HC Deb 14 June 1892 vol 5 cc1123-30

Order read, for Consideration of postponed Resolution— That a sum, not exceeding £1,736,360, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, for the Salaries and Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service.

*(10.10.) THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,) Manchester, N.E.

I must ask the House to permit me, on the postponed Vote for the Telegraph Service, to call attention to certain circulars addressed to candidates at the General Election, and also sent to some Members of this House. The address is from "The Provincial Postal Telegraph Male Clerks to Candidates at the General Election," and in one of these circulars the following sentences occur:— We have, in addition, to ask you whether you will, if elected, vote for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the working of the Telegraph Service, as we believe such an investigation would be of great utility, and could not but tend to the improvement of the Service, the state of which is causing great public dissatisfaction, as will be seen from the subjoined newspaper extracts. The circular goes on— In conclusion, we beg to state that we await your reply to these few questions of vital importance with considerable anxiety, and trust that you will give them your careful consideration. I have heard also that another branch of the Service is organised, and is issuing similar notices. It appears to me to be a great evil that a body of public servants should organise themselves to address Members of the House and candidates on the eve of a General Election, inviting, in no ambiguous language, an undertaking as to the internal management of a Public Department, which may influence votes at the coming election. Parliament entrusts public servants, equally with other electors, with the franchise; but it is certainly not in order that they should bring organised pressure to bear on candidates in their own interests. Such action is absolutely disloyal to the State which they serve, and is calculated to impair the purity of elections. As regards a particular case, my predecessor took great care, and showed great sympathy with the Service, in reorganising its classification. I feel some reluctance to disturb an arrangement so recently entered into; but I have earnestly considered all Memorials addressed to me since I have held my present office, and I have attempted to remedy every case of hardship submitted to me. There is another point besides pay and slowness of promotion to which these public servants call attention, and that is to certain regulations made by my predecessor in a time of considerable public excitement regulating the right of holding meetings by officers of the Department. Formerly they were not allowed to hold meetings except in Post Office buildings, but my predecessor allowed them to take part in meetings outside public offices; but it was stipulated that no outside people should be present, and, further, that notice should be given of such meeting, so that an official reporter might attend. I can say that, since I have held my present office, I have never sent an official reporter to any such meeting, and I have only gathered what passed from the reports in the newspapers. But this right has remained in abeyance, and I am free to confess that, however necessary it may have been, it may have become unnecessary now, and I may re-consider the question. As regards the grievances of the Department, I can abundantly testify that the superior officers have considered all reports made to them. I think there would be an end to the discipline which should characterise members of the Public Service if en- couragement were given to such attempts to bring pressure to bear on Members of the House and candidates on the eve of a General Election. The Public Service is popular; it is the object of ambition and competition; the future of its members is assured; it is conducted on principles of fairness and impartiality; but it would be injured, if not destroyed, if proceedings in the nature of canvass or solicitation before an election became prevalent, and it would be an abuse of the privilege of the franchise conferred on members of the Public Service. I trust that not only the House, but Parliamentary candidates, will set their faces against endeavours to bring into practice a system of getting candidates to pledge themselves to vote for inquiries into the details of Departments of the Public Service. I hope they will decline to give such pledges, and will consider that pledges given on ex parte statements to vote for inquiry are as much prejudicing the question as if they were to pledge themselves at once to vote for revision. I have to say that the leading Members of the Opposition, including the right hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), fully concur in the observations I have made.

(10.15.) MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)

I feel that I cannot allow the remarks of the Postmaster General to pass unnoticed. The members of the Postal Service are placed in a very peculiar position—they are denied the right of ordinary combination. That right is given to every citizen by the statutory law, and no Department has a right to infringe it; it does not lie within the competency of any Department to interfere with it. The Postmaster General indicated that he had the assent of right hon. Gentlemen on this side. I hesitate to believe that any such undertaking has been entered into by right hon. Gentlemen on this side; and I venture to say that if such undertaking has been entered into, I denounce it as a conspiracy against the working men of this country. We are told that we are not to consider the complaints of these men on the eve of a General Election, because it is exacting from us something which would be derogatory to the Public Service. The men of the Postal Service will do their duty honestly and fairly if honest and fair terms are given to them, and I am exceedingly sorry that the Postmaster General did not see his way clear in the early part of the evening, in answer to my question, to say he would forego any further punishment of the men who took part in the meetings some years ago. When a man has committed a crime and has been punished for it, that crime is no longer a barrier to his position in society. Here are men who for the fault—you cannot call it a crime—of exercising their right as citizens by belonging to a trade union sanctioned by law, and taking part in a public meeting—a technical violation of the law of the Department—are being punished permanently. I know some of the men who took part in the movement, and I say that some of the men who took part in what they believed to be a rightful movement were men who would do honour to any service, not only in the humble positions they occupied, but even in those occupied by right hon. Gentlemen in this House. I think these men have been punished sufficiently, and though they may have committed a technical fault, the time has come when they should be forgiven. One of two things must be conceded by the House—and I will fight for them as long as I am a Member of this House—either these men must have the right to combine, according to the common law of the country, for the purpose of raising their wages or lessening their hours, or else that the Department shall see that they have at least as good terms of service as those that are given by any private firm. The employees of the Government, particularly in the Post Office, are entrusted with duties upon the proper discharge of which very much depends in this country; and the least that can be done is to treat them fairly, I would even say generously. But, although there is a large annual surplus from the Post Office, the gratuities these men receive are taken into account in fixing their wages. These gratuities, ought not to be taken into consideration by a great Department when considering the monetary value of the services to be rendered by its employees. I hope we shall have some more liberal arrangement with regard to this matter; and if the same policy is pursued by right hon. Gentlemen on this side when in office, I shall be as sturdy an opponent of their conduct as I am of the conduct of the present Government.

*(10.22.) MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

I venture to join in the expression of regret that the Postmaster General has not seen his way to restore the good conduct stripes to those men deprived of them for taking part in the open-air movement two years ago. I thought at the time their action was ill-judged, but I knew how great were the grievances under which they suffered. I had many interviews with the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor, and some partial reform was made. There were, however, men working for sixteen hours a day under conditions harder than obtained in any other branch of the Public Service, and I think there was great excuse for their action. They had also a good example before them. The clerks of the different divisions of the Civil Service had organised themselves into bodies essentially of the nature of trade unions, and were in the habit of communicating with Members of this House and the heads of their Departments, and yet nothing was done to prevent them doing so. It is monstrous to deny postal servants the right of combination — their right to which is as good as that of the trades to which it is allowed by a series of Statutes. Things were so bad in the Postal Service that the late Mr. Raikes admitted the force of the arguments urged by various hon. Gentlemen, and made considerable reforms in the conditions under which the work was done. It would be a graceful and generous act, as well as one of justice, if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to remit the further penalties. I do not consider that the men were really wrong; they were only following the example set them by the clerks in the Public Service; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will re-consider his decision. It would be a popular step to take, and I am certain it would be one which every Member of the House, who has really watched the different organisations existing in the Civil Service, would say was urged upon him by every motive of reason and justice.

(10.27.) MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman I should give the same attention to a postman who waited on me as to any other elector in my constituency, and I should not ask a voter the question whether or not he was a servant of the State. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman speaking with an energy and even bitterness which do not usually distinguish him. He complained that these postal people had the insolence and audacity to combine to prefer a civil request to candidates for Parliament as to whether they would support an inquiry into certain grievances of theirs. For what purpose was the vote given to any citizen except to secure the redress of his own or other grievances? The right hon. Gentleman said that Parliament had entrusted these men with the franchise; it was theirs, and they would have had reason to complain if Parliament had kept it from them. He also took credit for the fact that these men could now hold meetings, and that he had not sent an official reporter—spy, I should call him. I agree that every body of men in the country, whether serving the State or not, has a right to combine and ask for what the individual has the right to ask for. Suppose in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency a postman was canvassed by his friends, and he said he would vote for the Conservative candidate if he would support an inquiry into some grievances in the Post Office. Would that man be exceeding his right as a citizen? If not, how can the right hon. Gentleman show that fifty, combined to say the same thing, would be exceeding their right? I have been in the House many years and have been applied to by different sections of the Public Service to support an advance of salary, but I have never once acceded to the request. I was sent here rather to curtail expense, and so I have never supported such a demand. But if any Department says it is excessively worked, or that the conditions of their daily life are not decent and proper, that would be a different matter altogether. With respect to this grievance, I should like to say one word to the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Post Office. The regulations, as I understand, still continue under which those employees of the Post Office and the Telegraph Service cannot hold their meetings, admitting any outside person to take part therein without a Government reporter being present to take down the names of every speaker and every indiscreet word anyone may utter during any meeting. The right hon. Gentleman himself admits that he never sent a reporter. I should have expected nothing else from the right hon. Gentleman. It would have been discreditable to him and to the Government which he represents if he had taken any such course. These employees may be poor and of the lower rank of Civil servants; but it is well-known that there never was an attempt made to prevent the members of the higher branches of the Service from meeting for the redress of their grievances. I will give the right hon. Gentleman a constitutional illustration. When Army purchase was abolished, more than twenty years ago, great complaints were made by Army purchase officers that sufficient justice was not done to them. They demanded from this House not merely the regulation price which they had to pay, but they demanded to be paid an extra regulation price, which this House had never sanctioned, and which it had no power to give. What occurred? Did they go to the War Office or the Treasury? No; they combined together and held meetings; they organised; they petitioned and caballed with their friends in this House; and they persisted in that course of conduct without the Government of the day even once saying to them, "Of course, you must not organise to get what you are seeking." These officers were seeking what was unjust, what was illegal; and yet the House at last granted them that, and paid them what ought never to have been paid away from the taxpayers of this country. With that remarkable instance in recent history before him, I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well to re-consider the position which he and his predecessor have taken, and say distinctly and frankly to all employees of the State, "Yes, you have the same right as every other citizen to combine and organise, and to come respectfully with your Memorials and present them to us the same as any other Memorials are presented; and if they are unjust and unfair to the taxpayer, we will say so bluntly to you, and we will sustain the taxpayer and not you." That would be the just and fair position to take. I would venture, before sitting down to say that I do not think that justice can be done to these poor people who are employed by thousands in the Post Office and Telegraph Departments unless there is accorded to them the fullest rights of citizenship, foremost amongst these rights being the right they claim—the right, either personally or in an organised fashion, to come to the House of Commons and the Ministry and ask for the redress of their grievances.

*(10.32.) SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

I should like to say, after what the hon. Member for Bethnal Green has said regarding the men who were discharged in connection with the strikes-a year or two ago, that my predecessor examined carefully the case of every man and restored a great many of them. I am glad to say that I have been able to restore some more. With regard to the restoration of the stripes, in all Services in which good conduct stripes are given, the rule is that a certain time must elapse before they are restored again to men who have been deprived of them.

Resolution agreed to.