HC Deb 15 April 1890 vol 343 cc581-602
*(6.7.) EARL COMPTON (York, W.R., Barnsley)

I do not think I need make any excuse for bringing forward what I consider to be the just grievances under which telegraphists are suffering at the present moment. I have no political or Party object in bringing forward the Motion with which I intend to conclude my speech, and I, therefore, hope the Government will allow the vote to be taken as a non-Party one. The grievances have been of long standing, not only in the central office, but in the provinces, and they extend also to Scotland and Ireland. Both males and females complain bitterly of the conditions under which they perform their work. That work has increased enormously since the introduction of the Fawcett scheme in 1881, and as the work has increased the grievances have increased also. At the end of last Session I gave notice of my intention to bring this matter forward, and, therefore, it cannot be said that I have taken the Postmaster General by surprise; he must, indeed, have expected some such course as this would be taken after the numerous questions which have been addressed to him, and the avalanche of petitions forwarded to him, both from the central offices and from provincial telegraphists. The answers of the Postmaster General to questions on the subject have either been a decided negative or else the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the matters com plained of are under consideration. How many years they are to remain under consideration I know not, but perhaps the result of this Motion may be to expedite their consideration. I am afraid I must say at once that the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman has been rather that of an unsympathetic non possumus to all questions which were asked. I myself have been one of the victims who have been unable to get any very direct replies to the questions I have put. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has been cramped by what is called officialism. In that case, if the present Motion is passed the right hon. Gentleman's hands will be strengthened, and he will be able to redress the grievances which have been brought under his attention. Those grievances may be summarised under four heads—(1) the hours of duty; (2) the question of pay and salaries; (3) the question of classification and promotion; (4) the very burning question of meal-times. As regards the hours of labour, it seems to me that this is a difficult matter to be dealt with by anyone who does not possess an intimate acquaintance with what is going on in the offices. There is a complicated system of regular and irregular work, and of overtime; and the principle upon which this is carried out seems to be that of extracting the largest possible amount of work out of each individual at the least possible cost to the country. I should like first to allude to the Fawcett scheme of 1881 in regard to the hours of labour. It was laid down in that scheme that, as a rule, there should be 16 hours' work for two days' work, and that was to be divided so as not to give more than 11 hours on any particular day. I contend that that scheme has not been adhered to. There have been weeks, particularly in the central office, when the hours of work have been 10 daily. That means 20 hours in two days, instead of 16 hours, under the Fawcett scheme. It is, no doubt, said that this has been compensated in the succeeding week, when there have been only 36 hours of work, or six hours a day. I maintain, however, that is no compensation. This irregularity of hours is a great hardship to those who are working in the telegraph office. It does not appear to me to be a difficult matter to reorganise the office so that the work should be more regular. As regards overtime, I find that during the summer of 1889, for certainly a fortnight, the telegraphists were worked something like 196 hours. That made 98 hours during a working week, including regular hours and overtime. I contend that those hours are too long for any public servant, and considering that the question of the hours of labour is coming prominently before this country, and other countries, I think it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to set a good example to other employers, and to say that by them, at all events, long hours of labour will not be tolerated. I am told that a clerk has been mildly censured for having worked 14 hours in one day, but working too long hours is the fault of the employer and not of the employed. It may be said that men are not compelled to work overtime. I am unable to admit that the overtime work is completely voluntary. Under the system which prevails a man who volunteers to work overtime can be kept at it until it is convenient for those in charge to release him. A man may volunteer for two or three hours' extra work, but once he volunteers he may have to work for many more hours than he wishes. The men are called upon for overtime at a moment's notice, and in 1888, during the summer, it was frequently the case that men were on continuous duty for 16 hours, with only half an hour for dinner. Last summer there were many cases of 14 hours' continuous duty, and one clerk was suspended for refusing to do overtime, though he pleaded ill-health as an excuse. Yet, in face of this, we are told that overtime is voluntary. I should like to know if it is true that clerks, after having done duty from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. have been compelled to come on duty again at 10 in the morning and work till eight in the evening; or, in all, 17 hours. Last year I asked the Postmaster General to state what is the greatest number of hours any individual clerk is called upon to work, and the right hon. Gentleman replied— The number of hours in one day during which a telegraphist may be kept on duty is governed by the exigencies of the Service. This debate will give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of qualifying that answer. As long as I have the honour of sitting in this House I in- tend to be studiously moderate in my language, but I confess that strong language rises to my lips when I receive such an answer as that. We take great care that animals are not driven to death, and that men who do such things shall be prosecuted and punished. It is not a question of the exigencies of the Public-Service how long our servants shall work, and I, therefore, hope the Postmaster General will either withdraw or modify that statement. As to annual leave, the telegraphists are asking for one calendar month's leave for those who have served 10 years, and three weeks' leave for those who have served less than 10 years. This seems to me to be a very moderate demand, and I think it is in accordance with what Mr. Fawcett intended, for, in a letter to the Treasury, he said he was considering a scheme, the effect of which would be to give one month's leave to men who now had only three weeks, and three weeks to those who had only a fortnight. That shows the spirit in which Mr. Fawcett approached the matter, and I hope that this grievance will be speedily redressed. It ought to be remembered that the telegraphists have no Bank holidays, and work on Sunday. For my own part, I wish that there was no Sunday labour; but admitting that it was necessary for a certain number of telegrams to be sent on Sunday, Sunday labour should be limited as far as possible, and should be paid as full overtime. I find that in the provinces, prior to the Fawcett scheme, the clerks had to do eight hours' work, without extra pay, every fifth Sunday; now they have to do it every fourth Sunday. Now, I come to the question of salaries. The highest officials are, of course, well paid, and deserve to be, for they do hard duty. Since 1880 the pay of superintendents has risen from £300 to £400, while the pay of assistant superintendents has risen from £210 to £300. I am told that a new scheme, last was night, posted at the Liverpool office which will give increased salaries, but I know nothing of the details. Before 1881 the maximum pay of the senior clerks was £160 a year; now it is only £190, a rise quite disproportionate to that of the assistant superintendents, who are next above the senior clerks. Moreover, senior clerks are in many cases doing the work of assistant superintendents. I hold that in such cases the clerks should receive promotion and a higher salary. In a Circular issued by the Post Office to attract youths into the Telegraph Service the prospect of rising to a salary of £190 per annum is offered. But if a block in promotion takes place, as is frequently the case, the clerks have no hope of attaining the £190. The telegraphists ask that all overtime should be paid for equally on the basis of the rate and a quarter, and they object to the deduction from pay during absence on sick leave. Then I come to the question of pensions. At present, before a clerk is eligible for a pension, every day he is absent through sickness is deducted, although his salary has been reduced by that absence; while nothing is said about the overtime he may have worked. Again, there is the question of promotion. In the provinces the advance is very slow. Take, for instance, the Cork Branch. The maximum in the second class is £98 per annum, and it takes 15 years to arrive at that maximum, even if a man is lncky. At the present moment there arc three clerks there who, although they have been over 18 years in the service, are waiting for promotion. During the last six years there have only been nine promotions into the first class, in which the maximum is 50s. a week; and there has only been one promotion since 1881. In the provinces, too, Sunday labour is unpaid for, while the London telegraphists are insufficiently paid for it. Then, again, although the work has increased, the different classes of clerks have not increased in the same ratio; and I contend that they ought to be enlarged to permit of speedier promotion to the maximum of £190 a year. As it is, some clerks may secure their promotion in seven or eight years, while others may have to wait for 18 years, though all have equal qualifications and length of service. I hope that something will be promised in connection with this matter of classification. And now I come to the question of mealtimes. This may appear to be a small matter, but it is a matter of vital importance, because it affects the health of those whom we employ. There is at present no cessation of work for meals during the turns between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m., 3 p.m. and 11 p.m., 5 p.m. and 2 a.m., and 8 p.m. and 4 a.m. Sometimes, of course, the clerks may have spare moments, but very often their work is continuous. I will refer to a letter sent to the Controller on this subject by a member of the Telegraphic Staff, in which the writer asked that, as he was on duty from 2 p.m. until 10 p.m., ho might be allowed an interval for dinner. He said he had to leave home at 1 p.m., and, therefore, was compelled to have a meal at the latest by half past 12, and, with the exception of the two slices of bread and butter supplied by the Post Office between 5 and 6 p.m., and which had to be eaten while the operator was working—he had no opportunity of getting any food until he left the office. The answer to that was,—"I see no reason for departing from the general rule." I think it is time that these matters were laid before the House, in spite of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite. Men have actually been punished, I am told, for having partaken of food during these hours. There was a case at the end of last year where two men who had two extra hours duty were punished for delaying their work by talking while taking their suppers. They denied the talking, but, even if they did talk while taking their food, there was not very much harm in it. Other clerks have been punished by transference to another staff, which, to many of them, is a punishment. I must also mention the case of the submarine telegraph clerks who lately waited on the Postmaster General. They have a just grievance, which, I believe, has been promised consideration. I find that there are certain vacancies in the Central Telegraph Office, and I should like to know whether estimates intended for clerks in the central office have been given to the Submarine Telegraph clerks. I imagine there must have been a mistake, because I do not believe the Postmaster General would do such a thing intentionally. I will not detain the House by going into further grievances; I have referred to the strongest of them. I may be told that the matter is still under consideration. I shall not consider that a satisfactory answer, and I shall certainly take a Division if that should be the only answer I receive. I may receive a distinct negative, which, of course, would necessitate a Division. I may be told that there are great difficulties as regards the financial question, and, having served many years in the Foreign Office, I know what those difficulties are, and how the Treasury insist on economy. I am quite well aware that it is not easy to obtain the assent of the Treasury to a proposal which involves an increase of expenditure. I was told, last year, by the Postmaster General that he had not consulted the Treasury.

*THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,) Cambridge University

On what subject?

*EARL COMPTON

On the subject of the increase of the salaries of the telegraph clerks. The Fawcett scheme of 1881,I find, was supposed to have cost the country something like £67,000 down, and £250,000 per year. I should like to know whether the improvements promised under the Fawcett scheme have been carried out. We contend not. Then we are told that there is an annual deficit. But that is owing to the high price paid for the telegraphs, and is not the fault of the telegraph clerks, who should not be overworked at inadequate salaries in order to make up that deficit. I consider that Mr. Scudamore's price was a great deal too high; and to tell the clerks that once the deficit is paid off then the question of salaries will be considered, is to say that the present generation of clerks are to receive small salaries, and be overworked, in order that a future generation of clerks may have larger salaries and less work. Then I am told that Civil servants have no business whatever to combine or agitate to get their grievances redressed. Sir, the ventilation of grievances is one of the most healthy things we can have. It is a safety valve, and if anybody tries to drive discontentment beneath the surface harm must inevitably ensue. There have been no underhand manœuvres. Petition after Petition has been properly signed and sent up in the last two or three years, and the subject has been discussed in the Press. But in a Treasury Letter, in answer to Mr. Fawcett, objection was taken to organised agitation being brought to bear upon the House of Commons. The Treasury Letter said— My Lords reserve to themselves the power of directing that the execution of the terms of the agreement be suspended in any post office of which the members are henceforth known to be taking part in extra-official agitations. I call that a monstrous doctrine, and it means that these men are to do nothing beyond simply appealing to the heads of their Departments, or, that if they go beyond, that they are to be punished. That is a paragraph which should be expunged as speedily as possible from the Letter of Her Majesty's Treasury. It appears to me that is pretty much the doctrine on which the Postmaster General acted with regard to Cardiff. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff is by ill-health prevented from being present, but it is his intention to bring the case of the Cardiff telegraph clerks before the House before the close of the Session. That case has been mentioned in the public Press; and though repeated representations were made by the Cardiff telegraph clerks, it was not until their case was taken up by the Western Mail that it received attention. A new Postmaster and staff were sent to Cardiff, and eight men were punished for this extra-official agitation. They were removed from Cardiff, which was a punishment to them, because the only reason given for their removal is that they took part in this agitation, which they deny. I hope we shall lay down at once the good rule that men may combine and agitate if they choose to do so in a legal way, whether they be Civil servants or not. I think I have laid before the House the facts. There is a stagnation of promotion and an inadequate scale of pay, and other grievances for which I ask a speedy remedy. The hardships are of a most harassing character, how harassing may be gathered from the detailed Superannuation Report, from which it appears that in 1885–6 50 per cent. of the clerks who retired did so from physical and nervous affections. Telegraph clerks undergo great bodily as well as mental fatigue. At an early age, in order to qualify them for higher positions, which in many cases are never open to them, they are expected to know something of electrical science and to be ac-quainted with the Frenchand German languages, besides being good geographers, of which there are few nowadays. The duties of telegraph clerks are becoming harder. The Postmaster General knows that cipher and code telegrams are increasing enormously in number. If a word is sent wrong or a number omitted, it might mean ruin to the individual or disaster to a large number of the general public. How well the work is done I need not inform the House. Newspaper reports, commercial business, and many of the relations of life, depend upon the accurate and faithful work of the telegraph clerks, who are a deserving body of public servants. I leave with confidence this Motion in the hands of the House of Commons, who represent the public, whom it is the aim and object of every telegraph clerk to serve faithfully and well, and who only ask for justice to be done as regards their grievances. I have very great pleasure in moving the Resolution which stands in my name.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, in the opinion of this House, the present position of Telegraphists in London and elsewhere is unsatisfactory, and their just grievances require redress"—(Earl Compton.)

*(6.45). BARON F. DE ROTHSCHILD (Aylesbury)

My noble Friend who has moved this Resolution has entered so clearly and minutely into the subject that I will only trespass on the time of the House for a few moments in seconding his proposal. The Government might object to this Motion upon two grounds—the first being political, and the other financial. They might consider it inexpedient that private Members should lend themselves to agitation on the part of the Civil servants of the Crown, when this agitation is directed against the superior officials. I might compare this case with that of one of the great merchants in the City employing a considerable number of clerks. Supposing he were to underpay those clerks, they would naturally agitate for an increase of wages. In so doing they might come to some friend of theirs and ask him to lay their case before the merchant who employs them; but the merchant is in a very different position from that of a Minister of the Crown, because the clerks do the private work of the merchant, and it is to the interest of the merchant to see that that work is well carried out, and, consequently, that his clerks should be well paid for doing so. The Postmaster General may well say it is no business of ours to interfere between the Civil servants of the Crown and himself, but here I would venture to ask him whether those Civil servants are not quite as much our servants as they are thos3 of the Postmaster General. The telegrams they have to send day and night are our telegrams, and is it, therefore, to our interest that the clerks who send them should be placed in such a position as will safeguard our interests. I might here cite an incident which, although at first sight may appear trivial, but is nevertheless to the point. it happened only the other day that a racing gentleman sent a telegram to Newmarket to ask a member of the ring to back a horse called Semolina, but instead of sending the name Semolina the telegraph clerks sent the name of another horse, Signorina, who did not win, and the consequence was that the gentleman who had thus been made to back it lost his money. There can be no doubt that if the telegraph clerks were to be better paid there will naturally be a demand for much more money, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to provide for in his Budget; but it seems to me that one of the chief sources of the national income is the money derived from the Inland Service, and inasmuch as there is a considerable increase in the Returns from the Telegraph Service it seems only right that a proportion of that increase should be given to those who are instrumental in producing it. When we are told that the telegraph clerks have no right to agitate, I would point out that this is no new agitation. In point of fact, it began something like 20 years ago, namely, in the year 1870, when it led to a strike which took place in the year 1872. That strike was only settled by an enormous expenditure. For my part, I hope that those difficulties will be adjusted without a strike on the part of the telegraph clerks, although at the present time it would appear that strikes are pretty much the order of the day. I would, therefore, put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General that ho should offer some positive assurance to my noble Friend that he will in due time, and after careful consideration, lay before the House some kind of scheme that will do substantial justice to the interests of all parties, and so obviate the existing difficulty. Without troubling the House any further, I have only to express a hope that we shall hear from the Postmaster General, not an evasive answer to the case we have put forward, but a reply that will prove satisfactory to all who take an interest in this question.

*(6.55.) MR. RAIKES

I cannot enter upon what I have to say without, in the first place, congratulating the noble Lord (Earl Compton) on the moderate tone of his speech and upon the scrupulous accuracy of his statements. If it were necessary that this Motion should have been made at all, I do not think it could have been brought before the House in a better way than that which the noble Lord had adopted; but, at the same time, I regret to have to say that, in my opinion, the time the noble Lord has selected for bringing forward this question has not been well chosen. A reformer is often told that he is either too early or too late in moving; but this Motion is both too early and too late. The noble Lord has been too early because he has brought forward this subject at a time when the Government have not had an opportunity of arriving at any conclusion with regard to the proposal it embodies, while be has raised a number of small points of detail which are at the present moment occupying the attention of the Department. The noble Lord has ranged the grievances of the telegraph clerks under four heads, namely, those which relate to the hours of duty, those relating to the rates of pay and allowances, those affecting classification and promotion, and those concerning the amount of leave. But I must complain that no official communication has been made to me with regard to the grievances of the London telegraph clerks before this Motion was brought forward in this House, a course which I think is altogether unprecedented. I can scarcely understand how the noble Lord opposite, who has evidently taken up this subject most conscientiously, could have reconciled it with his duty to have brought forward this Motion without having previously given the Department an opportunity of investigating the grievances which he alleges to exist.

*EARL COMPTON

I beg pardon. I certainly understood that a Petition had been presented from the London telegraph clerks to the Postmaster General on the subject. The Petition which I hold in my hand does not, however, appear to bear a date.

*MR. RAIKES

The only communication I have received from the London Central Telegraph Office was a request made to me three days ago, some weeks after the noble Lord gave notice of this Motion, that I should receive a deputation which would present a Memorial to me; in answer to which request I have directed a reply to be sent appointing a day in the course of next week, when I hope to receive that deputation and to hear what those who compose it have to say. I am, of course, aware that there has been a Petition flying about the country for some months past, which I have seen unofficially in the newspapers; but I may remark that the last persons to whom the grievances referred to in that Petition were made known were the official superiors of the Department. The first Petition on the subject that I have seen from the provincial offices was one from Newcastle, which was presented on February 28 in this year, and this was followed by a great number of other Petitions in identical terms from other offices. It was on March 4, four days after that Petition reached me, that I came to the conclusion that whilst it was not in my power to entertain or to recommend to the consideration of the Treasury several of the points that we raised by that document, yet that with regard to the other points I would take steps to secure their consideration by the immediate appointment of the best Departmental Committee I could select, upon which I would invite the representation of the Treasury with a view of considering the points put before me in order that I might see how far it is possible to go in meeting the grievances complained of. That Committee have now been sitting between a fortnight and three weeks, and they have not yet, of course, been able to deal with the intricate matters to be considered so as to enable them to arrive at any conclusion. But I am sure the noble Lord will agree that no time has been lost in the endeavour to probe to the utmost these grievances of which the telegraphists have complained. Now, there were nine points alleged in the Newcastle Petition, and in Petitions that have reached me since from other places; and upon four of these points I felt that I should not be acting fairly by the men if I allowed myself to hold out false hopes that it was at all likely these demands would be conceded. The first question upon which I felt it was impossible to encourage the Memorialists—was in regard to the request for the abolition of classifica- tion, and I think that the noble Lord, and those who think with him, are really hardly as careful as they should be in forming their conclusions if they encourage members of the Civil Service to think that what has been from the outset a cardinal principle of Civil Service, is likely to be modified in the case of telegraphists or any other particular branch of the Postal Service. I am assured by those most competent to form a judgment on the subject that the abolition of classification in the Telegraph Service would entail an addition to the expenditure of not less than £990.000 a year at the maximum—that is to say, an additional million—including changes that would have to be made in the Postal Service, for Members must see that we must place the two branches on the same footing as Mr. Fawcett placed them. There would be a claim for equality it would be impossible to disregard. If the position of the one branch is immensely improved, it will be impossible to refuse consideration of demands, though founded on very insufficient grounds from the other branch, which, up to the present time, has occupied its position with reasonable contentment, and has made no such claim. This demand is the largest, but there are others which I could not hold out any hope would be conceded. The second demand which cannot be entertained is the demand concerning the annual increment of the pay of junior officers. At present the increment is 1s. 6d. in the weekly wages, and the Petitioners are anxious that it should be raised to 2s. Those who support this demand need to be reminded that these telegraphists entered the service of the State on well-understood and recognised conditions. In their Petitions they gravely state that they are prevented from performing what they call "the duties of manhood," because their pay is so poor. What they mean is that they are not able to enter the state of matrimony eight or nine years before an ordinary member of the middle class would think of undertaking the burden of a family. Of course, I should be very glad if all these deserving men, excellent servants of the State, were receiving much larger incomes, just as I should be very glad if any hon. Member in this House were enjoying double his present income. But the Government must consider what are the terms on which these telegraphists entered the service of the State, and it is a little hard that after these people have entreated to be admitted to the Service, we should be told that those terms, after they have been freely accepted, are inadequate and insufficient—nay, almost savage and barbarous in their results. Those who take up this question are hardly treating the State fairly. It is easy to throw stones at the State, but the duties of the Government are not confined to the manifestation of pure benevolence towards individuals. There are five points as to which I have informed the Newcastle Petitioners that I shall be glad to obtain the best advice available, and see if anything can be done in regard to them. These five points do not include the burning "dinner" question, which arises in London only; but I shall be glad to consider whether I can include in the purview of the Departmental Committee any fresh point of that kind raised by the London Memorialists as soon as I shall have seen their Petition. It is impossible to pledge myself as to what points may be submitted to the Departmental Committee until I have the Memorial before me.

*EARL COMPTON

I cannot quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's reply on this matter. I am distinctly informed that the particular Petition to which reference has already been made, and many other Petitions, have been sent in the last three or four years to the right hon. Gentleman from the Central Telegraph Office. There was also a document setting forth the views of the senior male and female clerks of the first and second class in the Telegraph Department. I cannot believe that all these have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice.

*MR. RAIKES

Of course, there have been previous Petitions in former years presented to myself and my predecessors in office. In fact, I may say that few months ever pass without the presentation of some Petition or Memorial from the Telegraph Staff. But I am referring-now to the Memorial, which, I understand, is ready for presentation, which has not yet reached me, and which I only know of because I have been asked to receive a deputation, who propose to present the Memorial.

*EARL COMPTON

I did not allude to that. I referred to the Petitions showered upon the right hon. Gentleman himself and his predecessors as to these grievances. They all contain the same prayer.

*MR. RAIKES

The noble Lord refers to previous Petitions, and I to a particular Petition. There is another point the noble Lord has alluded to just now to which I must call attention. A printed pamphlet, purporting to present the case of the senior and junior telegraphists in the Central Office, was said to have been brought to the notice of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service. Will it be believed that the first opportunity I have had of seeing that document was this very morning, when it reached me through the post? It was supposed in the Department that some statement was made to the Civil Service Commission, and we feel that we should like to have an opportunity of studying it. I have been unable before to obtain a copy of that Memorial, and I have not, of course, been able to give it any consideration. In fact, it has been sprung upon the Department at the last moment.

*EARL COMPTON

It is in the same spirit, and contains precisely the same points as have been raised in all the previous Petitions.

*MR. RAIKES

The noble Lord referred to it just now as if I must have seen it, but I had not until this morning. It is likely that there would be a family resemblance between this and previous Memorials, for they all contain demands for more money and less work. The precise contents of the document, however, are not yet known to me. In the Report of the Royal Commission there is no indication of the contents of the pamphlet, and, as far as I know, there is no proof of the statement that the Royal Commissioners received it; they certainly have expressed no opinion upon it. It is part of the series of spring guns, man-traps, and sudden surprises which make this subject one so difficult to deal with. I will now tell the House what are the five points which I have referred to the Departmental Committee. The first is as to the sufficiency of present wages. The demand of the Petitioners is for a maximum of £200. I felt it right to inform the Memorialists that I could not hold out the hope of granting this, but I would consider how far the present rate is sufficient; the second is the request of the Petitioners that all overtime should be paid for at the rate of one and a quarter; the third is the demand that all Sunday work should be paid for as overtime; the fourth is the demand that sorting clerks and telegraphists of 10 years' or less service should receive three weeks' annual leave, and that those of more than 10 years' service should have one month; and the fifth is the request that full pay should be allowed during absence from duty through sickness. All these points are being sifted by the most competent tribunal I could appoint, and upon it I have a gentleman representing the Treasury. I think it extremely desirable, if possible, that I should be fortified with a unanimous Report of the Committee before requesting the Treasury to take any action. I had decided, before these questions were raised in the agitated form in which they have recently been presented to the public, that there were three principal requirements of the Service which merited special consideration. The most important of these concerns the position of the superior officers of the Telegraph Department. The noble Lord has referred to what he has heard from Liverpool this morning. Only a fortnight ago I obtained the sanction of the Treasury to a considerable improvement in the position of these officers at Liverpool. The consequence is that about 40 promotions have been made on the Telegraph Staff of that office. There are now one Chief Superintendent rising from £400 to £500 by increments of £20 a year; one Superintendent from £310 to £400 by £15 a year; four Assistant Superintendents of the first class rising from. £260 to £310 by annual increments of £10; eight of the second class from £200 to £260 by annual increases of £10; one Assistant Female Supervisor rising from £80 to £105 by £5 a year. Liverpool is the largest and most important provincial office; but it is intended to take Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, and other large towns in order. Careful inquiry will be instituted, not in any slap-dash fashion, or with a mania for uniformity, to ascertain the needs of the different offices; but Liverpool is as yet the only place where a change has been given effect to. I trust it will be seen that, although I have not been able to give any countenance to the proposal for the abolition of classification, which would in effect be the abolition of promotion by merit, I have not been slack in giving effect to the real requirements of the Service, and that in advance of the demands made upon me. I sympathise with the case brought forward by the noble Lord with regard to the hours of duty. But I am obliged, as the head of any Department would be, to consider first the exigencies of the Service. Reasonable care will, of course, be taken to prevent cases of hardship. It would be a scandal if the servants of the State were exposed to hardships which might easily be prevented. But, as everybody knows, the Telegraph Service is necessarily exposed to great fluctuations, in which occasional cases of hardship are inevitable. And I am sure that it will not be believed that the Department is indifferent to the hardships inflicted upon individuals. I can assure the noble Lord that everything shall be done which I can do to diminish any undue pressure. I regard the passage quoted from Mr. Fawcett's scheme as the recognised principle of the Department, that two days' work should not exceed 16 hours, and that no day should exceed 11 hours. The Secretary to the Treasury can bear witness to the importunity with which I have urged additions to the staff. But these questions are complicated by the considerations to which the noble Lord has very fairly referred, namely, that the men who are complaining of overwork are not extremely in favour of additions to the force, because it diminishes their opportunities of adding to their salaries by overtime. The noble Lord would be surprised if he knew how great has been the increase of the staff during the last few years. As regards the dinner hour in London, I do not see any great hardship if men whose hours are from 2 to 10 are requested to dine before they come on duty. They are allowed time for refreshment between 5 and 6, and it is enough if these men, who can hardly expect a life of luxury, are enabled to enjoy reasonable comfort. I admit the exceptional character of the Submarine staff, who have special claims on the consideration of the Department. They were handed over to the Government, which had but an imperfect knowledge of their position in their former employment. I have had the pleasure of meeting a deputation of these clerks, and have told them that though I cannot promise the large gratuities to their widows which the companies granted, yet I hope to improve their position. Then the noble Lord referred to the Cardiff branch of the subject, and upon this I in no way wish to shirk discussion. The claims put forward on this point are, I think, about the most nonsensical with which I have become acquainted. But the hon. Member who has special charge of this part of the subject is not now in his place, and I think it would be unfair to him to attempt now to make a general statement on this branch, and for the moment I pass over it. The only other matter I need refer to is the Circular issued from the Treasury under the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. The responsibility for that Circular rests with right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the quotation which has been made from it to-night is the first I have ever heard of. Whilst I think that the language used in that Minute is of rather too uncompromising and peremptory a character, I cannot but think that it would be a bad thing for the Civil Service if its members were constantly to be bringing their grievances before Parliament. I believe that in the great Republic across the water, which we are always being called upon to imitate, every inhabitant of the district of Columbia is disfranchised. Although that would be a very drastic measure to apply in any other country in the world—and we must remember that Washington is only an official centre—it shows that American politicians recognise the danger which arises in cases like the present. I hope that after the statement which I have been able to make this evening the House will recognise the claim of every Government that it shall not interfere with matters of Departmental administration, except where it thinks fit to censure the Minister in charge. So long as a Minister occupies his position at the head of a Department he ought to be allowed to conduct it in his own way. I venture to hope that the House will leave questions of this sort in the hands of those who are directly and primarily responsible for them, in the belief that the grievances of the servants of any Department are not likely to lack careful consideration and, I believe, just and fair treatment.

(7.32.) SIR A. BORTHWICK (Kensington, S.)

I will only detain the House a few moments while I explain the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper, namely— That this House, while anxious that all public servants should receive fair and adequate remuneration, regrets the increasing tendency to invoke the direct interposition of Parliament between the Executive Government and the Civil Service That Amendment is fully justified by the speeches which have been delivered this evening, especially that of the noble Lord. The noble Lord, indeed, has assumed that I put my Amendment on the Paper in some spirit of hostility to the telegraphists. That is in no way the case. I yield neither to the noble Lord nor any other Member in my admiration for the general body of public servants, or my appreciation of their merits, and of the way in which they perform their duties. So much is that the case that I have taken on several occasions the course of inquiring carefully into a grievance, and bringing it before the notice of the legitimate authority; and whenever I have done that, I have generally succeeded in having the grievance redressed. My objection to the Motion lies in its enormous breadth. The noble Lord assumes that the presant position of the telegraphists is unsatisfactory, and that their grievances are just and require redress. I should have sympathised most cordially with him if he had adduced any one distinct grievance, but, instead of that, when the noble Lord came to speak on the grievances, they ranged over every possible matter of duty, pay, classification, promotion, bread and butter, and matrimony. The object of my Amendment is to declare that the House is not competent to deal with so many subjects at once; and we have now heard it fully explained by the Postmaster General how not only should we have been wrong in dealing with those subjects, but that, after spending last night in every kind of cheeseparing over the Estimates, we should now be voting away £1,000,000 of public money if we supported the noble Lord. The answer of the Postmaster General seems so satisfactory that I can hardly doubt that the noble Lord will withdraw his Motion. For my own part, any sentimental difficulty in opposing the Motion has been entirely obviated by the clear and masterly statement of the Postmaster General, and I shall, therefore, instead of moving my Amendment, support the Government in giving a direct negative to the noble Lord's Motion.

*(7.36.) MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN (Merthyr Tydvil)

In the absence of the hon. Member for Cardiff I conceive it to be my duty to call attention to what took place in Cardiff last August. Certain telegraphists complained of the length of hours they had to work, and went on to state some of their grievances, and the consequence was that six new postal clerks and eight ordinary clerks, together with a Postmaster, were added to the staff. A letter was written to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, complaining that the clerks had been punished for simply complaining that they had not been paid for overtime, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted that they had been so punished by removal to other places. Public attention was first called to the matter in the Western Mail, which was a strong supporter of the Government. The excitement in the matter had been intense, and the Mayor and other influential people had taken great interest in the question, feeling that the clerks had been very badly used. I hold in my hand a telegram asking me to call the attention of the House to the moderate requests of the hard workers in the Cardiff office. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that while they were on sick leave, under the certificate of a Government doctor, one-third, at least, of their pay was deducted. These men, too, have to work eight or 10 hours without any chance of getting food, which is a far worse position than that of a sailor, soldier, miner, or even a prisoner in his cell. I think arrangements might be made by which some of the grievances might be remedied.

SIR L. PLAYFAIR (Leeds, South)

I only intend to say a few words. I am extremely glad to have heard the fair speech of the Postmaster General and the concessions which he has promised. The officers for whom the appeal has been made are, as we all know, a body of most efficient and meritorious men, who have always done their work with great zeal for the Public Service. There is a great difficulty in ascertaining whether the rates of pay in such offices, where special knowledge is required, really represent a fair remuneration, and, therefore, it is very necessary that whenever there are grievances they should be well formulated in order that the Department may inquire fully how far they are just or unjust. The Postmaster General has told us that he has already appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into the alleged grievances, and I think my hon. Friend would he well advised if he takes this concession in the spirit in which it has been offered and to accept the inquiry which I am sure, with my knowledge of Departmental inquiries, will be fair and just to the Telegraph Service, and if he does not press this Motion to a Division until, at least, he finds what is the result of the inquiry.

(7.45.) MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh)

I only desire to say that the dissatisfaction which exists amongst the telegraph clerks of this country is very considerably shared by the telegraph operators throughout Ireland. I have received communications from telegraph operators in many parts of Ireland, expressing the hope that Irish Members will co-operate with the noble Lord in his endeavour to obtain the redress of their grievances, and I am convinced that if the noble Lord goes to a Division he will be followed by the majority of the Irish Members. It seems to me that the demands of the telegraph operators are perfectly reasonable, and that the statement of the Postmaster General is anything but satisfactory. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to me to assume a tone of antagonism all through his speech to the complaints of the telegraphists. Irish Members have no desire that any but real grievances should be put forward, and some of the grievances enumerated by the noble Lord are undoubted. For instance, it must be impossible for the Postmaster General to explain how it is right and proper that the telegraph clerk in London receives pay for operating on Sunday, while the telegraph operator in Ireland receives no pay for Sunday labour. I will not go into other matters, but simply add that many people in Ireland are completely at one with the noble Lord, and that I hope he will go to a Division.

(7.47.) DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

I sincerely trust the noble Lord will go to a Division. Several Irish Members have come from Ireland specially to support the noble Lord in the Division Lobby. I have come here now, at considerable inconvenience, to support the just claims of the telegraphists. Nowhere can you find a more efficient class of men than the telegraph operators in Cork. Sunday after Sunday these men are kept at work in consequence of the nefarious administration of Her Majesty's Government. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, I say there is infamous misgovernment in Ireland; and the major portion of the messages sent across the wires in Ireland on Sunday relate to the suppression of public meeting in Ireland, and to everything that is antagonistic to the popular opinion of the country. We think that when these men are doing Her Majesty's work they should be paid. It is disgraceful the way these men are treated, and I want some definite assurance from the Postmaster General that their grievances will be redressed unless this is given: and if the noble Lord withdraws his Motion I hope some of our friends on the Opposition side of the House will, at any rate, put Her Majesty's Government to the trouble of a Division.

(7.50.) The House divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 142.—(Div, List, No. 50.)