We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
Frank Ives Scudamore remains one of the least known of those Victorian civil servants who were, to use Sir James Stephen's phrase, statesmen in disguise. Readers of Trollope's autobiography may recall that Scudamore, the novelist's younger rival in the Post Office bureaucracy, emerged the victor in their 1867 contest for the department's Second Secretaryship. Indeed, it was Scudamore's triumph which finally convinced Trollope to resign from the Post Office in order to devote full time to writing. Yet Scudamore's importance has a much more substantial foundation than this incident in literary history. Even if one does not completely accept the Spectator's judgment that Scudamore was “perhaps the very ablest [civil servant] in the service of the crown,” he was still an administrator of fundamental consequence. As director of the first significant experiment in nationalization undertaken in modern British history—the 1870 acquisition of the telegraphs—Scudamore played a major role in the growth of the modern state.
Scudamore's impact on the course of government expansion has not been sufficiently studied and explored. It is certainly correct, as Professor Perkin recently pointed out, that the Victorians talked more of nationalization than actually attempting it. However, the fact that Scudamore was involved in an unusual activity does not mean that the endeavor was minor or the results unimportant. After all, he managed a department which in 1874 had over 3,600 offices spread in a network across the entire country and which collected over £1,000,000 in gross revenue. Such an operation deserves historical consideration in its own right.
I should like to thank H. J. Hanham and John Clive for their advice and criticism of an earlier version of this article. Research was facilitated by grants from Harvard University, the Whiting Foundation, and the University of the South.
1 Trollope, Anthony, An Autobiography (London, 1950), pp. 277–284.Google Scholar
2 Spectator 44 (16 Dec. 1871):1517.Google Scholar
3 Kieve's, JeffreyThe Electric Telegraph: a Social and Economic History (New York, 1973)Google Scholar is inadequate in its treatment of Scudamore. Kieve fails to relate the nationalization of the telegraphs to the larger problem of government growth. Barry's, E. EldonNationalization in British Politics (London, 1965)Google Scholar is superficial in its handling of the telegraphs.
4 Perkin, Harold, “Individualism versus Collectivism in Nineteenth Century Britain: a False Anthithesis,” The Journal of British Studies 17 (1977):116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Britain, Great, Parliamentary Papers, vol. 20 (1875)Google Scholar, “Report of a Committee appointed by the Treasury to Investigate the Causes of the Increased Cost of Telegraph Service since the Acquisition of the Telegraphs by the State,” pp. 6-8.
6 Quoted by Morley, John, The Life of William Ewart Gladstone, 3 vols. (London, 1903), 2:461.Google Scholar
7 Parris, Henry, Constitutional Bureaucracy: the Development of British Central Administration since the Eighteenth Century (London, 1969), pp. 103–5.Google Scholar
8 Scudamore's report, 7 Jan. 1861, Reports, minutes, and memoranda relating to Post Office Savings Banks, Post Office Record Office (hereafter cited as Post).
9 Although the system did not begin operations until September 1861, by October Scudamore was complaining that expansion was much too slow. See Report of Scudamore and G. Chet-wynd to J. Tilley, 10 October 1861, Public Record Office, Treasury 1/6327B/1350 (hereafter cited as PRO Tl). Several months later the Post Office proposed opening 300 offices in Ireland, 44 of which would be located in towns already served by trustee banks. Post Office to Treasury, 21 Jan. 1862. PRO T1/6347A/1350.
10 Scudamore predicted that this change would increase profits from the system. Always a competitor, Scudamore also urged that the interest paid on new deposits by trustee banks be reduced in order to “accelerate their extinction.” Scudamore to A. Spearman, 22 Jan. 1869, Post 30/316, E4118/1877.
11 See Lewins, William, A History of Banks for Savings (London, 1866), pp. 347ffGoogle Scholar. for an account of Scudamore's role.
12 P. P., 22 (1873), “Friendly Society Committee,” QQ 776-81.
13 In 1866 Gladstone wrote that the Post Office was a model of administrative efficiency (Morley, 2:182). W. S. Jevons, in a paper read before the Manchester Statistical Society on 10 April 1867, was similarly confident, arguing that “No one ever charges the Post Office with lavish expenditure and inefficient performance of duties.” See Jevons, W. S., “On the Analogy between the Post Office, Telegraphs and Other Systems of Conveyance of the United Kingdom, as regards Government Control,” Methods of Social Reform (London, 1883), p. 279.Google Scholar
14 Stanley to Scudamore, 13 Sept. 1865, Post 30/488, E7036/1886.
15 For a detailed account of the early background of the campaign for nationalization, see P. P., 41 (1867-8), “Report to the Postmaster General upon Certain Proposals which have been made for Transferring to the Post Office the Control and Management of the Electric Telegraphs throughout the United Kingdom.” Ricardo and Burchell had been promoters of the Electric Telegraph Company. Allan was an inventor and electrical engineer who worked for the United Kingdom Telegraph Company. Baines rose from a clerkship in the Home Mails branch of St. Martin's le Grand to the post of Third Secretary. He had worked for the Electric before joining the department.
16 Baines, F. E., Forty Years at the Post Office, 2 vols. (London, 1895), 2:12.Google Scholar
17 P. P., 41 (1867-8), “Report … for Transferring … the Telegraphs,” p. 38. Scudamore's projection of a profit proved entirely wrong. Although the use of the telegraphs increased dramatically, the expenses also rose rapidly. Scudamore had believed that a centralized system under government direction would be more efficient and economical. In fact, the Post Office had a much larger number of telegraph employees than the private companies and paid them higher. (The government managed a more extensive system than the private companies.) Also contributing to the difficulty was an absurdly low rate for press telegrams. In 1900-01 the loss on the system was £237,641 plus £294,860 interest on stock created for the purchase. Fifty-fourth Report of the Postmaster General (London, 1908), pp. 96–7Google Scholar. For analyses of the problem, see Kieve, chaps. 9, 11, and Perry, Charles R., “The British Post Office 1836-1914; a Study in Nationalization and Administrative Expansion” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1976), chap. 6.Google Scholar
18 See, for example, Scudamore to Gladstone, 7 July 1866, Gladstone papers, British Library, Add. MSS. 41411, fo, 94.
19 Journal of the Society of Arts 15 (1 Mar. 1867):222.Google Scholar
20 Scudamore to Chadwick, 14 May 1868, Chadwick papers, University College, London. One analysis of the petitions submitted on the question of nationalization indicated the following: Against nationalization, Telegraph companies (11), Railways (10), Shareholders (329), Miscellaneous (6). In favor of alterations in the private system, Public Bodies (4), Chambers of Commerce (2), Shareholders (2). For nationalization, Public Bodies (64), Chambers of Commerce (32), Press (297), General Public (24). See Post 30/488, E 7036/1886. The analysis was made by R. H. Wyatt, parliamentary agent.
21 Northcote to Disraeli, 24 Dec. 1866, Iddesleigh papers, B. L., 50015, fos. 173-6. I owe this reference to Robert J. Cain.
22 P. P., 41 (1867-8), “Supplementary Report to the Postmaster General upon the Proposal for Transferring to the Post Office the Control and Management of the Electric Telegraphs throughout the United Kingdom,” pp. 146-7. Ibid., 11 (1867-8), “Select Committee on the Electric Telegraphs Bill,” p. 159. The increase in estimated purchase price is partially explained by the fact that Scudamore's original estimate did not include the cost of railway telegraphs and a number of small telegraph firms.
23 Britain, Great, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d ser., 192(1868):1574.Google Scholar
24 Francis Finley of The Northern Whig complained, that the privately-managed system had “placed in the hands of Telegraph companies a power which they have used in a despotic and arbitrary manner.” P. P., 11 (1867-8), “S. C. on … Telegraph Bill,” p. 102.
25 The projected profit at this point was £280,000 per year. For full details on Scudamore's estimates see ibid., appendix 4, p. 128.
26 The acts were 31 and 32 Vict., c. 110 and 32 and 33 Vict., c. 73. By 1869 the estimated cost of nationalization had increased to £6,715,000. Parl. Deb., 197 (1869): 1217–18Google Scholar. The ultimate capital expenditure reached £10,880,571, which included approximately £7,800,000 paid to 13 telegraph and over 30 railway companies, £2,100,000 spent on extensions, and £940,000 spent in commuting pensions. See Historical Summaries of the Post Office Services to 30 Sept. 1906 (London, 1906), p. 52.Google Scholar
27 Johnston, R. W., “Early Telegraph Days,” St. Martin's le Grand 4 (1894):267.Google Scholar
28 For the following information, see P. P., 38 (1871), “Report by Mr. Scudamore on the Reorganization of the Telegraph System of the United Kingdom.”
29 For the following, see Scudamore to Postmaster General, Jan. 1871, Post 82/197.
30 Scudamore to Gladstone, no month 1871, Post 30/215, E274/1872.
31 The Times, 17 Feb. 1871, p. 4.
32 Scudamore to Hartington, 21 July 1872, Post 82/58.
33 The Morning Advertiser, 23 Nov. 1871, clipping in Post 30/215, E225/1874.
34 Swift, H. G., A History of the Postal Agitation (London, 1900), p. 129.Google Scholar
35 Scudamore to W. Monsell, 25 Nov. 1871, Post 30/215, E225/1874.
36 Scudamore to Monsell, 11 Jan. 1872, in ibid.
37 Monsell to Scudamore, 17 Jan. 1872, in ibid.
38 Scudamore to Monsell, 30 Dec. 1871, in ibid.
39 Spectator, 44:1517.Google Scholar
40 Quoted by The Times, 30 Jan. 1872, p. 6.Google ScholarPubMed
41 Scudamore to Monsell, 10 Jan. 1872, Post 30/215, E225/1872.
42 Monsell's minute, Feb. 1872, in ibid.
43 Confidential Treasury report, no date, PRO T1/7550A/20725.
44 Ibid., p. 18.
45 Confidential Treasury report, no date, PRO T1/7573/10753.
46 Scudamore to Monsell, 27 Mar. 1873, Post 30/290, E1075/1876. For an account which anaylzes Lowe's role see Winter, James, Robert Lowe (Toronto, 1976), pp. 286–8.Google Scholar
47 Treasury report, PRO T1/7550A/20725.
48 Scudamore to Lowe, 19 Mar. 1872, Post 30/290, E1075/1876.
49 Wilson to Scudamore, 21 Mar. 1872, Post 30/291, E1075/1876.
50 Confidential memorandum, no date, in ibid., file 11.
51 Scudamore to Monsell, 27 Mar. 1873, Post 30/290, E1075/1876.
52 Scudamore to Monsell, 28 July 1873, Post 30/306, E8039/1876.
53 Ibid.
54 Scudamore's memorandum, 4 Mar. 1873, Post 82/56.
55 Scudamore to Monsell, Post 30/290, E1075/1876.
56 PRO T1/7550A/20725.
57 Ibid.
58 Welby to J. G. Dodson, no date, probably Dec. 1873, Monk Bretton papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford University, fo. 43.
59 Treasury committee of inquiry, 1873, Post 30/290, E1075/1876.
60 Scudamore to Gladstone, 1871, Post 30/215, E274/1876.
61 Scudamore to Monsell, Post 30/290, E1075/1876.
62 For background on this issue, see Wright, Maurice, Treasury Control of the Civil Service 1854-1874 (Oxford, 1969)Google Scholar and Roseveare, Henry, The Treasury the Evolution of a British Institution (London, 1969)Google Scholar, chapters 5 and 7.
63 Welby's memorandum, 25 Aug. 1873, PRO T1/7530B/12390.
64 Treasury to Post Office, 21 Apr. 1874, Post 30/294, E2324/1876.
65 Treasury commitee, Post 30/290, E1075/1876.
66 Scudamore to Monsell, 27 Mar. 1873, in ibid.
67 Welby's memorandum, 19 Feb. 1874, PRO T1/7425B/1630.
68 Treasury minute, 31 July 1874, Post 30/269, E2160/1877. The office of financial secretary ultimately was of little value in curbing departmental expenditure.
69 Treasury minute, 31 Dec. 1873, PRO T1/7425B/20062.
70 Meyer, H. R., The British State Telegraphs (New York, 1907), p. 99.Google Scholar
71 Kieve, p. 185. After 1880 expenditures on extensions rose again. See P.P., vol. 47 (1900), “Return Relating to Post Office Telegraphs (Revenue and Expenditure)” and Report of the Postmaster General (London, 1913), p. 93.Google Scholar
72 Gladstone papers, 44641, fo. 72. Winter, pp. 294-5.
73 Gladstone to Dodson, 13 Dec. 1873, Monk Bretton papers, fo. 43.
74 Ibid.
75 Scudamore to Monsell, 27 Mar. 1873, Post 30/290, E1075/1876.
76 See, for example, Scudmore to Blackwood, 22 Oct. 1874, Post 30/269, E663A/1875.
77 Scudamore to Gladstone, Sept. 1879, Gladstone papers, 44461, fo. 64.
78 See, for example, Jevons' reversal of his earlier optimism on the financial aspects of a nationalized telegraph industry in “The Post Office Telegraphs and their Financial Results,” The Fortnightly Review 24 (1875): 826–35Google Scholar. Northcote shared this pessimism when he wrote, “We are much exercised by the condition of the Telegraph, which threatens to become a heavy burden on our finances.… The promises made when we took over the business have long since proved to be delusive. …” Northcote to Sir W. Anderson, 8 Mar. 1875, Iddesleigh pappers, B.L., 50052, fo. 105.
79 Goschen, G. J., Addresses on Educational and Economical Subjects (Edinburg, 1885), p. 69.Google Scholar
80 It is clear that Utilitarian thinking and outlooks had achieved a widespread currency by the mid-century. For an analysis of how this process took place, see Finer, S. E., “The Transmission of Benthamite Ideas 1820-50,” in Studies in the Growth of Nineteenth-Century Government, ed. Sutherland, Gillian (London, 1972), pp. 11–32.Google Scholar
81 Scudamore to Spearman, 22 Jan. 1869, Post 30/316, E4188/1877.
82 P. P. 22 (1873), “Third Report of Friendly and Benefit Society Commissioners,” p. 162.
83 Scudamore to Monsell, 20 Mar. 1872, Post 30/47.
84 Scudamore once delivered a lecture on fairies entitled “People whom we have never met” and wrote for Punch, The Standard, and The Scotsman.
85 Scudamore, of course, regarded the social and commercial benefits of an expanded telegram system as of primary importance and the profits as only a secondary result. Scudamore to Monsell, 28 July 1873, Post 30/306, E8039/1876.
86 Welby to Northcote, 11 Dec. 1874, PRO T1/7545A/4286. Trollope's comments on the inaccuracy of Dickens' caricature of the Civil Service as a circumlocution office are also pertinent. Trollope believed zeal, not sloth, to be a fundamental characteristic of bureaucrats. In this regard Scudamore was not too different from Trollope's fictional clerk Curlydown, who “would willingly have expended the whole net revenue of the post-office— and his own—in improving the machinery for stamping letters.” Trollope, Anthony, John Caldigate, 2 vols. (New York, 1911), 2:166–7.Google Scholar
87 Scudamore to Hartington, 21 July 1872, Post 82/58.
88 Goschen, , Addresses, p. 69.Google Scholar
