In July, 1902, Mr. Keir Hardie asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury: “Whether the overseer’s vacancy in the South Eastern Metropolitan district, created by the death of Mr. Feldwick, and recently filled by a suburban officer, will now be restored to the town establishment, seeing that the appointment properly belongs to this establishment?” Mr. Austen Chamberlain replied: “The vacancy in question has been filled by the transfer of an overseer from a suburban office in the same postal district, but the vacancy thus created in the suburbs has been filled by the promotion of an officer in the town district office.” In August, 1902, Mr. Keir Hardie asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury: “Whether he is aware that the overseer’s vacancy which occurred in the town establishment of the South Eastern Metropolitan District by the promotion of Mr. May to an inspectorship at another office, has been filled by the transfer of an officer in the suburban establishment, thus diverting a town vacancy to the suburbs; and whether, in view of the fact that the chances of promotion in the suburban establishments are 75 per cent. better than in the town establishment, he will cause the vacancy to be restored to the establishment in which it originally occurred?” Mr. Austen Chamberlain replied: “The Postmaster General is aware of the effect of the promotion in question, and has already arranged that the balance of promotion shall be readjusted on an early opportunity by the transfer of a town [officer] to a suburban vacancy.”[325]
A Member of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants, 1906
On March 24, 1905, Mr. Charles Hobhouse, M. P. for Bristol, asked the Postmaster General “why a number of men with unblemished character and with service ranging from 15 to 25 years have, in the recent promotions in the Bristol Post Office, been passed over in favor of a junior postman?” In 1906, Mr. Hobhouse was made a member of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants.[326]
On March 15, 1906,[327] Mr. Sloan, M. P. for Belfast, intervened on behalf of the men who had recently been passed over in the selection of three men to act as “provincial clerks” in the Post Office at Belfast.
On the same day, Mr. Sloan asked the Postmaster General “under what circumstances the junior head postman at Belfast is retained permanently on a regular duty while his seniors, equally capable men, are compelled to rotate on irregular duties with irregular hours.”
On August 2, 1906, the Postmaster General, Mr. Sydney Buxton, replied to Mr. Sloan: “I cannot review cases of promotion decided by my predecessor eighteen months ago.”
In 1905 Mr. Sloan had voted for a Select Committee on Postal Servants’ Grievances.
The foregoing quotations could be extended indefinatelyindefinitely, but they illustrate sufficiently the several kinds of intervention in matters of mere administrative detail, as well as the high political and social standing of some of the Members of Parliament who lend themselves to those several kinds of intervention. But these quotations may not be brought to an end without mention of the qualifying fact that Lord Stanley, Postmaster General from 1903 to 1905, repeatedly stated in the House of Commons that he did “not select the senior men unless they were best qualified to do the work.”[328]
FOOTNOTES:
[273] Third Report from the Select Committee on Civil Services Expenditure, 1873; q. 4,193 to 4,206, and 4,267.