HC Deb 28 November 1890 vol 349 cc210-24
(7.1.) MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S. W.)

I desire to take this opportunity of saying a few words on behalf of the dismissed postmen for whom I pleaded a few months ago. The Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) has been obdurate against all the private representations made to him, and I am therefore compelled to appeal to him in public. The dismissed postmen may be divided into three classes. The first are those dismissed because they refused to discharge their ordinary duties. They refused under mitigating and extenuating circumstances, I think; but, still, they committed a grave breach of discipline, and I do not to-night say anything more about that part of the case. Then there are the men who were dismissed simply for attending the meetings or becoming members of the Postmen's Union. I hold in my hand a printed statement of the reasons for which postmen have been dismissed. In that paper I see over and over again statements of this kind:—"Dismissed for attending a meeting in Hyde Park;" "Dismissed for attending a meeting on Clerkenwell Green," and so on. I desire to call particular attention to the case of one postman of long service to whom a number of questions were addressed by the officials. The first question is as follows:— You are called upon to state what action or part you took in the recent postmen's agitation, Now, I can hardly conceive anything more inconsistent with fair play than to ask a man a question of that kind. If you have any complaint against your servants surely you should prefer a specific charge against them, and give them the opportunity either of defending or explaining, or, possibly, of apologising for their conduct. Here the official appears to have adopted the plan of putting fishing questions to these comparatively illiterate men in the hope, I suppose, of obtaining from them entangling answers. The second question was to the following effect:— Why did you attend the Fawcett Association meeting, and on that occasion call upon the sorting force to join the Postmen's Union?'' The answer this man gave was, that permission had been granted to the members of the Fawcett Association to hold a meeting of the foreign branch; that such meeting was open for discussion and debate; that being in favour of Unionism, he decided to oppose the amendment that all sorters should join the Postmen's Union; and he drew attention to the recent statements made from time to time by the Postmaster General in the House of Commons admitting that the servants of the Post Office had a right to combine for their mutual benefit, and stating that in no case had any servant been punished for expressions of opinion at officially sanctioned meetings. The Postmaster General has again and again informed us that his only object in requiring the attendance of shorthand writers at postmen's meetings is to inform himself of the grievances of the men, but I point out here the use which has been made of the information conveyed by a shorthand writer. Some statement or argument made by one of the men who attended is made a charge against that man, and it appears to have been part of the case upon which he has been dismissed. The Postmaster General last Session gave an undertaking that he would carefully investigate each individual case. I should like to inform the House what is the proportion between the number of reinstated men and the number of the men originally dismissed. I will take the case of the Western District Office in Vere Street. Fifteen postmen were dismissed from that office for attending meetings or joining the Union, and of these two only have been reinstated. I may add that among the men whose livelihood has been taken away there were many who were teetotalers, and bore an exceptionally high character. It is not possible for the Postmaster General to contend that the severity of his action has been forced upon him by his subordinates at the local post offices. It is not the case that the local postmasters have reported that this severe treatment was necessary as a disciplinary measure, and that unless an example were made they could not be responsible for the discharge of their important functions. On the contrary, I am in a position to say that the local postmasters have from the very first held out to these dismissed men the hope of being reinstated, and I may say with confidence that no one is more surprised than they themselves are at the unparalleled severity of the Postmaster General. Nay, more—even officials at the Central Office have made to the men distinct pledges. On the 31st of July a deputation waited on the Postmaster General for the purpose of laying before him the grievances of the postmen, and urging the reinstatement of all men who had been dismissed. The deputation saw the Postmaster General, and afterwards they were seen by the Controller, Mr. Tombs, who was asked by a man named Cox what was intended to be done in the case of the men dismissed for merely attending meetings. The answer given by Mr. Tombs was that these men would be reinstated. Mr. Cox asked for and obtained from Mr. Tombs permission to repeat that promise to the men. So that if that statement is true—and I have every reason to believe it is—there has been a distinct violation of a pledge given by one of the most highly-placed of the right hon. Gentleman's subordinates. This is a most serious issue. The men for whom I plead have lost, not only their present means of livelihood, but also their prospective pensions, which are merely deferred pay. And that for what? They have lost these advantages simply because they attended meetings, or for becoming members of the Postmen's Union. These public servants are between the horns of a dilemma. The Postmaster General punishes them if they form a Union for their own protection. On the other hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer punishes them if they appeal for the intervention of this House, for as recently as the occasion of the Lord Mayor's banquet he went rather out of his way to lecture hon. Members who ventured to interfere on their behalf. So that public servants are to be left absolutely defenceless against the heads of Departments or Parliamentary chiefs, who, without autocratic power, are quite as likely to act tyrannically or offensively towards those they employ as private bodies are under similar circumstances. I have thought it right to bring this matter before the attention of the House. I hope I may receive support from both sides; but if I am disappointed, then I can only appeal to a wider tribunal, and I shall be much surprised if the public outside do not resent the drastic and severe treatment meted out to a most deserving and respected body of public officials.

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

I have to thank the hon. Member for the brevity of his speech; but, in doing so, I must point out that, until I came down to the House to-day, I did not know that this subject was to be brought forward, and consequently I am without any particular data, to enable me to answer the statements which have just been made. I can only, therefore reply to them in their general aspect and I think I can satisfy the House that those statements have been put forward to the hon. Member—I will not say by him—in a very exaggerated form, and with a good deal of illustration of a not very accurate kind. The hon. Gentleman says that the men were dismissed for being members of the Postmen's Union, for attending the meetings in Hyde Park and on Clerkenwell Green, and for taking part in the agitation. As I say, I have not the papers at this moment in my hands, but I think I am accurate in stating that no man was dismissed for being a member of the Union. As to the Hyde Park meeting, that matter was discussed fully before the House rose a few months ago. The postmen were warned not to go to it, and t culminated in a disgraceful riot, in which two superior officers of the Post office were cruelly handled by the mob. The men suspended for attending the meeting had in every case an opportunity of recovering their situations if they would make an apology and give assurances for their good behaviour in the future within a reasonable time. With regard to the Clerkenwell meeting it is possible that those who took a prominent part in that desertion of duty may have suffered for instigating the revolt, but I am not in a position to say that anybody was dismissed for attending that meeting. As to questions being put to the men with reference to the part they took in the agitation, there again I am without material to enable me to give a specific answer, but I would remind the House that the men to whom any such questions were put were already dismissed for deserting their duty, and that if such questions were put it was done with the object of enabling the men to clear themselves as far as possible from the imputation of having been instigators or ringleaders of the revolt, and not in order that they might condemn themselves. If questions were put at all it was for the purpose of eliciting extenuating circumstances on behalf of the men. The hon. Member has also referred to some men having been dismissed for taking part in a meeting of the Fawcett Association. I am very much inclined to doubt whether any man was dismissed for merely attending a meeting of that Association. The hon. Member speaks of my having undertaken to examine into each case. He must be already aware that I have given to each case all the attention which it is possible for me to give. I had all the papers relating to each individual case sent to me for consideration. I read through every letter, and carefully studied the records of character in the case of every man. There were several men who made no appeal for reinstatement, and the cases of those men were allowed to go by default; but in regard to all the other cases I gave the best attention I could to every representation or recommendation that was made to me in their behalf, whether by persons outside or inside the Post Office. As to only two of the 15 men dismissed from the Western District Office having been reinstated, I think that that is extremely probable. I cannot now give the reasons for the action in that particular instance, but I can say that I was most anxious to find extenuating circumstances in every case, and that whenever such circumstances existed, or there was even reasonable ground for supposing the existence of extenuating circumstances, I gave the offender the benefit of them. The hon. Member says that local postmasters did not urge severity, and were astonished at my decision. Well, as to any communication by the local postmasters with the Postmaster General, and the statement that they were astonished at my decision, I fail to see how the hon. Member could become aware of such communications, because they would be strictly confidential, and I am unwilling to believe that any local postmaster would commit such a serious breach of duty as to divulge them.

MR. PICKERSGILL

I founded my allegation on the statements made again and again by the local postmasters, especially the postmaster in the Eastern District Office.

MR. RAIKES

I am unaware of any statement having been made by the postmaster of the Eastern District Office to the hon. Member or anyone else. I can only say I am surprised that any Postmaster can have committed such a breach of duty as to have entered such a protest as that the hon. Member speaks of.

MR. PICKERSGILL

It was not a breach of duty at all.

MR. RAIKES

I can only say, speaking from recollection, that my belief is that I reinstated far more than I dismissed of the men who were recommended to me for reinstatement by the local postmasters.

MR. PICKERSGILL

Will the right hon. Gentleman state that the number reinstated in the Eastern District of those recommended for reinstatement by the local postmaster exceeded the number dismissed?

MR. RAIKES

I am not in a position to make that statement. The hon. Member, by not giving me timely notice of his intention to raise this subject, has precluded me from the possibility of making a specific statement to-night. I am not speaking of one district in particular. It is very possible that in one district the number dismissed may have been greater than the number reinstated, but I am speaking of the whole force. It is quite possible that in some districts I reinstated more men than in others. With reference to the statement of the hon. Member respecting certain communications which are said to have passed between Mr. Tombs, the Controller, and a Mr. Cox—whose name I cannot now recall—it is quite possible that some communication did take place, and that some statement may have been made, and made in good faith, but I am persuaded there is some misapprehension in the matter, for I feel certain that the Controller would never have made any such unqualified statement as the hon. Member has alleged. I apologise for detaining the House, because the whole matter was threshed out on the Estimates in July last, and it has now been brought up again in a very loose manner, and without any particular notice. I have only further to repeat what I said on the previous occasion, namely, to express my sincere regret that I cannot with the full consideration of my public duty go further than I did in reinstating these unfortunate men. I think a great many of them are very much to be pitied, for they no doubt acted under bad guidance, and I sincerely commisserate the position in which they are placed. But my duty is first to the Service over which I have the honour to preside. I am bound to maintain discipline and order in that Service, and I believe that that discipline and order can only be attained and maintained by making examples of those who deserted their duty in the most conspicuous manner in this unfortunate affair. I have only further to say that if the hon. Member wishes I will make inquiry as to the alleged conversation of Mr. Cox with the Controller, this being the only case in which the hon. Member by giving names has enabled me to follow up the statements made.

(7.26.) MR. ISAACSON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he has paid no attention to the Petition I presented to him from 57 dismissed postmen of the East End of London who had been in the Service for terms ranging from three to thirty years. These men, unfortunately, acting under bad advice, went out on strike for a few hours. These men did not join the Postmen's Union, and they did not attend any meetings in Hyde Park, and yet, because they struck work for two hours only, they were discharged and thrown helpless on the world. As I say, I myself presented a Petition in their behalf to the Postmaster General, and the right hon. Gentleman gave me reason to believe that the men would be reinstated if their characters were found to bear investigation.

MR. RAIKES

I hope the hon. Member will allow me to say that I never made any such statement.

MR. ISAACSON

I will read what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said that— He would inquire into individual cases, and if he found that their characters were satisfactory, he would reinstate them, with all due tegard for the Public Service.

MR. RAIKES

Hear, hear.

MR. ISAACSON

Well, the characters of the men were investigated, and were found to be satisfactory; yet when I again wrote to the Postmaster General I received a reply that the right hon. Gentleman declined to interfere in the matter. The promise made to me with regard to those men has not, therefore, been carried out. I believe the men have been very harshly treated, especially when it is considered that the feeling of insubordination at the time in question would never have arisen if a proper system had been adopted at the Post Office to put a stop to the widespread discontent that existed. I do now trust that the Postmaster General will go through these 57 cases again. The men deserve well of the Post Office. They have been diligent in the discharge of their duty—some of them for 30 years, and I think it a great shame that they should be thrown out of work and compelled—knowing no other business than that of postmen—to go skulking about London to earn a shilling where they can. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General will look into this case, and, if possible, allow further reinstatements to be made. As it is, not a single reinstatement has been made, although the characters of these men will bear the strictest investigation.

(7.30.) MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

The Postmaster General has stated that this question was thoroughly thrashed out a few months ago, but I trust he will allow me to remind him of the position in which it was left just before the House rose at the end of last Session. The right hon. Gentleman then gave us an assurance that he would investigate the whole of these cases, and we are now in the position of knowing that the result of that investigation has been very unfortunate indeed for the poor postmen who had been discharged. He has said to-night that he was hardly prepared to meet the question thus brought on; but he must recollect that a large number of men who have devoted many years to the Public Service were not only discharged from the Post Office, but, having been discharged, they have thereby suffered great disadvantage in their efforts to obtain other employment. Many of them have come to me, and I have advised them to seek other employment; but they have said that the fact of their having been discharged from the Post Office has told so heavily against them that, had they lost their characters through any really serious dereliction of duty, they could not have been placed in a worse position. Even the Postmaster General must admit that the charge should be a very serious one that would prevent even one out of a total number of 57 men from being reinstated. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman can hardly deny that the action he has taken has been very severe indeed. I have taken the trouble to investigate the statements of many of the men, and as far as I could get evidence in the cases of those who have been in the Service a large number of years, they have discharged their duties well and faithfully in the past, as is proved by the fact that they have earned good conduct stripes, one of these men wearing no less than three of them, which is at least a proof that for a long period of years he has performed his duties thoroughly in the judgment of his superiors. This being the case, I think we have good cause for asking the Postmaster General to re-investigate, at least, some of these cases. I will take only two of the districts. In one of them there were 57 men discharged, of whom not one has been reinstated; and the Postmaster General has admitted the allegation made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) as to the Eastern District, that out of the 15 men who were dismissed only two have been reinstated. My hon. Friend spoke of a man who attended the first Post Office Association meeting. He did not say the man was discharged for attending that meeting as a member of the Post Office Association, because the man was not qualified to belong to that Association; he merely attended to ask the sorters to form a Union of their own, in which they might be allowed to associate in the same manner as the other servants of the Post Office. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General must see that a new departure is wanted in the case of these men—that some very broad and generous line must be laid down, otherwise this question will arise again as soon as opportunity is given for it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the House a clear and definite statement as to the position these men are to occupy—whether they are to be allowed to organise themselves for their own benefit and protection or not. I certainly think that some line with regard to the right of meeting on the part of these men ought to be laid down. I will not press the question further now; but I do say that if, as the right hon. Gentleman admits, many of these men have not been reinstated, their cases ought at least to be re-investigated. The right hon. Gentleman has said that those who have not been reinstated are to be pitied. And I put it to him whether, if they are deserving of his pity, they shall not be re-appointed? They now stand in this position: In many cases they have sacrificed not only the work of a large numbers of years, but their chance of pensions has also gone, their prospects in life being thus entirely ruined. Under these circumstances, I ask the right hon. Gentleman can he not meet these men in a more liberal spirit?

(7.37.) MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

As it may be some time before we shall have an opportunity of reopening this matter on the Estimates, I think it desirable to offer some slight criticism on the attitude the right hon. Gentleman has taken on this question. He has spoken to-night in even harsher terms than on former occasions of these men being leaders in the revolt, which clearly shows that, however much he may talk of his most anxious desire to consider all the circumstances and temper justice with mercy and all that sort of thing, he nevertheless entertains the same strong view we have always known him to hold as to the right of the men to form a Union. I will not trouble the House with details, but I must say I think the right hon. Gentleman was not quite exact in speaking of the loose manner in which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green brought this matter forward. The hon. Member made statements backed up by verbatim reports, and those statements, together with others made from other quarters of this House, show that we on this side are even better informed on the question under discussion than the right hon. Gentleman himself. Without going into detail, I would simply ask the House in a broad general way whether the men are or are not to have the right which is accorded to all other workingmen throughout the country, of combining for their mutual interest and protection where individually they are not strong enough to obtain fair play. On this important question the right hon. Gentleman has deliberately cast down his gage, and declared that nothing shall induce him to respect the Union, or the right of the men to form a Union, but that, on the contrary, he will do everything in his power to smash any Union of those under his control. The right hon. Gentleman took up the same position on previous occasions, and has re-asserted it in rather violent language against the men this evening. That is the present position of this question, and it is a position which I ask the House not to endorse. There are one or two points which I might be allowed to say a word upon before resuming my seat. The right hon. Gentleman defended himself on the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green insisted upon as to the questions put to the men before reinstatement. But I say that those questions were put merely to induce the men to incriminate themselves, and not as the right hon. Gentleman put it, to enable them to clear themselves. The right hon. Gentleman might just as well ask us to believe that it is a principle of law or equity in this country that questions should be put to a prisoner for the purpose of enabling him by his answers to offer extenuating circumstances or to clear himself from guilt.

MR. RAIKES

After sentence.

MR. CONYBEARE

I do not quite catch the purport of the right hon. Gentleman's interruption, but it is surely a principle of justice in this country that men should not be led into incriminating themselves by having incriminating questions put to them. If the right hon. Gentleman had been so anxious to do everything in his power to reinstate these men and condone their offences he would not had done anything such as he must have seen the questions he put tended to do to make the men incriminate themselves. Such a system of dealing with—if you like to call them so—refractory servants must rather be to encourage among them the habit of lying in order to shelter themselves from consequences that might otherwise result. I will not combat the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman, but will give him full credit for sincerity when he stated that he had given all the attention possible to these cases. He was taking the waters on the Continent when the cases came on, and I hope he gave every possible consideration to them. Nevertheless, the number of those whom he reinstated was lamentably small compared with the number subjected to punishment. Last Session he asked us to believe that a great proportion of those who went out on strike were intimidated by the ringleaders of the agitation. I said at the time I did not believe there had been any intimidation, and the result of the right hon. Gentleman's investigation now shows what a miserably small amount of intimidation there must have been when so few of the men have been reinstated, because I conceive that those who were reinstated were not all subjected to intimidation, but that he also took into account other extenuating circumstances put forward by the men. The right hon. Gentleman commented severely on the breach of duty committed by certain postmasters who, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green has stated, told the men they were astonished that so few had been reinstated. I should like to know what possible breach of duty could have been committed by these postmasters who expressed such an opinion in talking the matter over with the men. Had these postmasters come to myself or my friends and complained of what had taken place, and asked us to take it up in this House, there might have been some colour for what the right hon. Gentleman has said; but, as it is, I consider the course taken by the Postmaster General has been inconsistent with the demands of justice. The right hon. Gentleman has complained of the inconvenience of discussing this question on the present occasion, when the notice has been so short. For my part, I feel the inconvenience quite as much as he does. I was not aware of my hon. Friend's intention to bring it forward to-night; but we are discussing it, and the discussion is not wholly irrelevant or premature because the matter was discussed at some length last Session. This being a new Session, we are entitled to bring forward old grievances; if not, I do not see why we should keep the House open at all. I, for for one, shall take every opportunity to protest against the harsh, high-handed, and unjust, if not wholly unconstitu- tional, acts for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible.

(7.50.) MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

I have no desire to discuss this matter at any length in an almost empty House, but I wish to join my friends in asking the Postmaster General to extend a little mercy to these poor men. It is in the recollection of hon. Members that when the House prorogued last Session we received what we conceived to be a distinct pledge from the Postmaster General that he would deal as tenderly and mercifully as possible with the postmen who had, unfortunately, rushed into a contest with their superiors. I then took the opportunity of stating that, as far as the small band of Members with whom I usually co-operate in this House was concerned, we were in no way responsible for that unfortunate strike; and that had the men followed the counsels we gave them, that strike would not have taken place. We promised to do the best we could to ventilate their grievances in this House, and, if possible, get justice done to them without their resorting to the foolish step they took. Our counsels were, however, overruled by some evil genius, and we know the unfortunate results which followed. I will not say that, the Postmaster General violated his pledges to us—I will be more charitable, and say we misunderstood him; but, at any rate, we hoped he would restore to their places nearly all the men who had been so foolish and had acted so precipitately. I once more appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to exercise a little more clemency in the case of these poor men. Surely when the right hon. Gentleman has triumphed over the men as he has done he can afford in the hour of victory to give a little more consideration to those who are now in a starving condition, and from whom comes up the bitter cry that their wives and families are so in need. I hope before the Estimates come under consideration the right hon. Gentleman will render it unnecessary that we should again raise this question, and that he will not, after these men have suffered months of privation, continue conduct which I cannot but describe as cruel. These men acted foolishly I admit, but I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he would like to face his family suffering from privation, or be deprived of his situation merely because his colleagues considered that he had been insubordinate? The right hon. Gentleman may smile at the suggestion; but if he saw these men and their dependents wanting, as they are, the necessaries of life, I think, rather than smile, he would feel grief, and be moved by it to generous action. In what I have said I have no particular interest or Party purpose to serve; I simply make an appeal in behalf of suffering fellow-men, and bespeak for them considerate treatment even at this the eleventh hour.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.