A history of postal agitation from fifty years ago till the present day

by H. G. Swift

By this time they were not wanting for public friends, and many members of Parliament, who had expressed their surprise at the low wages and poor prospects held out to telegraphists, some thirty or forty of them, had voluntarily offered to do what was possible for them in the House of Commons when the time came. Prominent among those members of Parliament who had guaranteed their support were Mr. Monk—who years before had obtained for postal servants the enjoyment of the franchise—Mr. Macliver, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Mr. Jacob Bright, Lord Sandown, Lord Charles Hamilton, and Mr. (afterwards Sir) Stafford Northcote; while Mr. John Bright and Mr. Joseph Chamberlain had also expressed sympathy and were interesting themselves on behalf of their Birmingham constituents. Added to this phalanx of Parliamentary support, the press had warmly taken up the telegraphists’ cause; and there was scarcely a paper of importance that had not from time to time some reference to the agitation, and commented on the moderation and reasonableness of the claims put forward by the men. There was also a petition from the members of the London Stock Exchange on behalf of the men to the Postmaster-General, which bore 2000 signatures.

Professor Henry Fawcett himself, who had now become Postmaster-General, had led them to believe, in a speech at Manchester in January, that they might expect the fullest justice at his hands, and had promised to carefully consider their petitions. But one and all felt that it was necessary to strengthen the hands of the Postmaster-General, however liberal his intentions might be. They knew, and their public friends knew, that there was a power behind the throne which would have to be reckoned with.

The flowing tide of discontent, swollen by numberless tributaries from all over the United Kingdom, emptied itself into Liverpool on the 15th and 16th January 1881. On those two days the first conference of telegraph clerks was held, and from then was to date the progress of the real telegraph movement.

The success, so far, of the telegraphists’ agitation, and its being brought so rapidly to this important stage, was due for the most part to one man, Norman, now a telegraphist of Bristol, transferred from Liverpool in 1871.

Norman was a distinct personality, and from the first moment in 1871, when discontent became rife, he had been an influence. He, in conjunction with Ashden, Mulholland, Ryan, and others, it was who brought about the earlier agitation. Originally himself a Liverpudlian, he had been made to suffer for the part he took on that occasion by being transported to Bristol. In Liverpool he was on his native heath once more, and he was destined to take the lead for some time henceforth. He had had no difficulty with a few others, Kellamay, Brighton, and Alvine, in setting fire to Bristol. He could not be classed as an eloquent speaker, yet he nearly always convinced; his well-measured tones always carried their point. His organising capacity was that of a general. He was a character eminently trusted, and easily begot a feeling of security among his followers. At Bristol there had been some doubts among the juniors that if this agitation were entered on the “pre-transfer” men might try only for a satisfactory settlement of their own case to the detriment of the juniors, and some little friction seemed likely; but Norman simply gave one word of assurance, and all had such faith in him that perfect unanimity was restored.

This conference at Liverpool, which he had been so instrumental in bringing about, was to shape their future, and Norman was to point the way. A common programme was decided on; a permanent Telegraphists’ Association was decided on, and the work of formulating a national petition was put into the hands of the Liverpool committee. A permanent association was agreed on as the outcome of this first conference of telegraph clerks; but it is a little curious to note that even Norman, whose original proposal it was, displayed some hesitation in the open adoption of the trades-union principle. It might be called an association for mutual benefit, or anything they chose, said Norman, “but whatever shape it might take, it must be as broad as possible, so that the department could not say, ‘You have a trades union.’” Even Heald of Manchester, one of the strike agitators, and a man who had suffered for his temerity on that occasion, took the view that to form a trades union of telegraphists would be to forfeit the support of the public, whose interests were so closely allied to those of the department. In this year of 1881, when trades unionism recognised as such reared its head among every class of labour and was not ashamed, they as Government servants did not deem it wise to inscribe so much as its name on their banner. Bound as they were, almost, to accept it in spirit and essence, such was their conception of the public’s requirements in the matter, and such their inclination to make concession to this old-fashioned sentiment indulged in by so many of their Parliamentary supporters, that they felt it would be imprudent to distinguish their movement by any label likely to offend such a prejudice. They were progressive enough in principle. They had men among them who had suffered in the cause of progress, and who were willing to do so again; but they were not yet prepared to go the length of the postal agitators of a past decade, who had openly proclaimed themselves by joining with the London Trades Council. There were some among them who, indeed, had doubts about the legality of Government servants doing so in any case. So far as any such doubt was entertained, it was possibly a survival of that feeling which had caused the telegraphists of 1871 to refuse the offer of a sum of £1000 for the prosecution of Mr. Frank Ives Scudamore for suspending men for forming an association.

Again, it had to be remembered that they were claiming to be classed as Lower Division clerks of the Civil Service as embraced by the terms of the Playfair scheme, and, as they conceived it, confirmed by an Order in Council in 1876. The arguments in support of this claim seemed most valid, and they had the authority of eminent counsel in support of their ambitious though, after all, reasonable claim. It was, therefore very natural, perhaps, that while they endorsed and accepted the principle, they should hesitate to weaken their case by avowedly adopting its ritual and its garb. Whether they were fully justified in so thinking is another matter, and it is the fact that has to be recorded.

It was not that Norman and those associated with him had not sufficient sympathy with the principle or the necessary courage to proclaim the fact. It was only that they were not as yet certain of their followers, who were made up of men of every shade of opinion, or of the advisability of calling a spade a spade. Yet they were to have their trades union just the same; and from the first moment of its being launched some few months later, in December 1881, the whole organisation was to be run on trades-union lines. But up to the present they had done no more than agree as to the necessity of a permanent society; its actual formation must wait a little longer.

The one immediate outcome of the first Liverpool conference was the drawing up of a united petition, setting forth for the first time concisely and clearly their various claims. There were five principal grievances enumerated, together with the reasons for their removal. The first grievance complained of was the inadequate salary, and the hindrance to promotion given by classification. The second was as to the irregular as well as inadequate mode of payment for overtime; the third complained of was that there was no special payment made for Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas Day duties; and it was therefore asked that these holidays be paid for as overtime. The fourth complained of was the insufficient annual leave of absence; and the fifth complained of the insufficient subsistence allowance to clerks employed away from home on special or relief duties. This petition was signed by every office of importance in the kingdom, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and Birmingham taking the lead in the number of signatures; and it was then presented in the beginning of February. With far greater expedition than they had hoped for, the Postmaster-General, Mr. Fawcett, intimated his willingness to discuss the points with a deputation of telegraphists. Accordingly, on the 15th March 1881, a deputation of telegraph clerks, including their leading man, Norman, was received by Mr. Fawcett. It was on this occasion that the real strength of Norman was well displayed. The accredited orator of the telegraphists’ movement, Michael O’Toole, was present; but it does no injustice to him to say that Norman’s closely-reasoned statement, made up principally of facts and figures which were incontrovertible, must have been more convincing to Mr. Fawcett than were O’Toole’s more brilliant pyrotechnics. Instead of being allowed to state their grievances unreservedly, however, they found that the supporters and advisers of the Postmaster-General would allow them only to answer questions. Even the brilliant O’Toole was told that he was “not answering questions, but making a speech.”

The interview from which so much had been expected was therefore not deemed satisfactory. The deputation found that they had to impress and convince not only Mr. Fawcett, but the permanent officials, who were numerously represented, and who considerably hampered freedom of discussion by their insisting that certain questions only be answered. The men desired to plead their own case in their own fashion as they had been invited to, but it was seen that Mr. Fawcett’s honourable desire was being quietly and firmly overruled, so that the interview terminated without many of the very necessary explanatory statements being introduced as was intended.