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

by H. G. Swift

Shortly before his death Mr. Raikes had outlined in the House of Commons the revision he intended to bring in for the London and provincial postmen. But when the scheme came to be applied it was found that the London town postmen did not fairly participate, that in fact there was no rise in wages for them, their action in regard to the ill-starred Postmen’s Union and the strike period being considered deserving of punishment by exclusion from benefits. The discontent consequent on this had brought about, just before Mr. Raikes’s death, the suggestion for another experiment at organisation, and on August 15, 1891, a large and enthusiastic gathering of postmen met to condemn the revised scales of pay recommended by the Departmental Committee and recently adopted by the Postmaster-General. At this meeting a resolution was carried which led to the immediate formation of a Postmen’s Federation of town and provincial men, C. Churchfield being appointed general secretary, and A. F. Harris treasurer. The provisional committee at once issued a manifesto to all postmen, inviting London offices to send delegates to a meeting on September 19, 1891, to elect an executive. The conference was held, and the executive formed. The executive of the newly-formed Postmen’s Federation worked with a will, and obtaining for themselves the right enjoyed by the sorters, that of free meeting outside Post-Office buildings, a series of meetings was started in every part of London. Having as yet no organ of their own by which to establish a means of communication with the various branches, they approached the Fawcett Association with a view to the Post being placed at their disposal. The monthly report of progress among the postmen appeared in the Post regularly up to June 1892, when the Postmen’s Gazette was started. On September 16 of the same year the first annual conference of the Postmen’s Federation was held, W. Rouse, an E.C. postman, and long known as a powerful advocate of their claims, being elected president. Thirty-three London and thirty-eight provincial men attended this conference. They adopted a programme which consisted of a claim for a 20s. minimum, with a yearly increment of 2s. and a maximum of 40s. a week in all towns where fifty or more postmen were employed; three weeks’ holiday; eight hours’ work within a twelve hours’ limit; and the abolition of stripes on condition that the maximum rate of pay be raised to 40s. A national petition was soon afterwards drafted, which contained in addition a claim for exemption from parcel-post work as then combined with ordinary letter-carrying duties; unestablished auxiliaries and rural postmen to be merged into the established force; citizen rights; and an improved Superannuation Act for all postmen. This programme was distributed to over five hundred towns. About two hundred and fifty towns adopted the programme completely and subscribed to the national petition based thereon. The new Postmaster-General’s reply was unequivocal refusal to all the points raised. That, however, was not exactly the first move in the game of postal chess which Sir James Fergusson, as Mr. Raikes’s successor, had sat down to play.

Meanwhile the sorters already had come to realise that whatever the benefits vouchsafed to them by the provisions of the Raikes scheme, they still suffered disabilities sufficient to entitle them to make a further effort to gain their removal. Sir James Fergusson had come to them with the reputation of a stern disciplinarian, but that did not accuse him of want of justice. As the result of much deliberation and a general meeting, a memorial was drawn up and presented February 18, 1892. The memorial, in pleading for an interview, stated that the object was to urge (1) that the London sorting force may be placed in, at the least, an equal position as regards scales of pay, &c., with the telegraphists at the Central Station; (2) that they be designated “sorting clerks” instead of “sorters”; (3) that they may be eligible for promotion to higher positions, including clerkships; and (4) that the number of higher appointments be regulated strictly according to the number of duties corresponding. Sir James Fergusson’s reply was in the negative on every single count, nor would he grant an interview on any pretence. He issued an official circular, March 25, 1892, to the staff reminding them of the benefits already procured to them by Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Raikes, and expressing a regret—clearly intended as a rebuff—that they should reiterate their claims, which were so fully answered by his predecessor.

To the refusal of the Postmaster-General the Fawcett Association drew up a reply, respectfully expressing dissent from the view taken of their case, reiterating their claims, and urging that, while they were not unmindful of the material advantages lately gained by many of those they represented, they were none the less convinced that many of those concessions, with the additions they now asked for, should have been conceded years earlier. They trusted that their renewed request for investigation would not be thought unreasonable, or other than in the interest of the public service. This was signed and forwarded, May 6, by the committee of the Fawcett Association on behalf of the London sorting force. This met with scant courtesy, and a few days afterwards it was intimated to them that Sir James Fergusson directed that they be informed that his previous reply was to be taken as final, that the reiteration of requests which after full consideration had been refused, and the objectionable tone adopted, presumably because of that, was an abuse of the privilege of presenting memorials to the head of the department.

The uncompromising attitude taken up by the Postmaster-General caused the sorters to strike out a new line of policy from that moment. Clery had become impatient of the slow and unsatisfactory methods of pressing their claims on the attention of the department. The methods had availed them well with Mr. Raikes, but in Sir James Fergusson they soon had to recognise a master of a different calibre. It was not only the slowness of the hackneyed method of seeking redress with almost the certainty of refusal that decided them on their course of action. There were other things in addition. The general attitude of the officials towards them and their organisation had undergone a marked change almost from the moment that Sir James Fergusson set foot in St. Martin’s-le-Grand. One of the first acts was to prohibit the distribution of the Post, their official organ, within Post-Office buildings, and there was a growing and well-grounded suspicion that it was the first expression of a desire to smash the union of postal employés. There were indeed a hundred different influences in evidence everywhere about them which decided the most impulsive of their members to urge the immediate adoption of a vigorous Parliamentary policy and to press for a Committee of Inquiry into the Post-Office. If such a policy was not novel, it was a bold one. Clery himself, three or four years before, had advocated such a policy, and it was only owing to the conciliatory treatment meted out to them by Mr. Raikes that its further consideration was so long shelved. There were serious differences of opinion between the chairman of the association, J. H. Williams, and a section of the committee in regard to this question. Williams’s colder, more cautious nature put him in opposition to the more daring line of policy in which he discerned strong possibilities of personal risk to those adopting it. No man could suspect Williams of want of nerve; he had proved his high courage sufficiently; it was only that he thought the old and more familiar methods the safer, and probably the surer. Clery, the more impetuous, eventually gained over by far the greater following to his own way of thinking, and in the result the question was definitely settled at a general meeting, June 15, 1892. At this meeting it was resolved “that immediate action be taken to secure from Parliamentary candidates a pledge to support a motion for a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry.” This was carried with enthusiasm, and practically unanimously.

The association had now entered on one of the most important steps in the history of postal trades-unionism. Clery on this occasion for the first time occupied the chair, Williams being absent. After the general meeting there were but few dissentients to the policy; and Williams, with deep regret, though with firm resolve that his view was the correct one, felt constrained under the circumstances to relinquish the leadership. On the adoption of such a policy, to which he was opposed, his position as chairman was no longer possible, and much as the members shared his regret at the necessity of it, Williams laid down the epaulettes he had worn with so much distinction, and resigned his commission. From that moment the chairmanship was by unanimous approval filled by W. E. Clery, and the recognised leadership fell into his hands, while the secretaryship vacated by him was taken up by W. B. Cheesman of the Western District Office. Clery was now the recognised leader of the association, but as a matter of fact for a considerable time previously his strong personality had marked him as the virtual leader when the moment arrived for more decisive action.

In view of the impending General Election, presumably the Postmaster-General took the association’s adoption of the new line of policy as a challenge to his administrative authority, for almost immediately afterwards a Post-Office Circular, dated June 17, 1892, was issued as special information for postal servants. The Postmaster-General desired to warn Post-Office servants that it “would be improper for them, whether in combination or otherwise, to extract promises from candidates for election to the House of Commons with reference to their pay and position.” No small amount of curiosity was at first felt at its introduction on the notice-boards of the General Post-Office, but immediately a whip was issued to the members of the association by W. E. Clery, the newly-elected chairman, which was as decisive as it was prompt. If Sir James Fergusson’s new order was intended to intimidate, it did not have the desired result. The Postmaster-General had only just stated in the House of Commons that “there is no Act of Parliament regulating such a matter,” yet he had suddenly made a law unto himself. Within an hour or so of the appearance of the Post-Office Circular containing this order or instruction from the departmental head, the following whip was sent the round of the association:—

“The notice in the current number of the Post-Office Circular does not affect the policy of the association.

(Signed) “W. E. Clery, Chairman.”

Accordingly within the next few days, the General Election being now close at hand, a letter as from the Fawcett Association was addressed to Parliamentary candidates all over the country. The circular-letter stated that, in accordance with the resolution passed at the general meeting of their members, they begged to lay before the Parliamentary candidate a brief statement of facts in explanation and support of the position they had adopted, and soliciting an early and definite reply to this question: “Will you, in the event of your being elected a member of Parliament, support a motion for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into the Post-Office, such as was advocated by Earl Compton, and largely supported during a recent session of the House of Commons?”