§ BARON DE ROTHSCHILD (Bucks, Aylesbury)asked the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the prolonged universal agitation in 1880–81 amongst the Telegraph Clerks, was stated by the Postmaster General, Mr. Fawcett, to be chiefly caused by inadequacy of pay and stagnation of promotion; whether the Fawcett Scheme was intended to remedy this grievance; whether, in the Central Office, there are senior clerks at the maximum of their class, £190 per annum, who continuously perform the same responsible duties as assistant superintendents, without partaking of the latter's superior pay and privileges, or any extra remuneration; whether this deprives them, and consequently first-class officers, and others, of legitimate promotion; whether it is true, that the maximum pay of assistant superintendents which was raised in 1881 from £210 to £270 per annum, was again raised in 1887 to 1300 per annum, whereas the ordinary promotion from the first-class to the senior, which has gone on uninterruptedly at intervals of from 6 to 18 months since 1881, is denied to the clerks at present waiting at the maximum of the former class; and, whether, having regard to the long and faithful service, and the fact that they are fully qualified to perform the duties of the class above them, he will consider the claim of these officers to rise above £140 per annum, and thus carry out the spirit of settlement of 1881?
*THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAINES,) University of CambridgeMr. Fawcett said that the agitation amongst the Telegraph Clerks was due, among other causes, to "inadequacy of pay, 350 arising to some extent From stagnation in promotion"; but in speaking of stagnation in promotion, there is little doubt that Mr. Fawcett had principally in view the telegraphist of the lowest class, who, at that time, could only attain the maximum pay of 27s. a week in the large provincial offices and £65 a year in London. Under the scheme proposed by Mr. Fawcett this class was amalgamated with the next higher class, and thus the grievance of stagnation at the point of 27s. and £65 was removed, the telegraphists being enabled to rise without interruption to a maximum of 38s. a week in the large provincial offices and of £100 a year in London. It is not the case that there are Senior Clerks in the Central Telegraph Offices who continuously perform the same responsible duties as Assistant Superintendents. Some of them do perform supervising duties of a less important character, and all of them are liable to be called upon to take the places of the Assistant Superintendents temporarily, during the absence of those officers. It is only in this way that they can prove their fitness for promotion to the class of Assistant Superintendents, and the practice does not deprive them, or any other officers, of legitimate promotion; on the contrary, it helps them to obtain promotion. The maximum pay of the Assistant Superintendents was raised to £270 a year in connection with Mr. Fawcett's scheme, at the same time that the maximum pay of the Senior Telegraphists was raised from £160 to £190. It was again raised to £300 a year in 1887, because, owing to the general extension of business, the responsibilities and duties of the Assistant Superintendents had become more onerous, whilst no similar change had taken place in the duties of the general body of telegraphists. Both the letter and the spirit of the settlement in 188I have, as far as I can ascertain, been carried out; and it is not in my power to promote officers to a higher class until vacancies occur in that class.