Chapter 12

Promotion by Seniority the Great Evil

The Royal Commission itself reported: “We think that promotion by seniority is the great evil of the Service, and that it is indispensable to proceed throughout every branch of it strictly on the principle of promotion by merit, that is to say, by selecting always the fittest man, instead of considering claims in order of seniority, and rejecting only the unfit. It is no doubt true that objections on the score of favoritism may arise in the application of such a rule in public departments, and the intervention of Members of Parliament also presents an obvious difficulty, but we think that such constant vigilance, tact, and resolution as may fairly be expected on the part of heads of branches and of offices, will meet these objections, and we believe that the certain advantages of promotion by merit to the most deserving men, and therefore to the public service, are so great as to be sure, in the long run, to command public support.”

Able Men must “wait their Turn”

Shortly before the Royal Commission had made this recommendation, in words which seemed to place the responsibility for past failure to promote by merit, on the permanent officers of the Departments, as distinguished from the political heads of the Departments, the Ministers, Mr. Raikes, the Postmaster General, and the representative in the House of Commons of the University of Cambridge, had refused to accept the advice of the Permanent Secretary of the Post Office, Mr. S. A. Blackwood, in filling a post of some importance in the Secretary’s office. On March 1, 1887, the Postmaster General, Mr. Raikes, in reply to questions put to him in the House of Commons, said: “…It is also the fact that I have recently declined to adopt the Secretary’s recommendation to promote to the first class [in the Secretary’s office] one of the junior officers in the second class over the heads of several clerks of much longer standing. The gentleman whom I have promoted was, in my judgment, fully qualified for promotion, and was senior clerk in the class, with the exception of one officer who, on the Secretary’s recommendation, has been passed over on sixteen occasions…. What was I asked to do? I was asked to promote a gentleman who was much lower down in the class, a gentleman who was third or fourth in the class, and to place him over the heads of his colleagues. This I declined to do. I made inquiries in the office, and I found that the gentleman who was promoted was a meritorious officer whohad discharged his duties with adequate ability, and therefore I thought there was no reason for promoting over his head and over the heads of one or two other competent officers, a junior officer who could well afford to wait his turn. I acted in the interests of the Public Service, and especially in the interests of the Department itself.”285

No Post Office official in the United Kingdom has power to make a promotion. No one has power to do more than recommend for promotion. Each recommendation for promotion is examined by the surveyor, and is then sent to headquarters, where “a most vigilant check is always exercised, not from the suspicion that there has been favoritism, but in order to secure that favoritism shall not be practised.”286Ultimatelythe Postmaster General passes upon every recommendation. Sometimes the action of the Postmaster General is merely formal, and is limited to the mere affixing of the Postmaster General’s signature to the recommendation made by the permanent officers of the Department; at other times it is independent, and is preceded by careful consideration of the case by the Postmaster General himself. Whether or not the Postmaster General shall give his personal attention to a recommendation for promotion, is determined largely by the presence or absence of the political element, that is, the temper of the House of Commons. The Postmaster General is not a mere executive officer with a single aim: the efficient administration of his Department. He is first of all an important Minister, that is, one of the aids of the Prime Minister in keeping intact the party following. He must know to a nicety how any given administrative act in the Post Office will affect his party’s standing, first in Parliament, and then among the constituents of the Members of Parliament. It is true that no British Postmaster General would convert the Post Office into a political engine for promoting the interests of his party; but it is equally true that no British Postmaster General would for a moment lose sight of the fact that Governments have not their being in either a vacuum or a Utopia, but that they live in a medium constituted of Members of Parliament and the constituents of Members of Parliament.

In the course of a protest against the Postmaster General being a Member of the House of Lords, Sir H. H. Fowler287recently said: “No man who has sat in the House of Commons for 10 years can be ignorant of the fact that there is a tone in the House; that there are occasions in the House when, in dealing with votes [of Supply] and administrative questions, a Minister is required, who, with his finger on the pulse of the House, can sweep away the red tape limits and deal with the questions at once on broad general public grounds.” To make the statement complete, Sir H. H. Fowler should have added the words: “and grounds of political expediency.” In the course of his reply to Sir H. H. Fowler, Mr. R. W. Hanbury, Financial Secretary to the Treasury and representative in the House of Commons of the Postmaster General, said: “When I undertook the representation of the Post Office in the House of Commons, the first rule I laid down was that [in replying to questions put by Members as to the administrative acts of the Post Office] I would take no answer from a permanent official, and that all answers [framed in the first instance by permanent officials] should be seen and approved by the Postmaster General [a Member of the House of Lords]. I also reserved to myself full discretion to alter the answers if I saw any necessity so to do.”288

The Anxieties of Postmasters General

In 1896, before the Tweedmouth Committee, Mr. H. Joyce, Third Secretary to General Post Office, London, said: “I well remember Mr. Fawcett’s289address to the head of a large Department [of the Post Office] who, … having a large number of promotions to recommend, had told the officers concerned whom he had recommended, and whom he had not, and what made the matters worse, he had in his recommendations taken little account of seniority, whereas Mr. Fawcett, like Mr. Arnold Morley,290had a perfect horror of passing anyone over. I only saw Mr. Fawcett angry on two occasions, and that was one of them.”291A moment before giving this testimony, Mr. Joyce had said: “It is always a matter of deep regret to the Postmaster General—every Postmaster General under whom I have served—when he is constrained to pass anyone over. I have seen Mr. Arnold Morley in the greatest distress on such occasions.”292Again, in defending the action of the Post Office in promoting one Bocking, a second class sorting clerk at Norwich, over the heads of 15 men in his own class, and 8 men in the first class,to a full clerkship, Mr. Joyce said: “It is a matter of the greatest regret to the Postmaster General to feel constrained to pass over so many officers, all of whom were thoroughly respectable and zealous, and performed the duties on which they were employed very well, but the lamentable fact remains that they were not fit for a higher position; every endeavor was made at headquarters to what I might call squeeze them through, but it was no use.” Mr. Badcock, Controller London Postal Service, corroborated this testimony with the words: “The statement is absolutely correct. The reports on which it was based can be produced.”293In passing it may be added that in February, 1895, Mr. R. J. Price, M. P., for Norfolk, East, sought to intervene from the floor of the House of Commons in this case of promotion. In 1892 and 1895, Mr. Price had been returned to Parliament from Norfolk, East, with majorities of respectively 440 votes and 198 votes.

Still, again, at the Barry Dock Post Office, a branch office in Cardiff, one Arnold had been promoted from position number 9, by seniority, among the second class telegraph clerks, to a full clerkship, skipping class 1 of the telegraphists. Of this action, Mr. Joyce said: “It was a matter of great regret to the Postmaster General, as expressed at the time, to pass so many officers, many of them most deserving men, but above Mr. Arnold there was actually no one competent to fillthis important post. Some had a knowledge of postal work, and some a knowledge of telegraph work, but none [beside Mr. Arnold] were conversant with work of both kinds, and some were otherwise objectionable. Barry Dock had suddenly shot into existence as a large town, which has now a population of about 13,000, and so painful was it to the Postmaster General to pass over all these deserving officers, that, rather than do so, he seriously contemplated raising Barry Dock to the level of a post town, and giving it a separate establishment of its own.”294Again, one Robinson was transferred from the Post Office at Pontefract to a clerkship in the office of Blackpool, being made to pass over the heads of two young men at Blackpool, by name of Eaton and Butcher. Mr. Joyce said: “The case was specially put before the Postmaster General, and with all his horror of passing people over, he decided that the two young men Eaton and Butcher were not qualified for promotion.”295

“A Strong Order”

In 1885, one Robinson, a postman at Liverpool, and number 210 in his class, was jumped to the position of assistant inspector. “He had, when a young postman, been selected by his inspector as a superior and promising officer. He had been temporarily employed [by way of tests] as assistant inspector, and had dischargedthe duties so efficiently that, on a vacancy occurring, he had been promoted to it.” This case, as well as those previously mentioned, were cited as “grievances,” before the Tweedmouth Committee, by the men selected by the Post Office employees to act as their spokesmen before the Committee. Lord Tweedmouth, chairman of the Committee, commenting on the case, said to Mr. Joyce: “Still, it seems to have been rather a strong order to appoint an assistant postman to such an office and to give him such a great promotion.” Mr. Joyce replied: “Yes, it certainly does seem so; but for the position of inspector or assistant inspector of postmen there is no doubt that qualifications are required which are not ordinarily to be found in postmen…. For the positions of inspectors and assistant inspectors, I think I may say that the local authorities, and also headquarters, are more particular than they are about any other promotion, and they are most anxious to select actually the best man. In almost every other promotion, very great allowance is made for seniority; but in the case of inspectors it is not so, on account of the somewhat rare qualities required of inspectors, and because the post is a most invidious one.”296

The reader will note that in 1896 the Post Office employees were complaining of a promotion made in 1885.

The Ablest Man in the Sheffield Office

It was established before the Tweedmouth Committee that in instances the Post Office employees, with the aid of Members of the House of Commons, have succeeded in forcing the Post Office to revoke promotions, or to promote men that have been passed over. For example, Mr. Joyce, Third Secretary, General Post Office, said: “Wykes is unquestionably a very able man—probably the ablest man in the Sheffield office—and it is quite true that he was promoted [from a second class sortership] to be an assistant superintendent; but for reasons quite unconnected with his ability and qualifications, that promotion has been cancelled. Having said that, I trust the Committee will not press me further upon the point, inasmuch as it is very undesirable that I should say more.” Mr. Spencer Walpole, a Member of the Committee and the Secretary of the Post Office, added: “Except, perhaps, that the cancelling of that promotion had nothing to do with the evidence that has been quoted?” Mr. Joyce replied: “It had nothing to do with that; the matter is still in a certain sensesubjudice.”297

An M. P. promotes Eleven Men

In 1887, one M’Dougall, a second class sorter in Liverpool, was made a first class sorter, being promoted over the heads of 14 men whom the Liverpool postmaster had reported to be “not qualified for the duties of the higher class.” On March 31, 1887, Mr.Bradlaugh brought the matter up in the House of Commons, by means of a question addressed to the Postmaster General. He was not satisfied with the answer that the men passed over had been reported “not qualified for promotion.”298Therefore, on June 6, 1887, in Committee of Supply, on the Post Office Vote, Mr. Bradlaugh again brought up the case of the 14 Liverpool sorters who had been passed over. He said he had personally investigated the qualifications of the men, and had found “that none of them warranted the answer given by the Postmaster General” [on March 31].299Mr. Bradlaugh also brought up the case of one Hegnett, who had been made assistant superintendent over the heads of 19 persons “who were his seniors by many years.” Also the case of one Helsby, promoted over the heads of 11 persons. Also the case of one Miller, promoted over one Richardson, “who had been acting as assistant superintendent for years with the salary of a Supervising Clerk only.” Mr. Bradlaugh spoke of the Committee of Supply as “the only tribunal that can overrule the Postmaster General.” On June 17, Mr. Bradlaugh again intervened on behalf of the 14 men who had been passed over.

Before the Tweedmouth Committee, Mr. F. T. Crosse, a sorting clerk at Bristol, and one of the spokesmen of the Post Office employees, said: “Macdougall,Liverpool, a second class sorting clerk, was promoted to the first class over the heads of 14 men, his seniors. Mr. Bradlaugh, M. P., brought the matter up in Parliament during the discussion on the Estimates. The result of Mr. Bradlaugh’s intervention was that 11 of the 14 men passed over were promoted in a batch six months later.”

Mr. Joyce, Third Secretary to General Post Office, London, said it was true that “very soon afterward,” 11 of the 14 men were promoted.300“A great point was stretched” in favor of 5 of the 11 men. Those 5 men were technically called single duty men, and since 1881 no sorting clerk had been promoted to the first class [at Liverpool] who could not perform dual duty. Although these five men were single duty men, and therefore unable to rotate with others, which was a “great disability,” they were promoted by reason of Mr. Bradlaugh’s intervention.

In explanation of the Bradlaugh episode, it should be added, that dual duty men are those who are able to act as letter sorters as well as telegraphists; while single duty men are able to act only as sorters, or as telegraphists. In order to reap full advantage from the consolidation of the telegraph business with the Postal business, the Post Office for years has been seeking to induce as many as possible of its employees to make themselves competent to act both as sorters andas telegraphists. At offices where it would be particularly advantageous to have the men able to act both as sorters and as telegraphists, the Post Office has sought to establish the rule that no sorter or telegraphist shall be promoted to the first class, unless able to act both as sorter and as telegraphist.

Mr. Crosse was not the only witness before the Tweedmouth Committee whose testimony illustrated “the stimulus” conveyed by questions in the House of Commons. Mr. C. J. Ansell, the representative of the second class tracers in London, stated that in 1891 two vacancies among the first class tracers in a London office had been left open for respectively 5 months and 8 months. He added: “In March, 1894, the Postmaster General’s attention had to be called to this disgraceful state of affairs [by the tracers’ union]. It required, however, the stimulus of a question in the House of Commons. We do not know how far the Postmaster General is responsible for this state of affairs, but it is only fair to state that his attention being drawn to this matter by the question, we were successful in getting those promotions ante-dated.”301

The limitations upon the Postmaster General’s power to promote men in accordance with the advice tendered him by his official advisers by no means is confined to the cases of promotion among the rank and file. Forinstance, it was established by the testimony given before the Tweedmouth Committee, that the Postmaster cannot freely promote, to offices of more importance, postmasters who show that they have more ability than is required to administer the offices over which they happen to preside. For if a postmaster proves to be not equal to the demands of his office, the Postmaster General cannot always remove him to a smaller office, promoting at the same time the more able man who happens to be in charge of the smaller office. The Department tries to meet the situation by sending to the aid of the relatively incompetent postmaster “a smart chief clerk,” taking care, however, that the inefficient postmaster shall receive less than the full salary to which the volume of business of the office would entitle him. If that expedient fails, the Department will transfer the postmaster. Mr. Uren, postmaster at Maidstone, and President of the Postmasters’ Association, even asserted that nothing short of misconduct would lead to the transfer of a postmaster.302It should be added, however, that Mr. Uren’s testimony related to the small and medium sized places only, not to the larger cities.303

It must not be inferred, however, that the postmastersof the small and medium sized places appeared before the Tweedmouth Committee to demand unrestricted promotion by merit. On the contrary, with the great bulk of the public service of all descriptions,304they held that promotion is “slow and uncertain” and that the system of promotion by merit “is thoroughly uncertain in its practical working.” They protested also against the uncertainty and inequality inseparable from the system of making postmasters’ salaries dependent upon the volume of business done by the several and individual Post Offices. They held that no postmaster should be made to suffer by reason of the fact that he happened to be stationed in a town or city that was not growing, or was not growing so rapidly as were other cities. By way of relief from the foregoing “uncertainties” and “inequalities” they demanded a reorganization of the postal service which should secure to the postmasters regular annual increments of pay, and should “regularize” promotion.305

Rank and File Oppose Promotion by Merit

It will be remembered that the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments, 1888, expressed the belief: “that the certain advantages of promotion by merit to the most deserving men, and therefore to the public service, are so great as to be sure, in the long run, to command public support.” But the fact remains that a large part of the rank and file of the British civil service is growing more and more intolerant of promotion by merit, and demands promotion by seniority. It will not accept as a fact the natural inequality of men; it asserts, with its cousins at the Antipodes, the Australasian civil servants, that it is the opportunity that makes the man, not the man that makes the opportunity. This impatience of the rank and file of the civil servants of promotion by merit was brought out in striking manner by many of the “grievances” cited by the men who appeared before the Tweedmouth Committee as the accredited representatives of the Post Office employees. Some of those allegations of grievance have just been recorded, but this matter is of sufficient importance to warrant the recording of still others.

Mr. Joseph Shephard, Chairman of the Metropolitan Districts Board of the Postal Telegraph Clerks’ Association, complained before the Tweedmouth Committee that one West, who had entered the telegraph service as a learner in 1881, one month after one Ward had entered as a learner, in 1896 was receiving $640,whereas Ward was receiving only $550. It was true that Ward had “had the misfortune to fail in the needle examination,” the first time he had tried to qualify as a telegraphist, but “that little failure” ought not to have made the difference which existed in 1896. Mr. Shephard also complained that one Morgan, after 14 years and 11 months of service, was receiving only $550, whereas one Kensington, after 14 years and 5 months of service, was receiving $670. He brushed aside as of no consequence, the fact that Kensington had “qualified” in four months, whereas Ward had taken twelve months to “qualify.”306

One Richardson, a telegraphist, at his own request had been transferred from Horsham to East Grinstead, and thence to Redhill, because of the small chances of vacancies at the first two places. But the staff at Redhill was weak and therefore the Post Office could not follow its usual practice of promoting a man, “not because he is a good man, but because he is not a bad one,” to use the words of Mr. J. C. Badcock, Controller London Postal Service.307The authorities had to promote the best man at Redhill, and thus Richardson was passed over. Mr. James Green, who appeared as the representative of the Postal Telegraph Clerks’ Association, referred to Richardson’s case as “the caseof a learner who with some 5 years’ service is, according to my information, sent here and there relieving, presumably as a sort of recompense, though what his future will be remains a mystery. What surprises me in this matter is the spirit of indifference displayed by the heads of our Department regarding the hopelessness of these learners’ positions.”308One J. R. Walker was an indoor messenger until October, 1893, when he was apprenticed a paid learner. Shortly before October, two lads had been brought in as paid learners; and, after a short service, they were appointed sorting clerks and telegraphists. They were promoted over Walker, because of their superior education and intelligence. Mr. Green, the representative of the Postal Telegraph Clerks’ Association, admitted the superior education of the lads in question, but complained that they had been preferred to Walker.309

The Crompton Episode

One Crompton, a letter sorting clerk at Liverpool, in his leisure moments had made himself a telegraph instrument, had taught himself to telegraph, and had acquired a considerable technical knowledge of electricity. He had attracted the attention of the superintending engineer at Liverpool; had been promoted, in 1886, to the office of the superintending engineer; and, by 1896, he hadbecome one of the best engineers in the service. In 1896, Mr. Tipping, the accredited spokesman of the Postal Telegraphists’ Association as well as of the Telegraph Clerks’ Association, complained of the promotion of Crompton, which had occurred in 1886. He said: “It seems most unreasonable that men who have, in some cases, not the slightest acquaintance with telegraphic apparatus and methods of working, should be preferred to those whose whole period of service has been passed in immediate connection therewith. It is apparent that such an absence of method is open to very serious objections, and allows great freedom of choice to those upon whose recommendations the appointments are made. In order, therefore, to safeguard, on the one hand, the interests of the department, and, on the other, to encourage those members of the telegraph staff who desire, by energy and ability, to improve their officialstatus, the following suggestions are humbly submitted: That vacancies for junior clerkships in the offices of the superintending engineers, and for clerks at relay stations, should be filled by open competitive examination, held under the control of the Civil Service Commissioners, and that telegraphists only be eligible.”310

The Crompton episode shows what minute supervision over the administration of the Post Office the civil service unions seek to exercise. The same minutesupervision was attempted as recently as 1903-04 by Mr. Nannetti, M. P. for the College Division of Dublin, and also a Member of the Corporation of Dublin, as well as a member of the Dublin Port and Docks Board.311On March 23, 1903, Mr. Nannetti spoke as follows, in the House of Commons: “I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been directed to the fact that two female technical officers, appointed in connection with the recently introduced intercommunication switch system in London, were selected over the heads of seniors possessing equal qualifications, and whether, seeing that in one case the official selected was taught switching duties by a telegraphist who is now passed over, he will state the reason for the selection of these officers?” The Postmaster General, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, replied: “The honorable Member has been misinformed. There is no question of promoting or passing over any officer. All that has been done is to assign to particular duties, carrying no special rank or pay, two officers who were believed to be competent to perform them.” On May 7, 1903, Mr. Nannetti followed up the question with another one, namely: “I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the fact that two women telegraphists were selected to perform technical duties in reference to the intercommunication switch in London, who were juniors in service and possessed of less technical qualificationsthan other women telegraphists who were passed over; and whether, seeing that, although official information was given that such selection was not a question of promotion and no special rank or pay would result, one of the two officers concerned has been appointed to a superior grade on account of her experience gained by being selected for these duties, he will explain why the more senior and experienced women were passed over in the first place?” The Postmaster General replied: “I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on March 23, beyond stating that the officer to whom he is supposed to refer has not been appointed to any superior grade. She has merely been lent temporarily to assist at the Central Telephone Exchange in work for which she has special qualifications.”312

On April 19 and May 12, 1904, Mr. Nannetti again protested against the promotion of the woman in question to the position of first class assistant supervisor, saying: “This girl was appointed because she had strong friends at Court….” On the latter date Mr. Nannetti also intervened on behalf of a telegraphist at North Wall, whose salary had been reduced from $6 a week to $5, as well as on behalf of one Wood, who had been retired on a reduced pension, by way of punishment. The case of Wood, Mr. Nannetti had brought up in 1903, when the Post Office Vote wasunder discussion. For the purpose of bringing these several matters before the House, he now moved the reduction of the salary of the Postmaster General by $500.313

On March 16, 1903, Mr. Nannetti asked whether the statement of the Controller that there was not a man qualified for promotion in the [Dublin letter sorting] branch had had any influence “with the Department in the filling of a certain vacancy in the Dublin Post Office.”314That question illustrated a type of intervention that suggests the possibility of Great Britain reaching the stage that has been reached in Australia, where Members of Parliament have been known to move reductions in the salaries of officers who had offended the rank and file by attempting to introduce businesslike methods and practices. If that stage ever is reached, there will be a great multiplication of cases like the following one. Before the Tweedmouth Committee appeared Mr. J. Shephard, Chairman Metropolitan Districts Board of Postal Clerks’ Association, to champion the cause of Mr.——. Said Mr. Shephard: “I have it here on his word that his postmaster has recommended him for a vacant clerkship at the District Office. Mr.—— has served for many years under the eyes of this postmaster who recommends him for promotion, and I take it that that is full and sufficient evidence of Mr.——’s fitnessto perform the duties of the clerk.” Mr. J. C. Badcock, Controller London Postal Service, testified in reply that he had summoned the postmaster in question, who had admitted that Mr.—— had discharged “minor clerical duties” in a perfectly satisfactory manner, but that his recommendation that Mr.—— should be promoted to a clerkship, “was made more out of sympathy with the man than with any hope that he would be qualified to undertake the higher duties which he would have to succeed to if appointed to a clerkship.”315

M. P. ’s act in Advance

In March, 1887, Mr. Bradlaugh, M. P., intervened in the House of Commons on behalf of two telegraph clerks at Liverpool who feared they were about to be passed over in favor “of a young man who entered the Engineering Department nine months ago as a temporary foreman.”316

In April, 1902, Captain Norton intervened on behalf of two letter sorters, R. H. Brown and H. Johnson, who feared they were going to be passed over in the filling of certain vacancies among the overseers.317In 1906, Captain Norton was made a Junior Lord of the Treasury in the Campbell-Bannerman Liberal Government.

In March, 1903, Mr. M. Joyce, M. P. for Limerick as well as an Alderman, asked the Postmaster General:

“Whether it is his intention to promote a local official to the assistant superintendentship now vacant at the Limerick Post Office, and, if not, will he assign the reason…? May I ask whether the duties of this office have not been performed in the most satisfactory manner by a local officer during the absence of the assistant superintendent, and will he give this matter due consideration, as every class of the community would be pleased at such an appointment.”318

In April, 1903, Mr. Shehan asked the Postmaster General: “Whether his attention has been directed to an application from Dennis Murphy, at present acting as auxiliary postman, for appointment to the vacant position of rural postman from Mill Street to Culler, County Cork; and whether, in view of the man’s character and qualifications, he will consider the advisability of appointing him to the vacancy?”319

In February, 1903, Mr. Nannetti asked the Postmaster General “whether he is aware that a telegraphist named Mercer, of the Bristol Post Office, has applied for 160 vacant postmaster ships since 1894; whether, seeing that during these periods clerks of less service, experience, ability and salary have been the recipients of these positions, he will make inquiry into the case?”320

In July, 1899, Mr. O’Brien,321M. P. for Kilkenny, asked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, “whether he is aware that a postman named Jackson, in Kilkenny, has been in the Post Office service over 20 years and that his wages at present are only 12s. per week; and whether Jackson was given the increment of 1s. 6d. per week fixed by the new wages scale which came into operation in April, 1897; and if not, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the case, with the view of giving Jackson the wages to which he is entitled by the rules of the service?” Mr. R. W. Hanbury, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, replied: “The rural postman at Kilkenny to whom the Honorable Member refers was transferred, on June 19, to another walk at that place, carrying wages of 16s. a week. His previous duty was not sufficient to warrant higher wages than 12s. a week.”322

In April, 1901, Sir George Newnes, M. P. for Swansea, protested against the promotion out of order,according to seniority, of one A. E. Samuel, a sorter and telegraphist at Swansea.323Sir George Newnes is the founder of George Newnes, Limited, proprietorsStrand Magazine,Tit-Bits, etc.; and proprietor of theWestminster Gazette, the London evening newspaper of the Liberal Party.

In February and March, 1903, Mr. C. E. Schwann, M. P. for Manchester, protested against the promotion out of order of two men at Manchester, who had been respectively numbers 99 and 133 in their class.324Mr. Schwann is President of the Manchester Reform Club, and has been nine years President of the National Reform Union. He has held successively the offices of Secretary, Treasurer and President of the Manchester Liberal Association. In 1900 he was elected to Parliament by a majority of twenty-six votes.

In July, 1902, Mr. Keir Hardie asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury: “Whether the overseer’s vacancy in the South Eastern Metropolitan district, created by the death of Mr. Feldwick, and recently filled by a suburban officer, will now be restored to the town establishment, seeing that the appointment properly belongs to this establishment?” Mr. Austen Chamberlain replied: “The vacancy in question has been filled by the transfer of an overseer from a suburban office in the same postal district, but the vacancy thus created in the suburbs has been filled by the promotion of an officer in the town district office.” In August, 1902, Mr. Keir Hardie asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury: “Whether he is aware that the overseer’s vacancy which occurred in the town establishment of the South Eastern Metropolitan District by the promotion of Mr. May to an inspectorship at another office, has been filled by the transfer of an officer in the suburban establishment, thus diverting atown vacancy to the suburbs; and whether, in view of the fact that the chances of promotion in the suburban establishments are 75 per cent. better than in the town establishment, he will cause the vacancy to be restored to the establishment in which it originally occurred?” Mr. Austen Chamberlain replied: “The Postmaster General is aware of the effect of the promotion in question, and has already arranged that the balance of promotion shall be readjusted on an early opportunity by the transfer of a town [officer] to a suburban vacancy.”325

A Member of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants, 1906

On March 24, 1905, Mr. Charles Hobhouse, M. P. for Bristol, asked the Postmaster General “why a number of men with unblemished character and with service ranging from 15 to 25 years have, in the recent promotions in the Bristol Post Office, been passed over in favor of a junior postman?” In 1906, Mr. Hobhouse was made a member of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants.326

On March 15, 1906,327Mr. Sloan, M. P. for Belfast, intervened on behalf of the men who had recently been passed over in the selection of three men to act as “provincial clerks” in the Post Office at Belfast.

On the same day, Mr. Sloan asked the PostmasterGeneral “under what circumstances the junior head postman at Belfast is retained permanently on a regular duty while his seniors, equally capable men, are compelled to rotate on irregular duties with irregular hours.”

On August 2, 1906, the Postmaster General, Mr. Sydney Buxton, replied to Mr. Sloan: “I cannot review cases of promotion decided by my predecessor eighteen months ago.”

In 1905 Mr. Sloan had voted for a Select Committee on Postal Servants’ Grievances.

The foregoing quotations could be extendedindefinatelyindefinitely, but they illustrate sufficiently the several kinds of intervention in matters of mere administrative detail, as well as the high political and social standing of some of the Members of Parliament who lend themselves to those several kinds of intervention. But these quotations may not be brought to an end without mention of the qualifying fact that Lord Stanley, Postmaster General from 1903 to 1905, repeatedly stated in the House of Commons that he did “not select the senior men unless they were best qualified to do the work.”328

FOOTNOTES:273Third Report from the Select Committee on Civil Services Expenditure, 1873; q. 4,193 to 4,206, and 4,267.274Report from the Select Committee on Post Office(Telegraph Department), 1876; q. 3,122 to 3,125.275Correspondence Relating to the Post Office Telegraph Department: Letter of April 12, 1877, Postmaster General, Lord John Manners, to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury.276Report from the Select Committee on Post Office(Telegraph Department), 1876; q. 1,259.277Report of the Bradford Committee on Post Office Wages, 1904; q. 1,024 and 1,048.278Mr. Lowe, Chancellor of the Exchequer, divided the service into three classes, in such a way that it was difficult, if not impossible, to pass from one class to the other. That was done with the object of preventing individuals from bringing pressure on Members of Parliament for promotion from class to class.279Compare also:Third Report from the Select Committee on Civil Services Expenditure, 1873; q. 3,703 to 3,705, Mr. T. H. Farrer, Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade. “The salt of the service is the staff appointments…. Since I have been in the Board of Trade there have been almost forty higher staff appointments, and on not more than four could I put my finger and say they had been made from any other motive than the desire to get the best man. On some occasions the good appointments have been made in the teeth of strong political motives to the contrary.”280Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 19,980, and 20,079 to 20,083.281Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 17,564.282Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 17,500, 20,141 to 20,149, 20,260, 20,262 and 20,338; andFirst Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments, 1887, p. 424.283Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 17,250 to 17,253.284Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 20,253.285Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 1, 1887, p. 890; March 7, p. 1,400; May 12, p. 1,723; and April 4, p. 456.286Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,152 to 12,154, Mr. H. Joyce, Third Secretary to General Post Office. Compare also: q. 131 and 7,891, and Appendix, p. 1,068.Extract from the “Postmaster’s Book of Instructions,” p. 105. “Except to clerkships of first class, all promotions from class to class, whether in the Major or Minor Establishments, are governed by seniority, combined with full competency and good character. Thus, on a vacancy occurring in a higher class, not being the first class of clerks, recommend for promotion that officer of highest standing [according to seniority] in the class next below who is qualified for the efficient performance of the duties of the higher class, and has conducted himself with diligence, propriety and attention in his present class to your satisfaction. If on the other hand you feel it incumbent on you to recommend some officer other than the one of highest standing [according to seniority] in his class, furnish a tabular statement after the following specimens, giving the names and dates of appointment of those you propose to pass over, and your reasons. These reasons must be stated with precision in the column set apart for observations. Such entries as: ‘Scarcely qualified,’ ‘has not given satisfaction,’ being insufficient in so important a matter.”287Who’s Who, 1905, Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H. H., M. P. (L.), Wolverhampton, 1880 to 1900, and since 1900; Under Secretary Home Department, 1884-85; Financial Secretary to Treasury, 1886; President Local Government Board, 1892-94; Secretary of State for India, 1894-95.288Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 27, 1900, p. 128, Sir H. H. Fowler, and Mr. R. W. Hanbury.289Mr. Fawcett, Postmaster General.290Mr. Arnold Morley, Postmaster General, 1892-95; Chief Liberal Whip, 1886-1892.291Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,220.292Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,158. Compare, for example,Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, September 18, 1893. Mr. A. Morley, Postmaster General, states that 10 men had been passed over, after having been found wanting upon a trial on higher duties. He added: “I am, however, making further inquiries.”293Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,180, and Appendix, p. 1,110.294Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,205.295Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,184 and 12,185.296Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,230 and 12,239.297Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,182 and 5,629.298Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 31, 1883, p. 55.299Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, June 6, 1887, p. 1,081 and following.300Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 5,603 and 12,160 to 12,162.301Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 6,983.302Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Post Office Establishments, 1897; Mr. J. G. Uren, President Postmasters’ Association; q. 12,493 and following; and Mr. E. B. L. Hill, Assistant Secretary General Post Office; q. 15,450.303“But I do not think I ought to conceal the fact that the majority of our members are the postmasters of small and medium sized places who have very likely got, according to our ideas, more grounds for grievance than the postmasters of larger towns.”304That the peculiar demands and ideals described in these chapters are by no means confined to the Post Office employees, is shown by the subjoined quotation from a Treasury Minute of March, 1891, relative to an Inquiry by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury into the Administration of the Outdoor Department of the Customs Revenue Department, to wit: “Besides the alleged loss of promotion through a reduction in the higher appointments, and the various arrangements by which they considered that they were injured in their emoluments or as to the hours of working, the officers of all grades complained of the existing system of promotion. They contended that it was unfair and fortuitous in its operation, and did not pay sufficient regard to seniority.”—Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,577.305Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Post Office Establishments, 1897. Testimony of the representatives of the Postmasters’ Association: Mr. J. G. Uren, Mr. W. E. Carrette (Queenstown), Mr. John Macmaster; and Appendix, p. 1,127.306Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897, Mr. Joseph Shephard; q. 3,117 to 3,126, and testimony of Mr. J. C. Badcock, Controller London Postal Service.307Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 1,614.308Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 15,219, Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary General Post Office, London; and 5,290, Mr. Jas. Green.309Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 15,217, Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary General Post Office, London; and 5,282 to 5,284, Mr. Jas. Green.310Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 15,097, Mr. W. H. Preece, Engineer-in-Chief at the Post Office; and 4,876, Mr. E. J. Tipping.311Who’s Who, 1905.312Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 23, 1903, p. 1,464; and May 7, 1903, p. 27.313Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 9, and May 12, 1904, p. 1,239 and 1,246 to 1,268.314Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 16, 1903, p. 856.315Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 3,214 and 4,206.316Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 10, 1887, p. 1,733.317Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 24, 1902, p. 1,189.318Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 9, 1903, p. 113.319Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 7, 1903, p. 1,242.320Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, February 24, 1903, p. 670.321Who’s Who, 1905, O’Brien, P., M. P. since 1886; mechanical and marine engineer. In 1895 Mr. O’Brien had been elected to Parliament by a majority of fourteen votes.322Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, July 3, 1899.323Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 22, 1901, p. 919.324Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, February 25, 1903, p. 803; and March 9, 1903, p. 108.325Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, July 10, 1902, p. 1,359; and August 8, 1902, p. 1,102.326Who’s Who, 1905, Hobhouse, C. E. H., M. P. (R.), East Bristol since 1900; Recorder of Wills since 1901. Education: Eton; Christ Church, Oxford. M. P. (L), East Wilts, 1892-95; private secretary at Colonial Office, 1892-95; County Alderman, Wilts, 1893 to present time. Clubs: Brooks’, Naval and Military.327Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 15, 1906.328Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 28, 1904, p. 1,428; April 14, and May 12, 1904, p. 1,253.

273Third Report from the Select Committee on Civil Services Expenditure, 1873; q. 4,193 to 4,206, and 4,267.

274Report from the Select Committee on Post Office(Telegraph Department), 1876; q. 3,122 to 3,125.

275Correspondence Relating to the Post Office Telegraph Department: Letter of April 12, 1877, Postmaster General, Lord John Manners, to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury.

276Report from the Select Committee on Post Office(Telegraph Department), 1876; q. 1,259.

277Report of the Bradford Committee on Post Office Wages, 1904; q. 1,024 and 1,048.

278Mr. Lowe, Chancellor of the Exchequer, divided the service into three classes, in such a way that it was difficult, if not impossible, to pass from one class to the other. That was done with the object of preventing individuals from bringing pressure on Members of Parliament for promotion from class to class.

279Compare also:Third Report from the Select Committee on Civil Services Expenditure, 1873; q. 3,703 to 3,705, Mr. T. H. Farrer, Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade. “The salt of the service is the staff appointments…. Since I have been in the Board of Trade there have been almost forty higher staff appointments, and on not more than four could I put my finger and say they had been made from any other motive than the desire to get the best man. On some occasions the good appointments have been made in the teeth of strong political motives to the contrary.”

280Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 19,980, and 20,079 to 20,083.

281Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 17,564.

282Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 17,500, 20,141 to 20,149, 20,260, 20,262 and 20,338; andFirst Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments, 1887, p. 424.

283Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 17,250 to 17,253.

284Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishments, 1888; q. 20,253.

285Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 1, 1887, p. 890; March 7, p. 1,400; May 12, p. 1,723; and April 4, p. 456.

286Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,152 to 12,154, Mr. H. Joyce, Third Secretary to General Post Office. Compare also: q. 131 and 7,891, and Appendix, p. 1,068.Extract from the “Postmaster’s Book of Instructions,” p. 105. “Except to clerkships of first class, all promotions from class to class, whether in the Major or Minor Establishments, are governed by seniority, combined with full competency and good character. Thus, on a vacancy occurring in a higher class, not being the first class of clerks, recommend for promotion that officer of highest standing [according to seniority] in the class next below who is qualified for the efficient performance of the duties of the higher class, and has conducted himself with diligence, propriety and attention in his present class to your satisfaction. If on the other hand you feel it incumbent on you to recommend some officer other than the one of highest standing [according to seniority] in his class, furnish a tabular statement after the following specimens, giving the names and dates of appointment of those you propose to pass over, and your reasons. These reasons must be stated with precision in the column set apart for observations. Such entries as: ‘Scarcely qualified,’ ‘has not given satisfaction,’ being insufficient in so important a matter.”

Extract from the “Postmaster’s Book of Instructions,” p. 105. “Except to clerkships of first class, all promotions from class to class, whether in the Major or Minor Establishments, are governed by seniority, combined with full competency and good character. Thus, on a vacancy occurring in a higher class, not being the first class of clerks, recommend for promotion that officer of highest standing [according to seniority] in the class next below who is qualified for the efficient performance of the duties of the higher class, and has conducted himself with diligence, propriety and attention in his present class to your satisfaction. If on the other hand you feel it incumbent on you to recommend some officer other than the one of highest standing [according to seniority] in his class, furnish a tabular statement after the following specimens, giving the names and dates of appointment of those you propose to pass over, and your reasons. These reasons must be stated with precision in the column set apart for observations. Such entries as: ‘Scarcely qualified,’ ‘has not given satisfaction,’ being insufficient in so important a matter.”

287Who’s Who, 1905, Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H. H., M. P. (L.), Wolverhampton, 1880 to 1900, and since 1900; Under Secretary Home Department, 1884-85; Financial Secretary to Treasury, 1886; President Local Government Board, 1892-94; Secretary of State for India, 1894-95.

288Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 27, 1900, p. 128, Sir H. H. Fowler, and Mr. R. W. Hanbury.

289Mr. Fawcett, Postmaster General.

290Mr. Arnold Morley, Postmaster General, 1892-95; Chief Liberal Whip, 1886-1892.

291Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,220.

292Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,158. Compare, for example,Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, September 18, 1893. Mr. A. Morley, Postmaster General, states that 10 men had been passed over, after having been found wanting upon a trial on higher duties. He added: “I am, however, making further inquiries.”

293Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,180, and Appendix, p. 1,110.

294Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,205.

295Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,184 and 12,185.

296Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,230 and 12,239.

297Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,182 and 5,629.

298Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 31, 1883, p. 55.

299Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, June 6, 1887, p. 1,081 and following.

300Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 5,603 and 12,160 to 12,162.

301Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 6,983.

302Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Post Office Establishments, 1897; Mr. J. G. Uren, President Postmasters’ Association; q. 12,493 and following; and Mr. E. B. L. Hill, Assistant Secretary General Post Office; q. 15,450.

303“But I do not think I ought to conceal the fact that the majority of our members are the postmasters of small and medium sized places who have very likely got, according to our ideas, more grounds for grievance than the postmasters of larger towns.”

304That the peculiar demands and ideals described in these chapters are by no means confined to the Post Office employees, is shown by the subjoined quotation from a Treasury Minute of March, 1891, relative to an Inquiry by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury into the Administration of the Outdoor Department of the Customs Revenue Department, to wit: “Besides the alleged loss of promotion through a reduction in the higher appointments, and the various arrangements by which they considered that they were injured in their emoluments or as to the hours of working, the officers of all grades complained of the existing system of promotion. They contended that it was unfair and fortuitous in its operation, and did not pay sufficient regard to seniority.”—Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 12,577.

305Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Post Office Establishments, 1897. Testimony of the representatives of the Postmasters’ Association: Mr. J. G. Uren, Mr. W. E. Carrette (Queenstown), Mr. John Macmaster; and Appendix, p. 1,127.

306Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897, Mr. Joseph Shephard; q. 3,117 to 3,126, and testimony of Mr. J. C. Badcock, Controller London Postal Service.

307Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 1,614.

308Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 15,219, Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary General Post Office, London; and 5,290, Mr. Jas. Green.

309Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 15,217, Mr. Lewin Hill, Assistant Secretary General Post Office, London; and 5,282 to 5,284, Mr. Jas. Green.

310Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 15,097, Mr. W. H. Preece, Engineer-in-Chief at the Post Office; and 4,876, Mr. E. J. Tipping.

311Who’s Who, 1905.

312Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 23, 1903, p. 1,464; and May 7, 1903, p. 27.

313Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 9, and May 12, 1904, p. 1,239 and 1,246 to 1,268.

314Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 16, 1903, p. 856.

315Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Post Office Establishments, 1897; q. 3,214 and 4,206.

316Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 10, 1887, p. 1,733.

317Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 24, 1902, p. 1,189.

318Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 9, 1903, p. 113.

319Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 7, 1903, p. 1,242.

320Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, February 24, 1903, p. 670.

321Who’s Who, 1905, O’Brien, P., M. P. since 1886; mechanical and marine engineer. In 1895 Mr. O’Brien had been elected to Parliament by a majority of fourteen votes.

322Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, July 3, 1899.

323Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 22, 1901, p. 919.

324Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, February 25, 1903, p. 803; and March 9, 1903, p. 108.

325Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, July 10, 1902, p. 1,359; and August 8, 1902, p. 1,102.

326Who’s Who, 1905, Hobhouse, C. E. H., M. P. (R.), East Bristol since 1900; Recorder of Wills since 1901. Education: Eton; Christ Church, Oxford. M. P. (L), East Wilts, 1892-95; private secretary at Colonial Office, 1892-95; County Alderman, Wilts, 1893 to present time. Clubs: Brooks’, Naval and Military.

327Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, March 15, 1906.

328Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, April 28, 1904, p. 1,428; April 14, and May 12, 1904, p. 1,253.

Back to Index Next