The text of that memorial is here reproduced, the better to mark the perverted sense of justice of the Postmaster-General who could read treason and conspiracy in an innocent appeal so temperately worded, and exact so cruel a penalty for so small an offence as that of prayerfully submitting that they still had grievances to remedy.
“Petition to the Postmaster-General from the Sorters of the Inland Branch, G.P.O., presented through their Superintendent on November 25th, 1874.
“To the Right Honourable
Lord John Manners, M.P.,
Her Majesty’s Postmaster-General.
“My Lord,—We, the undersigned sorters attached to the Inland Branch, beg most respectfully to inform you that, whilst grateful for the recent improvements made in our pay and prospects of promotion, we are yet unable to accept it as a satisfactory settlement of our claims to increased remuneration; we, therefore, beg to call your Lordship’s attention to the following facts: Prior to 1867 the scale of pay for our class was as follows: Minimum of second-class, 23s., by an annual increment of 1s. to a maximum of 38s.; minimum of first-class, 40s., by an annual increment of 1s. to a maximum of 50s. After the revision made in June 1867, it stood thus: Minimum, 24s., by an annual increment of 1s. for six years, and then by 1s. 6d. to a maximum of 45s. In 1872 the minimum was increased to 26s., and in July of the present year the scale was again altered to the following: Minimum 26s., with an annual increment of 1s. 6d. for six years, and then by 2s. to a maximum of 45s. Thus it will be seen that whilst the minimum and annual increment have been increased in amount, the maximum has been reduced 5s. per week. The only benefit derived from the last revision was an addition of 6d. to the annual increment. In former memorials we have asked that the increased increment of 2s. per week may begin at the minimum of the scale instead of after six years, as at present; and also, that the maximum may be restored to the sum of 50s. per week, at which it originally stood, in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission of 1854, of which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was a member. The scale would then have stood thus: Minimum, 26s., by an annual increment of 2s. to a maximum of 50s. We respectfully submit to your lordship that, having regard to our length of service (most of us have served over nine years), the increased value of labour, and the enhanced cost of commodities generally, the above would not be more than a reasonable remuneration for the important duties we perform. We therefore pray your Lordship to give this Memorial your favourable consideration, and earnestly hope you will see fit to grant our Prayer. We are, my Lord, your obedient servants.”
[Here follow Names.]
The resentment of the department showed itself almost immediately after the illicit publication of the memorial in the public press. The signatories were sent for by the Controller, and catechised as to what they knew about its appearance in print before it had actually reached the hand of the Postmaster-General. They were told it was a gross breach of official confidence, only a little less heinous than offering personal insult to the public head of the department. They would be held responsible for sending it to the press for publication, and nothing now remained but to go home and pray for forgiveness and await developments. In vain the men protested their innocence, and pointed out that copies of the proposed memorial freely circulated among the men for their approval before it was submitted through the official channel; indeed any one but themselves might have forwarded a copy to the Times. But it was to no purpose they sought to defend themselves on these grounds, and they were practically found guilty on the spot. That was one indictment only in regard to this unfortunate memorial. The second was that they had dared as the humblest servants of her Majesty’s Postmaster-General to convey to him, by means of this aforesaid illicitly-published memorial, that they could not accept as fully satisfying all their claims, the scheme which he had so beneficently prepared for them. What right had they to say they could not accept the scheme, or anything else which a Postmaster-General had so condescended to provide them with?
The poor menials withdrew from the light of the official cadi’s presence, abashed and crestfallen. They predicted that something was about to happen to them, guilty wretches that they were; but they did not know what.
While the case was pending, a paragraph appeared in one of the papers to the effect that the indignation of the men in the General Post-Office had now reached such a point that they had decided to petition for the removal of certain supervising officials who had rendered themselves brutally obnoxious to the men throughout. The ringleaders were again, as a natural consequence, suspected of this fresh paragraphic insult to the department; but the men themselves were as indignant as might be the authorities themselves. They all solemnly protested to each other that this foolish blunder was not theirs. The appearance of such a thing at this moment could certainly effect no good purpose, and it seemed difficult to believe that any one of them, knowing that suspicion would most certainly fall on them, and discredit them still further, could have been guilty of such foolishness. Still, repudiate it as they might, they knew the shot would rebound on themselves. There were several among them who did not hesitate to think, that both the memorial and the offensive paragraph had been sent to the press by some one of the creatures of the department with a malignant ulterior motive.
If the Postmaster-General had been shot at with a popgun he was going to return it with a bomb; and the bomb, being ready, was primed for the 11th of December. On the morning of that date it was thrown.
It took the form of a Postmaster-General’s minute, and was sent the rounds of the Circulation Department by means of the general-order book. It started innocently enough, but the sting, like that of the scorpion, was in its tail. It was to the effect that the Postmaster-General had received the memorial from the sorters, but not until it had been improperly published in the newspapers. It proceeded to criticise the terms of the memorial, and to remind them that in the previous July the wages of the memorialists were readjusted by the Treasury, “after very full and careful consideration.” A comparison between the sorters of 1854 and 1874 was then drawn to show that they were no worse off, and that the reduction in the maximum was more than compensated for by the creation of a new overseer’s class. So far, so good, or bad, as they chose to think it; but now comes the cruellest part of it. The Postmaster-General could not stay his hand here. In view of the recent settlement he felt it incumbent on him not only to oppose and check the spirit which the terms of the memorial and the course it had taken exhibited, but “to evince in some unmistakable manner” that he would “not yield to clamour what reasoned justice to the public would withhold.”