. 15,272.On April 1, 1891, there were employed at 57 of the largest post offices in the United Kingdom, 2,614 first class and second class male letter sorters. In the next 5 years there resigned, in all, 95 sorters. Twelve of that number resigned in order to avoid dismissal.On April 1, 1891, there were employed at 96 of the largest telegraph offices, 4,211 first class and second class male telegraphists. In the next 5 years there were 235 resignations. Of the men who resigned, 12 avoided dismissal, 23 left because of ill health, 38 went to South Africa, 28 obtained superior appointments in the Civil Service, by open competition, 11 enlisted with the Royal Engineers, 1 entered the service of an electric light company, 1 became a bank clerk, 2 became commercial travelers, 3 went to sea, 4 emigrated to the United States, and 48 entered the service of the British Cable companies, which pay higher salaries than the Post Office, but work their men much harder and demand greater efficiency than does the Post Office.168Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897, is the official title of the Committee’s Report.

120Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 15,119; Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary, General Post Office, London.

121Return to an Order of the Honorable, The House of Commons, dated March 16th, 1898.

122Parliamentary Paper, No. 34, Session of 1876, Lord John Manners, Postmaster General; andReport of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897, Mr. L. Hill, Assistant Secretary, General Post Office, London; Appendix, pp. 1,095 and 1,099.

123Report of a Committee Appointed by the Treasury to investigate the Causes of the Increased Cost of the Telegraph Service since the Acquisition of the Telegraphs by the State, 1875, p. 5;First Report of the Civil Service Inquiry Commission, 1875, p. 9; andReport from the Select Committee on Post Office(Telegraph Department), 1876; Mr. E. Graves, Divisional Engineer; q. 1,566 and following.

124Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, 1888; Sir Lyon Playfair; q. 20,124 to 20,194; Sir Reginald E. Welby, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, 10,557 to 10,560; and Appendix, p. 570 and following.

125Parliamentary Paper, No. 286, Session of 1881.

126Report from the Select Committee on Revenue Departments Estimates, 1888; Appendix No. 12, Mr. C. H. B. Patey, Third Secretary to the Post Office.

127Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, August 16, 1881, p. 128.

128That is, he had given the telegraphists an interview.

129Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, August 16, 1881, p. 141.

130The narrative ignores the parts of the scheme affecting theletter carriers and letter sorters.

131For an account of the organization and the duties of the Treasury, as well as of the position and the duties of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, see Chapter XVII.

132Parliamentary Paper, No. 286, Session of 1881.

133In consequence of the fact that wages and salaries rise by annual increments from the minimum to the maximum, some years must elapse before the full effect of the increase in pay granted in 1881 would be felt. It was assumed that in the first year the total increase in expenditure would be $85,000, and that ultimately it would be $700,000. In that connection it was common to speak of a mean increase of $450,000.

134Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, June 26, 1882, p. 429 and 431.

135Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 29, 1883, p. 1,016.

136Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 24, 1884, p. 572.

137From 1874 to 1880 Sir S. A. Blackwood had been Financial Secretary to the Post Office.

138Report from the Select Committee on Revenue Departments Estimates; q. 403 and 404.

139Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 11,641 to 11,648.

140Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 10,562-3, 10,742 to 10,749, and 10,772 to 10,783.

141Who’s Who, 1903, West, Sir Algernon E.; Was a clerk in the Admiralty: Assistant Secretary to Sir C. Wood and Duke of Somerset; Secretary to Sir C. Wood at India Office, and to Mr. Gladstone when Prime Minister; Chairman of Board of Inland Revenue.

142Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 17,438 to 17,447.

143Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 20,238.

144Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897, Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary, General Post Office, London; q. 15,123 and 15,119.The subjoined table shows the changes made in the wages of the second class provincial telegraphists, who enter the service as boys and girls, from fourteen years upward, and are taught telegraphy at the cost of the Department.Age of theTelegraphistWage Under theFawcett SchemeWage Under theRaikes SchemeYears$$164.003.50174.374.50184.755.00195.125.50205.506.00215.876.50226.257.00236.627.50247.008.00257.378.50267.759.00278.129.50288.5010.00298.8710.00309.2510.00319.5010.00

144Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897, Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary, General Post Office, London; q. 15,123 and 15,119.

The subjoined table shows the changes made in the wages of the second class provincial telegraphists, who enter the service as boys and girls, from fourteen years upward, and are taught telegraphy at the cost of the Department.

145Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, August 1, 1890, p. 1,623 and following; April 17, 1891, p. 883; and August 1, 1891, p. 1,059 and following.

146Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 11,706.

147Who’s Who, 1903, Compton, family name of Marquis of Northampton.Northampton, 5th Marquis of, Wm. Geo. Spencer Scott Compton; was in Diplomatic Service; Private Secretary to Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Cowper), 1880 to 1882; Member of Parliament (G. L.) 1889 to 1897; owns about 23,600 acres.

147Who’s Who, 1903, Compton, family name of Marquis of Northampton.

Northampton, 5th Marquis of, Wm. Geo. Spencer Scott Compton; was in Diplomatic Service; Private Secretary to Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Cowper), 1880 to 1882; Member of Parliament (G. L.) 1889 to 1897; owns about 23,600 acres.

148Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 15, 1890, p. 581 and following.

149Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, July 31, 1890, p. 1,441.

150Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 17, 1891, p. 851 and following.

151Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, August 1, 1891, p. 1,059 and following.

152Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, February 18, 1898, p. 1,109. S. Woods quotes as follows from the circular issued by the Fawcett Association in June, 1892: “Will you, in the event of being elected a Member of Parliament, support a motion for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into the Post Office Service, such as was advocated by Earl Compton, and largely supported during the recent Session of the House of Commons?”

153Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, June 14, 1892, p. 1,123 and following.

154Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, June 20, 1892, p. 1,565 and following.

155Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, August 28, 1893, p. 1,218.

156Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, May 17, 1895, p. 1,455, Sir A. K. Rollit, one of the most aggressive champions of the demands of the civil servants.

157Who’s Who, 1903. Macdonald, J. A. M.; Member of Parliament for Bow and Bromley, 1892 to 1895; Member of the London School Board for Marylebone since 1897; Education: Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities.

158Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, September 16, 1893, p. 1,453 and following.

159Who’s Who, 1905, Kearley, H. E., J. P., D. L., Member of Parliament (G. L.), Devenport, since 1892. Director of Kearley and Tonge, L’t’d., tea importers and merchants; owns 1,200 acres. In 1906 Mr. Kearley became Political Secretary of the Board of Trade in the Campbell-Bannerman Ministry.

160Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, May 17, 1895, p. 1,446 and following.

161Who’s Who, 1905, Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye, J. P., LL. D., D. C. L., D. L., Member of Parliament, South Islington, since 1886. Partner in Bailey and Leatham, steamship owners at Hull, Newcastle and London; Director of National Telephone Co.; Mayor of Hull, 1883 to 1885; President Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, 1890 to 1896; President London Chamber of Commerce, 1893 to 1898; Chairman Inspection Committee Trustee Savings Bank since 1890; President of Association of Municipal Corporations.

162In 1891-92 to 1894-95 the number of telegrams transmitted had remained practically stationary.Number of Telegrams1890-9166,409,0001891-9269,685,0001892-9369,908,0001893-9470,899,0001894-9571,589,000

162In 1891-92 to 1894-95 the number of telegrams transmitted had remained practically stationary.

163Who’s Who, 1905, Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye, J. P., LL. D., D. C. L., D. L., M. P., South Islington, since 1886. Partner in Bailey and Leetham, steamship owners at Hull, Newcastle and London; Director of National Telephone Co.; Mayor of Hull, 1883 to 1885; President Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, 1890 to 1896; President London Chamber of Commerce, 1893 to 1898; Chairman Inspection Committee Trustee Savings Bank since 1890; President of Association of Municipal Corporations.

164Report of Bradford Committee on Post Office Wages, 1904; q. 1,024; Mr. E. Trenam, Controller London Central Telegraph Office; and q. 1,048, Mr. W. G. Kirkwood, a principal clerk in Secretary’s department, General Post Office.

165Compare also,Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 4, 1890, p. 1,774. Mr. Cunninghame-Grahame: “I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is the custom of the Post Office to give bonuses to Inspectors or other officials for cutting down working expenses, and whether continual complaints are being made of the arbitrary stoppage of payment for over-time?” “No,” was answered to both questions.

166In April, 1896, Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary to General Post Office, stated that on the basis of the staff of 1896, the Fawcett and Raikes schemes were costing the Post Office Department $6,000,000 a year in increased expenditure. The Postmaster General’s statement of an increase of $3,750,000 in the expenditure had been made on the basis of the members actually employed in 1881 and 1891 respectively.Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,382 and 15,123.

167CompareReport of Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary to General Post Office; q. 15,272.On April 1, 1891, there were employed at 57 of the largest post offices in the United Kingdom, 2,614 first class and second class male letter sorters. In the next 5 years there resigned, in all, 95 sorters. Twelve of that number resigned in order to avoid dismissal.On April 1, 1891, there were employed at 96 of the largest telegraph offices, 4,211 first class and second class male telegraphists. In the next 5 years there were 235 resignations. Of the men who resigned, 12 avoided dismissal, 23 left because of ill health, 38 went to South Africa, 28 obtained superior appointments in the Civil Service, by open competition, 11 enlisted with the Royal Engineers, 1 entered the service of an electric light company, 1 became a bank clerk, 2 became commercial travelers, 3 went to sea, 4 emigrated to the United States, and 48 entered the service of the British Cable companies, which pay higher salaries than the Post Office, but work their men much harder and demand greater efficiency than does the Post Office.

167CompareReport of Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary to General Post Office; q. 15,272.

On April 1, 1891, there were employed at 57 of the largest post offices in the United Kingdom, 2,614 first class and second class male letter sorters. In the next 5 years there resigned, in all, 95 sorters. Twelve of that number resigned in order to avoid dismissal.

On April 1, 1891, there were employed at 96 of the largest telegraph offices, 4,211 first class and second class male telegraphists. In the next 5 years there were 235 resignations. Of the men who resigned, 12 avoided dismissal, 23 left because of ill health, 38 went to South Africa, 28 obtained superior appointments in the Civil Service, by open competition, 11 enlisted with the Royal Engineers, 1 entered the service of an electric light company, 1 became a bank clerk, 2 became commercial travelers, 3 went to sea, 4 emigrated to the United States, and 48 entered the service of the British Cable companies, which pay higher salaries than the Post Office, but work their men much harder and demand greater efficiency than does the Post Office.

168Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897, is the official title of the Committee’s Report.

Back to Index Next