Part 18

Thus ended one of the most memorable strikes in this or any other country, not on account of its length, but the circumstances which were connected with it. The workmen were poor in funds at the start, and the help (although generous from some quarters) was small per individual; the total benefit for the three months did not exceed 25s. each full member. With these poor resources and prospects they entered upon what was felt would be a strike of a very determined kind--this, too, with the minimum amount of friction. The only event of much importance happened at Castle Eden. The disturbance took place on May 7th. It arose in reference to a man named Stogdale, who would not abstain from working during the strike. Four of the workmen at Castle Eden were tried for intimidation. Their names were Michael Forbes, W. R. Robbins, T. Jones, and T. H. Cann. They were tried at the Durham Assizes in July 1892, before Judge Day. They were tried under the Intimidation Act. The judge summed up in a very strong manner against all the men except Robbins, who was discharged, but the other three were sent to prison. The judge said they had been found guilty by the jury of the offence with which they were charged--namely, with the object of preventing a certain person from pursuing his legal occupation "you in a disorderly manner, with other people, followed him along the road." After making a long speech in a similar strain, to show how beneficent the law was in his opinion and what a trio of desperadoes they were, he sentenced Forbes to a month, Jones to six weeks, and Cann, because the judge thought he was the ringleader, to two months.

THE AFTERMATH OF THE STRIKE

If the strike was unique in its endurance and order it was none the less important in its lessons. In it, as in 1879, was seen the result that followed the lack of confidence. A strike is the harvest field of the agitator, who cares not what is destroyed so long as he prospers. What would have been the gain to the individual member and to the Association if the resolve taken in the last few weeks had been taken before the tools were brought to bank? The funds, such as they were, would have been kept intact instead of being wasted. The great loss in individual income would have been avoided; in that respect the savings banks and co-operative societies (which in many cases are the poor man's bank) could have told a tale of hardly saved stores used up which had been kept for a "rainy day" of unavoidable troubles. The unnecessary and destructive friction which is sure to arise in these matters, no matter how peaceably the struggle be conducted, would have been avoided. Two great bodies, such as the two great Associations in Durham, are two great armies, and in the struggle and strivings anger will arise, and regrettable things will be said in the heat of the moment. These have a more far-reaching effect than people are apt to credit.

Then the loss in wages. This was twofold. There was the three months' irredeemable loss and there was the lessening of the reduction. It was admitted on all hands that less than the ten per cent. would have kept the pits working if the Federation Board had been trusted with power to settle, even up to the eve of the strike. In saying this there is no intention of measuring the result of a strike by the money loss or gain. The world would not have been so far as it is in the path of reform and better life if the forlorn hopes of labour had not been fought, but it would be a piece of false logic if we were to infer that strikes should, therefore, be entered upon at all times. And certainly no one who in 1892 was able to appreciate the situation then would say it was one of those necessities of our industrial life. It was far from that; the gain would have been greater by the avoidance of the quarrel. If in writing our history this is emphasised, it is not in the spirit of reflection, but rather that we may learn wisdom; for in these matters it cries aloud in the street, and we can from a remembrance of such events escape the like evils. If this be done, then the strike of that day will be useful in the greatest degree to those of us who are active in this. Using Longfellow's figure, it is part of our dead selves, of which we can make a ladder, by which we can rise to higher things.

Another part of the aftermath was the burden which was thrown upon the funds. This was twofold. There were the men who could not get started, in the first instance, because of the state some of the pits were in; and second, because of the dislocation of trade, which was sure to follow a stoppage of work for three months. Business connections are liable to break, and the difficulty is to heal them again. The consequence was that there were men out of work for a long time after the actual strike was settled, and these were to maintain for a considerable time, many of them so long that they had to be transferred to the Relief Fund. The money paid to them was the outcome of a levy, which pressed heavily on those at work.

Then there was another burden, the result of the strike, but which was not any portion of the obligations of rule, the payment of the back rent of those who were living in rented houses. There was one peculiar and pleasing feature in connection with that strike, as with that of 1879, there was no interference with the men who were living in the colliery houses. There was in one or two places some little talk of a rent obligation from such men, but it came to nothing. Perhaps it was never intended that it should. This much it is our duty to state, to the credit of the employers: the men who were in battle with them were allowed to live in their houses, and were not prevented from gathering coal wherever such was lying about. To the men who were in rented houses the case was vastly different. Every week off work added to their debt, which they were bound to pay when they resumed work. With a spirit of generosity which is not restricted the whole of the members recognised the debt of those men as belonging to the whole county, and resolved to pay a levy for the purpose of paying the back rent. The resolution was carried at the Council meeting on June 18th, 1892:

"That a levy of 3d. per full member and 1½d. per half member throughout the county be made to help to pay the house rent of the members living in rented houses."

At the same meeting the present (1906) Relief Fund was formed, to support men who were out of work. The system adopted in paying rent was to cavil the collieries, and pay them as they were drawn, with this provision, that if any colliery were drawn, but had not paid the levy, no rent was allowed until the levy was paid.

THE EIGHT HOURS AGAIN

The only remaining subject in 1892 was the ballot on the legal eight hours. We have noted previously how and when this was first introduced, with some plain advice given by Mr Crawford--advice which has never been shown to be wrong. It was decided at the Council meeting held on August 13th "that the county be balloted for and against the eight hours." On September 21st the Committee took the ballot, and issued a circular setting forth their views on the subject. As we have now (1906) reached a crucial stage in the discussion, it will be useful to place on record what the Committee of that date thought of the question and the difficulties it involved. In their opinion there were two modes of procedure by which the hours of labour might be shortened: legal interference and Trades Union effort. The latter was the one they had adopted, and it had been successful. No man could think they were against short hours; any opportunity to shorten them would be welcomed. They referred the members to the action in 1890: how they had given up a claim for ten per cent. and accepted a shorter day. "We are not now to set up a show of weakness, and sacrifice our manhood and independence, by handing ourselves over to the supervision and control of the House of Commons, which is not acquainted with the peculiarities of our occupation."

If it were the function of the State to fix hours of labour, was it not logically its function to fix the wages of the workman? "It is said that some of the organisations are weak, and therefore the State should protect." The reply was: "Where weak organisations exist low wages are found. It is therefore necessary for the State to fix the amount of wages men should be paid, for men require bread as well as hours." They then turned to the difficulty.

EIGHT HOURS

Those who favour legal eight hours must consider how it would work. There would be serious alteration needed in our present mode of working. We must either have two shifts of 8 hours, making 16 hours' coal drawing and 8 hours' shifts, increasing the hours of hewers by 1 to 1½ hours per diem, and deputies half hour per day. This would increase the output, and consequently the price of coal, and necessarily the wages of all men. The other alternative is an 8 hours' shift for all men and boys, which would throw into the labour market thousands of men. Consequently, competition amongst ourselves such as we experienced in '76 and '77 would arise, and thus we would have a repetition of the hardships we underwent in those disastrous times. Much is made of the hours of boys; these we will shorten at the earliest opportunity. Under our present system, and taking a number of years, we work less than we should do under eight hours by law.

We therefore strongly urge on you to vote to a man against any Parliament fixing the hours of labour, as in our opinion it would be injurious to the working classes generally, and to ourselves in particular. Do not be led away by the idea that the short hours we have obtained for the hewers will be maintained. The request is eight hours from bank to bank for all and every man who works down the pit. To this, it may be said, it is a maximum number of hours, and that, therefore, some might be allowed to work less. That will depend upon the arrangement. If the employers get the sanction of the law, and they require us to work eight hours, we shall be expected to so work.

There is another point which demands consideration. It is a question of wages. Let us suppose the Act passed, and those who work ten hours (both below and above ground) were reduced to eight, how much should the wages be reduced? If we shorten the hours by negotiation, it will be done gradually, and wages could be arranged.

The result of the ballot was: for parliamentary eight hours, 12,684; against it, 28,217.

1893

The Wages Board--The Miners' Federation

THE WAGES BOARD

During the negotiations for a settlement of the strike in 1892 the employers laid emphasis upon what they designated the Wages Board, but which afterwards was known as the Conciliation Board. Their idea (commendable in every point) was to bring the parties closer together, and avoid the recurrence of the stoppage, which they felt (as all must feel) had been a disaster to the whole of them. The question rested over until the beginning of the year, when the owners made application for a reduction in wages, and at the same time asked that the formation of the Board might be taken into consideration. The meeting took place, and on February 27th the Executive Committee issued a circular, putting the whole position before the members. The miners at the time were in a complicated position, being connected with the Durham Federation, and they had a short time before become members of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. Under Rule 20 that Federation claimed to have control of the wages disputes in all the districts identified with them. In order that the position may be properly understood we will insert the rule.

20. That whenever any county, federation, or district is attacked on the wage question, or any action taken by a general conference, all members connected with the Society shall tender a notice to terminate their contracts, if approved by a conference called to consider the advisability of such action being taken.

The application of that rule to Durham, in the situation it was in, would have been to leave the whole matter in the hands of the Miners' Federation, which would have taken full charge of the question, and have told the Durham Association what they must do--whether to accept or reject. The complication arose from the fact that they were members of the home Federation as well, and there would be confusion if two bodies, one in the county and the other at a distance, were to have supervision. It was impossible to go on in that state. One body was on the spot, and knew the whole bearings of the case; the other was at a distance, and therefore bound to be in comparative ignorance of the facts of the situation.

The Executive Committee felt they were compelled to put the position clearly before the Federation Board and the county, and inform them they were members of the Miners' Federation. In addition, they resolved to call a special Council, and place before it the plain issue. "Let us state the position to you," they said. "Prior to our becoming members of the Federation of Great Britain we acted on all general and wage questions with the Durham Federation Board. Our action was a whole one with the cokemen, mechanics, and enginemen, the last strike being the most recent and clearest illustration of that. You will remember with what loyalty the four sections worked together on that occasion."

If they were resolved to remain members of the Miners' Federation, and accept Rule 20, they must prepare for leaving the county Federation. That would result in sectional action in Durham, for the other sections would naturally seek to make the best of themselves they could. It was not reasonable to ask them to wait until the Miners' Federation had decided, as per Rule 20, for Durham to strike, and then ask the cokemen, mechanics, and enginemen to join in it. There was needed some definiteness on the point, and the Council would be asked to decide two questions: First, "Shall it be settled by the Federation of Great Britain?" Second, "Shall it be settled by the Durham Federation Board and the united Committees?" At the Council held on March 6th the decision was in favour of the latter question.

In accordance with that resolution the united Committees met the owners on March 13th, and asked them to reduce their demand for ten per cent. to five, and they (the Committee) would at once accept it. The employers accepted the offer, the following being their resolution:--

The Durham Coal Owners' Wages Committee feels the responsibility of accepting a less reduction than the 10 per cent. claimed, because upon an adequate reduction really depends the extent of employment that can be afforded. Whilst, therefore, the owners' judgment is that the true interest of both parties lies in at once bringing into operation a reduction of at least 10 per cent., the owners, desiring to show a spirit of conciliation, accept the Federation Board's offer to submit to a reduction of 5 per cent., to come into operation from the next pay of each colliery; but in doing so the owners feel it their duty to point out that so small a reduction as 5 per cent. falls far short of meeting the urgent necessities of the trade, and can therefore be regarded only as a temporary settlement.

This reduction brought the percentage above the standard down to twenty. But the employers were not satisfied; they pressed upon the Board the formation of a Wages Board. On May 27th Mr Guthrie wrote to Mr Patterson as follows:--

I am directed by the Durham Coal Owners' Association to press strongly upon you the honourable obligation we come under to the Bishop of Durham, and to each other, to endeavour to establish a Wages Board which would secure by conciliation or arbitration the pacific settlement of all questions outside the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee. That honourable obligation has been more than once reaffirmed by your Federation Board, but no steps have been mutually taken to give effect to it, and my Association feels that such steps should not be longer delayed, and therefore instructs me to ask your Board to meet the Owners' Committee in order to advance the matter.

The members of the Federation Board were eager, as individuals, to come to an arrangement, but were not sure how the membership would receive it. It was a new but necessary departure in an industry such as the Durham coal trade, but in order that it might be acceptable they were desirous that some scheme (beyond a mere name) should be outlined at least, and placed before the various sections for consideration. They asked the owners, therefore, for certain information:

"(1) The allocation of the 3s. 10d. basis price of coal under the following heads:--wages, salaries, material, royalties, and profits. (2) The proportion of coal required to make a ton of coke in 1893 as compared with 1877. (3) The cost of producing a ton of coke in 1893 as compared with the same in 1877. (4) A statement setting forth the various objects to which the 2d. per ton was allocated. (5) A statement showing the percentage of steam coal, gas coal, household coal, manufacturing coal, and coal converted into coke. (6) The average lengths of contracts, with the periods when they are ordinarily made."

A reply to these questions was received on December 7th. This was in conjunction with an application for an advance made by the Federation Board. They were informed that the Owners' Committee was willing to meet and discuss the question at the same meeting when the proposed Wages Board was considered. In reference to the list of questions the letter contained the following:--

"The meaning of some of your questions does not seem clear, and generally my Committee failed to understand how they bear on the expediency or otherwise of forming the proposed Board, or arise prior to its establishment, but the Committee accepts your suggestion that a meeting should be held to discuss your communication."

The meeting was held on December 19th. Nothing was done in relation to the Wages Board, but an arrangement was made with respect to the advance. The Owners' Committee were convinced that the tendency of prices was downward. These had been somewhat higher during the strike in the Midlands, but the effect of that was passing away, and they had very grave reasons to doubt whether the first quarter in 1894 would justify the rate of wages then paid. They had given a temporary advance in October for six pays only, and they were prepared to make that permanent, and bring the wages to twenty-five and twenty-two per cent. respectively above basis rates.

DURHAM AND THE MINERS' FEDERATION

In order that we may make the chronology of our history as close and sequential as possible, we will postpone the Wages Board until 1894, and take up a subject which is within the year we are dealing with. In the autumn of 1892 Durham decided to join the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. The membership continued without any difference (except that arising from the eight hours, and the case of the reduction in Durham mentioned above) until the month of July 1893, when a demand was made upon the Miners' Federation for a reduction of twenty-five per cent. In connection therewith a conference was held in Birmingham (the proverbial Hen and Chickens' Conference) to consider the situation. Two delegates were sent from Durham (Mr J. Johnson and Mr J. Wilson). It was found that in some districts organisation was in a very poor condition. The delegates from Durham were sent to move the whole question be referred to arbitration, but when they brought it forward as the best mode of procedure, they were prevented for some time, but finally were permitted, with the result that, by a majority of four to one, they were outvoted. A resolution was carried pledging all the districts within the Federation area to give in notices. If they had suffered reductions within two years, then they had to apply for an advance equal to the amount lost, without regard to the state of trade or any other consideration. The absolute order was to give in notices, the aim being to bring all into the struggle which was impending, and these had to be given within a fortnight. When these proceedings were reported to the county a circular was sent out by the Executive Committee, in which they commented upon the situation, and asked the members what should be done. They said there were two questions for them to decide upon--first, the position in the south; and second, the demand they had to make for fifteen per cent. advance, as per the Birmingham resolution. These could have been sent out in a bald form, but it was their duty to give the county guidance, for if a Committee be appointed for anything at all, it is to watch, warn, and guide the members of the organisation. There could be no doubt but that Durham was in favour of arbitration, for the last vote taken on the instructions to the delegates proved that. This was refused, and instead they were ordered to make a demand for fifteen per cent. advance. The question which they must answer first was: Is trade favourable for such a demand? Unless trade is prosperous now, could they expect to succeed in such a claim? What support could they get? Their own funds were gone entirely. If the Federation strike took place, then there was no source of income anywhere.

There were at that moment 5000 men out of work, some of whom had never started since the late strike. The small support these men had been receiving would be cut off. They would have to commence a strike, not in comparative, but absolute poverty. Where, then, was the hope?

But suppose notice was not given in for an advance, then Durham must give in notice to terminate their engagement when they had no dispute with their employers. If they were asked "what they were striking about" what answer could be given, except the following:--"Nothing whatever in our own county; we have no difference." Further, if the employers were to offer a ten per cent. advance, it could not be taken without the leave of the Federation. Neither could they accept arbitration, for they had been told the No. 20 Rule of the Federation would not admit of it. Therefore they must strike, or be expelled from the Federation. But, said the Committee, "much as we desire national federation, and may regret our expulsion from that body, we cannot urge you to a course that would in our opinion be disastrous."