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

by H. G. Swift

Immediately after the defeat of Earl Compton’s motion in the House, Mr. Raikes promulgated a new order restricting the right of public meeting outside the Post-Office. The acute stage at which the telegraphists’ agitation had now arrived was contemporaneous with the trouble among the postmen. The growing aggressiveness of the two postal bodies, the telegraphists and the postmen, and the free use they were making of public meeting, induced the Postmaster-General to restrict their freedom in this respect by reviving Lord Stanley’s order of 1866. What, however, was a restriction in the case of the telegraphists was a distinct concession to the postal branches of the service, and the sorters especially, who had hitherto been compelled to meet inside Post-Office buildings, greatly appreciated the wider liberty. What in the circumstances was regarded by the sorters as a boon and a concession was, after the wider liberty enjoyed by the telegraphists, regarded by them as a direct attempt on personal rights, and the introduction of terrorism and espionage. And after the assertion of the right of outside public meeting by the postmen, this view was fully shared by them. Indeed, it was the introduction of this restrictive rule that afforded a further excuse for the Postmen’s Union resorting to extreme methods. In so regarding it, the postmen and the telegraphists were at the time greatly upheld by the press, and the Postmaster-General was subjected to a deal of sharp criticism for his action.

The question of free public meeting for all postal employés, and other matters arising out of the new Post-Office order, so strenuously objected to by the telegraphists, were brought under the notice of the House of Commons on April 24, 1890, Mr. Pickersgill, himself an old postal servant, and other members, strongly urging on the Postmaster-General the desirability of modifying the regulation. Mr. Raikes, however, was firm in his attitude, and maintained that the new order was really to relax the stringency of a rule which for nearly a quarter of a century was absolutely prohibitory in its effect.

The day following this discussion in the House, April 25, a deputation of telegraphists waited on the Postmaster-General to urge that he would not only modify the rule as to public meeting, but also that he would give immediate attention to the many grievances of which they complained, and on which they were agitating. Mr. Raikes promised he would refer the whole question of their grievances to the Departmental Committee then sitting for the purpose of assisting him to come to a decision. The telegraphists had therefore to accept his word for it that their case should receive attention in good time.

But meetings still continued to be held in different parts in spite of the presence of the official reporter. His presence was objected to at Leicester in a characteristic manner by the suppression of the names of the speakers, so that Mr. Raikes might know all that was said of him, but not the identity of the speakers. The new regulation became so notorious throughout the country that, in one instance at least, the police authorities in Bucks actually became imbued with the idea that these gatherings were of the nature of proclaimed meetings, as in Ireland under the Coercion Act, and thought it part of their duty to keep a watchful eye on all such meetings of telegraphists. Such was a case specially referred to in the House of Commons by Mr. Bradlaugh in a question put May 20.

The question of compulsory overtime was soon afterwards forced to the front by an admission made by Mr. Raikes in the House, June 12, in answer to Earl Compton, that officers of the telegraph department were not compelled against their will, but were asked to volunteer for overtime. For some time after that the telegraph clerks in London and Dublin decided to take their stand on that admission, but the evil still continued with irritating regularity. Numerous were the published contradictions to the Postmaster—General’s statement in the House, and the press with striking unanimity, excepting the Times, which consistently stood by Mr. Raikes throughout, strongly denounced the system of enforced overtime and Mr. Raikes’s incorrect denial of its existence. After the authoritative declaration from the official head the “no overtime” movement was taken up enthusiastically among the men, and spread rapidly, not only in London, but throughout the leading provincial offices. At the Central Office in London about 90 per cent. of the male staff pledged themselves to decline to work overtime, and it was decided to put this pledge into force on a certain date unless the Postmaster-General meanwhile announced some measure of relief for their various grievances. It was alleged that the total number of overtime hours worked in the Central Telegraph Office alone reached the enormous weekly total of from ten to twelve thousand, or 30 per cent. on the day’s ordinary work, so that the sudden withdrawal of this amount of work would have meant a serious public inconvenience.

In connection with this attitude a somewhat curious and sensational method of protest was used by the telegraphists on the occasion of the Post-Office Jubilee. Arrangements were made by the authorities that, at a signal sent by the Duchess of Edinburgh from the Jubilee conversazione at South Kensington, the whole of the postal and telegraph service on duty at the moment should burst forth into simultaneous cheering for the Queen. The intended pleasing tribute of loyalty was, however, spoilt in a manner that made Mr. Raikes exceedingly indignant with the telegraphists especially. At ten o’clock, the precise moment having arrived, some four hundred telegraphists being assembled in the central galleries at the Chief Office, the superintendent called for three cheers for the Queen. But silence was steadfastly maintained for some moments, and then with one accord, instead of the cheers expectantly waited for by royal ears at the other end of the telephones, the clerks, to show their resentment, burst out into a deep groan. Three cheers for Mr. Raikes were then asked for, but this was met with a volume of groans deeper than before. The telegraphists, who were afterwards officially interrogated as to the meaning of the demonstration, strongly repudiated any intention of disloyalty or disrespect towards her Majesty the Queen, and explained that the demonstration was spontaneously made as a protest against the manner in which their repeated petitions for redress of grievances had been treated by the higher officials surrounding Mr. Raikes. Their explanation was not deemed satisfactory; there was much writing and further questioning over the incident. A number of representatives were asked to wholly dissociate themselves from what took place, and were called on to sign a paper to that effect. The matter was discussed, and the official memorandum was rejected by eight to three. The names of the eight clerks who voted against the suggestion were asked for, but they unanimously declined to give the required information. The official memorandum of dissociation was circulated and a number of signatures obtained, chiefly from female telegraphists, but the large majority of the staff declined to sign the document.

The incident was reported in most of the papers, but while it showed the telegraphists in no very creditable light on this occasion, it none the less served as a big advertisement and had the effect of turning closer attention to the nature and extent of their grievances. The telegraphists were not applauded for their action, but the Postmaster-General was in some quarters mercilessly taken to task for what seemed like giving countenance to a silly piece of snobbery on the part of toadying officials.

The “no overtime” agitation continued among the telegraphists, and so intense did the feeling become that a large proportion were for striking against the enforcement of the obnoxious overtime at a certain date. The feeling had gained headway so far that a large number had actually signed a paper set in circulation promising to obey the call to arms when the moment arrived. But before the dramatic moment arrived the Controller suddenly sent for a few of the more prominent ringleaders to discuss the situation. After some parrying and courteous preliminaries the official suddenly confronted them with the question as to whether they would promise then and there to use their influence with their followers to restrain them from adopting the course decided on. There was some demur, and the question was objected to as unfair in the circumstances. The official gave them half-an-hour to decide and left them, turning the key in the door as he went out. They were virtually held prisoners in the official’s private room. After some consideration the leaders of the agitation thought discretion the better part of valour, and decided to give the required promise in writing, and this was done. They were then released and went back to their duties. One of the men, however, was rash enough to telegraph the news to Newcastle, with the intimation that the promise given was not seriously intended. The message, as might have been anticipated, was immediately “tapped” and conveyed to headquarters, with the result that the operator was on the spot suspended from duty. He was accordingly dismissed, and though it was not a case in which the victim could be made either a hero or a martyr, the telegraphists, with the generous impulse of comradeship, rallied round him and raised a subscription, which in a short time realised the sum of £500. The incident gave a set-back to the “no overtime” agitation for the time, but the feeling against the Postmaster-General was by no means modified by its remembrance.