The circular went on to disavow any intention on their part to act otherwise than as ordinary citizens in the enjoyment of the franchise; and to offer the assurance that it was only because they believed such an inquiry would put an end to discontent in the postal service that they felt it their duty to thus ask for Parliamentary support. This circular was signed by W. E. Clery, as chairman, and W. B. Cheesman, as secretary. The circular was at once a means of canvassing public support and sympathy, and a protest against the interference with their public rights and public duties as citizens. It was a protest against being taken back to the days when Mr. Monk, the member for Gloucester, fought for them a strenuous uphill battle of years to obtain what was now so lightly to be taken from them. In thus exercising their right as citizens in approaching Parliamentary candidates, they were doing so not only in their own behalf but in the interest of every other class in the postal service throughout the United Kingdom, embracing the telegraphists, the sorting clerks, the Savings-Bank men, the postmen, themselves, and others. And they were doing so totally irrespective of party bias or motive. Within a few days replies from candidates, for the most part favourable, poured in by the hundred; and presumably not one of the politicians thus replying saw anything reprehensible in their being thus approached by postal servants in search of a legitimate inquiry into their alleged grievances. Among the successful Parliamentary candidates who favourably replied were the names of many who were to undertake much work in the future in furtherance of postal claims. These included Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. James Rowlands, Mr. Naoroji, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. James Stuart, and that sturdy veteran of previous postal campaigns, Mr. Geo. Howell; while occurring in the list were the names of Mr. John Burns, Mr. Thomas Burt, Mr. Pickersgill, and a number of other eminent and equally well-known public men.
The provincial male telegraphists had in the meanwhile issued a precisely similar circular to Parliamentary candidates, and Sir James Fergusson marked his disapproval of such action by specially calling attention to it in the House on June 14. The circular emanating from the telegraphists he quoted at some length, and, referring to the fact that the sorting branch of the service had adopted the same proceedings on the eve of a General Election, he strongly condemned their action as improper. He appealed to the members of the House to decline to give any such pledge as was solicited, and stated that he had the member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone) and the member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in full agreement with his observations. Mr. Geo. Howell strongly criticised the attitude taken up by the Postmaster-General, and stoutly contended for the right of postal servants to combine, and further to carry out all the legitimate functions and obligations of combination. He was supported by Mr. Lawson and Mr. Story.
It was hoped by the rank and file of postal servants that the Postmaster-General, Sir James Fergusson, would sustain a defeat at the poll; but North-East Manchester sent him back to the House of Commons, and for a time to his place at St. Martin’s-le-Grand, by a narrow majority of 110. Sir James Fergusson temporarily resumed his position as head of Post-Office affairs on July 18, immediately after the result of the election was known, and he as immediately made his presence felt. The very same day he reassumed office he called on the chairman and secretary of the Fawcett Association to explain their action in regard to signing and sending out the circular to Parliamentary candidates. In explaining their conduct, they took up the very natural position that they were simply carrying out the instructions of a general meeting, and had acted in a representative capacity; that they had been careful not to transgress the official warning as expressed by the Postmaster-General; and that they had been careful not to solicit pledges relative to their duties and pay. They thought that in the absence of any official order, and in view of the fact that they had been allowed to carry out the behest of their constituents, they were justified in thinking they had not contravened any official rule, since no intimation of such had been conveyed to them. On July 22 the Postmaster-General gave his decision on their case, which was that for their “insubordination” they be dismissed the service. This was a direct blow at the very root of representative principle, and the strongest rebuff that the spirit of trades unionism had yet sustained; besides, it had in one moment reduced the franchise for postal servants to the flimsiest mockery. The blow was regarded as so unnecessary and so unjust that there was an immediate outcry against it both from within the walls of the Post-Office and from without. To have been consistent, the Postmaster-General should have dismissed the whole body of sorters who were responsible for the instruction acted on. In twenty-four hours practically the whole of the London sorting force, Chief Office men and District men, had signed a memorial to the Postmaster-General, asking his reconsideration of the dismissals on the ground that they fully identified themselves with the policy adopted and the instruction given Clery and Cheesman as two officers of their association. Not only from the class directly affected, but from the postmen, the postal clerks all over the country, the telegraphists, and others, came an almost unanimous cry of indignation and disapproval. And this indignation was echoed with surprising unanimity by the press, both Tory and Liberal joining in condemning Sir James Fergusson’s action as intolerant and unjustifiably severe. Even the few organs that were induced to say a word in favour of the Postmaster-General’s action, based their conclusions for the most part on the supposition that insubordination had been committed; whereas there was no insubordination, and no contravening of any known existing rule of the department in asking merely for a public inquiry. Others, while opining that discipline must be maintained in a great public department of State, nevertheless agreed that it was neither fair nor constitutional that the political rights of citizens should in this free country be at the mercy of official caprice.
The Fawcett Association promptly carried the question one step further, and obtained counsel’s opinion that the action of Sir James Fergusson was illegal and unconstitutional, a view in which Sir Charles Russell, the present Lord Chief-Justice, fully concurred, as did also Mr. S. D. Waddy, Q.C., M.P.
Yet despite all appeals, all arguments, and all criticism, Sir James Fergusson stuck to his position with the dogged pertinacity of an old-time soldier and a martinet. Rightly or wrongly, he had taken the step, and he owed it to his pride and his reputation to stand by it. And he stood by it, a solid rock of obstinacy against which the waves of protest splashed in vain.
The dismissed chairman and secretary of the Fawcett Association remained in their respective offices, and the members of the organisation rallied round them stronger than ever. There was a feeling that they had been made the martyrs of an injustice for their sakes and for promoting their cause, and they stood by them to a man.
The case of the dismissals, involving as it did the question of the right of combination in the Post-Office, occasioned no little public comment at the time, and the interest was to an extent kept alive by the publication of a brochure by W. E. Clery, entitled “Civil Servitude,” containing a full and detailed statement of the facts. The General Election by this time was over, and political fate had given her decision in favour of the Liberal party. Sir James Fergusson, therefore, was now reduced to a passing shadow; but it was still hoped by many that, like a repentant political sinner, he would use his last few hours of office in retrieving the great mistake that had certainly damaged his popularity with the service for evermore. But Sir James Fergusson chose to leave office with the cry for justice still ringing in his ears, and pursuing him even in the House of Commons. On August 9, Mr. Sam Woods took up the matter of the arbitrary dismissals by asking the Postmaster-General if it were not possible on reconsideration to reinstate the two officials. Sir James Fergusson was most aggressive in his replies, and stated, amidst the cheers of his own party, that he did not intend to reinstate the two dismissed representatives of the sorters; nor would he withdraw the warning to Post-Office servants on the subject. Mr. Cobb, M.P., bearing on the same subject, put questions which implied that higher officials of the Inland Revenue had been guilty of circularising candidates on personal matters, but Sir James Fergusson was possibly saved from awkward admissions by the ruling of the Speaker that the question could not stand. The trades unionists of the country were particularly strong in their sympathy towards the two dismissed leaders of postal combination; and expressions and resolutions of sympathy poured in upon them from every part. There were resolutions expressive of sympathy with the Fawcett Association, and of condemnation of Sir James Fergusson; and amidst a perfect shower of such trades-union condemnations the Postmaster-General in the middle of August departed from the stage to make way for his Liberal successor. If the villain had now been cut out of the piece, all hopes were centred on the new-comer as the hero.