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

by H. G. Swift

A year’s experience of Mr. Arnold Morley’s administration was sufficient to convince all postal bodies that they had little generosity to expect at his hands. While in opposition he had consistently voted for Earl Compton’s motion for inquiry into postal grievances, but as soon as he assumed the reins of office he as steadfastly opposed it, as perhaps was only to be expected. The provincial postal clerks perhaps, least of all, had cause to think of Mr. Arnold Morley as an indulgent master; for an attempt to petition the Postmaster-General was the means nearly of bringing about the downfall of their association, while it was seized on as a sufficient excuse for reducing and disrating the whole executive. The executive of the Postal Clerks’ Association, acting for and in behalf of certain offices, desired to draw the Postmaster-General’s attention to the fact that various irregular methods were in vogue, and prayed for an independent inquiry. Mr. Arnold Morley threw doubt on the allegations, and called on the signatories to the petition to substantiate the truth of the charges by giving specific instances of the “local maladministration” referred to. The executive promptly supplied the demand for particulars. Then, to their astonishment, the allegations were judged to be untrue. The executive were considered in fault for allowing these charges to go forward, and it was decided that they must be punished by stoppage of increments. The case of the association’s secretary, Lascelles, was considered more serious, and he was disrated, in spite of further overwhelming evidence immediately forthcoming that the original charges were in point of fact true.

It was, perhaps, unfortunate for Mr. Arnold Morley’s popularity in the Post-Office that two previous Postmasters-General had in a measure dealt with the grievances of the various branches of the service. His economical spirit as an administrator would not admit of the necessity for further revision, and he early came to the conclusion that postal agitation had no longer any justification in fact, and was only being promoted for personal ends by a few individuals. That he honestly induced himself to believe so there can be little doubt, though subsequent events were to prove, possibly to his own surprise, the utter falsity of his view and the precipitateness of his judgment. It is necessary to make the same allowance for Mr. Arnold Morley in this position as for Mr. Raikes or any previous Postmaster-General, but the sympathy and kindliness of nature which in Mr. Raikes went to retrieve most of his earlier mistakes, and the rare quality of tact which went far to rehabilitate his popularity at last, were utterly lacking in Mr. Arnold Morley. His freezing coldness of demeanour towards the staff who sought to approach him with their grievances begot the conviction that if he were not actively hostile to their interests, he had no real desire to understand their difficulties, because he was instinctively prejudiced against their claims.

Circumstances, however, were to conspire to bring about that which Mr. Arnold Morley was from the first opposed to. As the result of Clery’s persistent correspondence with Mr. Gladstone, the last shackle was knocked off the right of public meeting among postal servants, August 8, 1893. From a postal point of view it was a great triumph of principle. Much of the agitation of the last few years had centred round this principle, and it was mainly as an academic vindication of it that the unfortunate postmen’s strike was precipitated. It was round the demand for free public meeting and as a protest against the presence of the official reporter that the agitation among the telegraphists took the course it did, and nearly ended in another strike. What was intended as a safeguard by the department proved in reality a further menace to contentment in the service, and a continual source of annoyance. It was well, therefore, when after that careful consideration which he promised in a reply to the letter from W. E. Clery as chairman of the Fawcett Association, Mr. Gladstone at last saw fit to announce the concession of free speech and free meeting. As Mr. Gladstone’s concession constitutes one of the main charters of postal liberty, and will become memorable as such, it may be as well to quote it in extenso. The Premier’s decision, delivered on August 8, 1893, was as follows:—

“It is desirable that there should be uniformity throughout the Civil Service, and that the servants of the Post-Office should be on the same footing as those in other departments.

“That as regards the Parliamentary franchise there can be no question that its exercise is absolutely free from internal interference, although of course subject to the general obligation which affects the public servant in common with all other voters to use the franchise for the public good. The only restriction by the custom of the public service is that persons in the permanent employment of the State should not take a prominent and active part in political contests, and it is not intended that in the future any other restrictive rule should be imposed on the servants of the Post-Office.

“As regards public meetings not of a political character, but relating to official questions, the Postmaster-General has decided to withdraw the instructions at present in force, but in the Post-Office, as in other departments, it must be understood that the right must be exercised subject to a due regard to the discipline of the public service.”

It was held by the Liberal members of the House to be a concession of civil rights almost without restriction, and it removed with one stroke of the pen the reproach that postal servants were not to be trusted in the same manner as other civil servants. Hitherto it might be an offence of the greatest magnitude to invite on their platform any but those still in the service; thus not only were the dismissed officials of their associations banned and banished from such public gatherings, but they dared only at their peril permit the presence of any one of their numerous Parliamentary supporters. Mr. Gladstone’s concession now removed this anomalous state of things, and in respect to the right of holding public meetings they were, nominally at least, as free as other British citizens.

The recognition of this right could not but have the effect of bringing the various postal movements in closer touch, while at the same time it enabled each body to perfect their internal organisation. As a further means to this end, the sorters affiliated to the London Trades Council, January 1894, and thus for the second time in postal agitation a postal organisation was gathered into the embrace of the general body of London trades unions. During this time there was being established a modus vivendi for future Parliamentary and public action between the telegraphists and the sorters especially. Following closely on an interview reluctantly granted by the Postmaster-General—at which, however, the concession of full pay in sickness was more definitely granted—there came a conference of members of Parliament in the House of Commons to discuss ways and means for inducing the Government to appoint a Royal Commission on the Post-Office. A deputation of members waited on Mr. Arnold Morley to urge on him the desirability of his promoting the appointment of such an inquiry, but the Postmaster-General steadfastly declined.

The Postmaster-General’s attitude towards postal combination was interpreted as becoming more and more hostile, and it was feared in some quarters that he would act on the injunction of the Standard in dealing with agitation among postmen at this time, and dismiss the leaders. The brutal frankness of the Standard on the occasion of a public meeting of London postmen called forth some indignant protest on the part of postal officials generally, and the postmen and sorters in particular.

But agitation in the Post-Office was becoming familiar to the public mind, and the organised labour of the country had declared sympathy. The affiliation of one postal body to the London Trades Council had in a measure been a means of drawing the attention of all trades unions to the merits of the postal case for inquiry, and was likely to give postal servants an immense advantage, in London particularly. The London Trades Council prepared a report for adoption in which the restrictive system of discipline in the Post-Office was condemned, and a deputation to the Government recommended; while, in addition to this, W. E. Clery, the chairman of the Fawcett Association, interviewed the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, by invitation of Mr. C. Fenwick, M.P. With these influences at work, it did not seem possible that they could remain persistently ignored in their demand for the searchlight of a public inquiry.