On February 18, 1898, in the House of Commons, Mr. S. Woods[182] moved: “And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that your servants in the Post Office are not permitted to exercise the franchise, generally allowed to other Departments in the State; nor to serve on electoral committees; nor to take part in political agitation; and are otherwise deprived of the privileges of citizenship in defiance of the letter and spirit of the law; that the officials of the Post Office refuse to recognize the Postmen’s Trade Union; their officials are illegally and unjustly dismissed for circularizing Parliamentary Candidates; and we humbly beg Your Majesty to instruct the Postmaster General to remedy these grievances.”[183]
Sir James Fergusson, a former Postmaster General, said Mr. Woods’ motion had been brought “by the direction of the central Committee of the Postal Union, or some such party.” He continued with the statement that the motion was the outcome of the agitation carried on since he, Sir James Fergusson, had dismissed from the Post Office service Messrs. Clery and Cheeseman, the ringleaders of a political campaign carried on in violation of Sir James Fergusson’s order of June 17, 1892. He said the employees in the Revenue Departments had been disfranchised in 1782 by the Marquis of Rockingham, Prime Minister, but that the franchise had been restored to them in 1868. That in that year both Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone had approved the policy of enfranchising the employees of the Revenue Departments, subject to the limitation that the ministerial heads of the Departments were to have the power to determine the limits within which the employees were to take an active part in politics. That an attempt had been made in 1874 to remove that limitation, but that the House had supported the Government of the day in resisting the attempt.[184]
House of Commons is Civil Servants’ Court of Appeal
Mr. R. W. Hanbury, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and representative in the House of Commons of the Postmaster General, the Duke of Norfolk, said, in the course of his reply to Mr. Woods: “We must recognize the fact that in this House of Commons, public servants have a Court of Appeal such as exists with regard to no private employee whatever. It is a Court of Appeal which not only exists with regard to the grievances of classes, and even of individuals, but it is a Court of Appeal which applies even to the wages and duties of classes and individuals, and its functions in that respect are only limited by the common sense of Members, who should exercise caution in bringing forward cases of individuals, because, if political influence is brought to bear in favor of one individual, the chances are that injury is done to some other individual…. I think it is only reasonable to expect that, as both [political] parties in the State have dropped party politics with regard to their employees, the employees should in turn recognize that fact, and drop party politics with regard to their employers.” Mr. Hanbury enforced this point by stating that, upon the request of the Civil Servants themselves, Lord Rockingham, Prime Minister, in 1782 had disfranchised the Civil Servants in the Revenue Departments. At that time the party in power, through the Public Service, controlled 70 seats in Parliament. Lord North, who had been in power twelve years, had sent out notices to certain constituencies where the Civil Servants were able to turn the scale, saying, that unless the Civil Servants supported the Government, it would go hard with them. Thereupon the Opposition had sent out counter notices, and thus had put the Civil Service in an awkward position. The result had been that the Civil Servants themselves had requested Lord Rockingham to disfranchise them.
Mr. Hanbury continued with the statement that, in 1892, Sir James Fergusson had dismissed Mr. Clery for ignoring his order forbidding Civil Servants to “circularize” parliamentary candidates. Thereupon Mr. Clery, at Newcastle-on-Tyne, had said to a political meeting of postmen: “They must approach the House of Commons on its weak side; they must influence Members through their susceptibilities as opportunity presents itself when candidates appeal to their respective constituencies. A man is never more amenable to reason than when making a request.” Mr. Hanbury continued: “What private employee is able to say: ‘I am the permanent servant of my employer; I have a share in declaring who that employer shall be; I will attack him on his weak side when he comes up for re-election, and then I will use my power? I will bring organized pressure to bear throughout the constituencies, and I will make this bargain: that if he will not vote for an increase in my pay, or diminish my duties, then I will not give him my vote.’ We have done away with personal and individual bribery, but there is still a worse form of bribery, and that is when a man asks a candidate to buy his vote out of the public purse. There are three great things which distinguish our permanent public service. There is, in the first place, the remarkable loyalty with which they serve both parties in the State. Then there is the permanency of their employment. Again, a great feature of that service is that no longer is it a question of favoritism, but promotion by merit is the rule. Those three great features have been slowly built upon this foundation—the elimination altogether of the element of political partisanship from the service. I hope nothing will be done to break down those foundations, on which alone the public service can rest—a service which, for its efficiency, its loyalty, and its high sense of public duty, I do not think is surpassed. I doubt whether it is equalled or even approached.”
Mr. Woods’ Motion was lost by a vote of 163 to 86. It was supported almost exclusively by the Opposition, only three Government supporters voting for it.[185]
Mr. Steadman demands a Select Committee
In the House of Commons, on February 20, 1899, Mr. Steadman[186] moved: “And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that, in view of the great discontent existing among employees of the Postal and Telegraph Services, immediate inquiry should be made into the causes of complaint.”[187] Mr. Steadman had been elected to the House of Commons by a majority of twenty votes.
Parliament not competent to judge
Mr. R. W. Hanbury, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, replied that no new facts had been brought to light since the Tweedmouth Committee and the Norfolk-Hanbury Committee had made concessions entailing an annual expenditure of $1,900,000 a year. The Post Office servants were demanding “a new judgment on the old facts.” He continued: “I confess, I am not quite sure that we did not go too far [in 1897], because by increasing these salaries we are bringing into this service an entirely new social class; you are bringing in men who perhaps are socially a little above their work, and these men naturally have a standard of living and requirements which are not essential to men doing this kind of work. If we are going to raise the salaries more and more, you will get a higher social class into the service, and there will be no limit to the demands made upon us.” Mr. Hanbury continued: “You have got to trust the heads of the Departments, or get new heads; it is quite impossible for the House of Commons to go into all these technicalities, and I know no Department where the work is more technical and more complicated than the Post Office. The Treasury work is supposed to be hard to learn [by the Members of the House of Commons working for promotion to the Ministry], but the technicalities of the Post Office is about the most difficult job I ever had, and I do not think a Select Committee would be really able to get to the bottom of this matter. But, after all, we must recollect another fact, and it is this: that the Civil Service is a great deal too much inclined to attempt to put pressure upon Members of Parliament. That is a very bad system, upon which we ought to put our foot. It is bad enough when it is brought to bear upon the House as a whole, but what would happen with a Select Committee of this House? You would have the resentment of the Civil Service focussed and concentrated upon the unfortunate Members of the Committee, and I do not think it would act more independently or more impartially than those two bodies which have sat already.”