important crisis which has marked the history of the present
organisation on the need or otherwise of a further reduction; we here
offer no opinion, that being a matter which will take the collective
wisdom of the county to determine. We wish, however, to point out
what seems to us to be one of two ultimatums to the present
unpleasant condition of matters in the county. If a stolid and
unreasoning resistance be persevered in, a strike is inevitable. We
feel certain that nothing can or will prevent a stop. How long such
struggle might continue it is impossible to say. But whether it might
be for a longer or a shorter period an immense amount of suffering
would be entailed. We want you therefore to very carefully consider
the whole matter. View the entire position with an unbiased mind,
not from the standpoint of mere abstract justice, but from that of
probabilities or even possibilities. We are offered arbitration. If
we refuse, the press and public will most assuredly say that our
position is untenable. If we persistently refuse to submit the entire
matter to arbitration, we must prepare to cope with the following
difficulties in conducting a struggle.
"(1) The strongest combination of employers the North of England ever
saw.
"(2) Stacks of coal and coke laid up in every direction of the
county.
"(3) Coal and coke brought from other districts to supply what we may
be short of supplying from our own heaps.
"(4) The press and public opinion would be against us."
The dispute was brought to an amicable settlement by the whole
question being referred to open arbitration. By that decision the
Association passed out of the era of negotiations into that of
arbitration re underground wages. As that was the first step in the
path of conciliation it may be useful to give in detail the
proceedings. The inquirer after further information may very usefully
consult the printed proceedings of the case. There were for
arbitrators Mr G. Leeman and Mr D. Dale acting for the owners, and Mr
L. Jones and Mr T. Burt for the workmen. The case was conducted by Mr
W. Armstrong and Mr L. Wood (now Sir Lindsay Wood) on behalf of the
employers. Mr W. Crawford and Mr J. Forman were for the employed.
There were with these arbitrators and conductors other gentlemen,
whose names we can find no record of either in the press, the owners'
books, or in ours.
The first meeting was held on Tuesday, 13th October, in the Queen's
Head Hotel (now the Liberal Club), Newcastle. After a long sitting the
case was adjourned until the 15th, when Mr Forman on behalf of the
workmen, and because there had not been sufficient time to prepare a
reply to the employers' case, asked for an adjournment. Mr Crawford
said they had "sat twenty-eight consecutive hours, and never moved the
whole of the time." It was therefore decided to adjourn until the
16th. During the discussion Mr Crawford made the request that the
owners should produce their books in order that both costs of
production and the selling prices of coal might be obtained. The
fourth day's proceedings was held on the 19th. The arbitrators met on
the 26th in London. Failing to agree, they agreed to refer the
question to the Right Hon. Russell Gurney, M.P., whom they met on the
30th in the Abbey Hotel, Malvern. On November 3rd he gave his award.
Without giving the whole of the award it will be explained by a
quotation from a circular sent out by Mr Crawford: "The reduction is
as follows:--At present time our advances amount to 43 per cent. over
1871 prices. This by Mr Gurney's award is reduced to 30. That is a
reduction of 9 per cent. on the gross wages and will take effect from
Monday, November 2nd."
At that time the attention of the county was turned to the sanitary
condition of the mining villages. The Committee took a return in which
they asked eleven questions:
"What is the size of your best houses? What size are the rooms, and
how many to a house? Size of single houses? Is there attached to your
houses or on the colliery any private accommodation? Are there any
channels or underground sewers to take away the dirty water and other
refuse made in the houses? Are the houses damp and incompatible with
health, or dry and healthy? Are there many of the members who have
houses of their own? What number of double and single houses have
you? Have you a good or bad supply of water and whence supplied? What
is your school accommodation, national or colliery? Have you a
Mechanics' Institute? Is it colliery or private property? Are there
any gardens to the houses?"
On Saturday, November 7th, the owners made a claim for a reduction
from all the men at bank. This was before the Executive Committee.
They by resolution expressed their surprise, and their opinion that
they had not been treated fairly, as the employers ought to have dealt
with the classes now to be affected in the arbitration just concluded.
They considered that "such a mode of procedure cannot but have an
injurious effect on that good and desirable understanding which has so
long existed between the two Associations." The owners gave the
surface men notice to terminate their engagement on 12th December. A
special Council meeting was called. The questions to be decided
were--first, should the Miners' Committee act for the cokemen,
seeing those men were forming an association of their own, and over
two-thirds of that class had joined it? Of the other classes three
questions were asked: "Ought these men to follow Russell Gurney's
award? Ought the reduction to be resisted or ought arbitration to be
sought?" The Council decided on Saturday, December 5th, that the
Cokemen's Association meet the employers themselves, but "that the
members of the Joint Committee should meet them on the banksmen,
screeners, labourers, etc." The arrangement come to by the Joint
Committee was:
"The banking-out men having been generally classed with the
underground men, should in all cases be dealt with strictly according
to the terms of Mr Gurney's award, that is, remain 30 per cent. in
excess of March 1871 and it was recommended that the case of men
earning less than 3s. per diem be left to the consideration of
individual owners."
There are two matters not dealt with in the general statement of this
year. These are the appointment of Mr Forman as permanent president on
2nd May and the appointment of the first clerk. The first was Mr A.
Hall Shotton; but his stay was short, and he was succeeded by Mr W.
Golightly, who was in the office for over thirty-one years.
[Illustration: W. GOLIGHTLY]
1875
The third Reduction--Co-operative Colliery--The demand for better
Houses--The fourth Reduction
Early in the year the Association was called upon to face another
reduction in wages. The Executive Committee had sent some requests
with respect to hewers putting in the foreshifts and working hard
places. The owners sent a reply on January 15th refusing the requests,
and at the same time saying, such things being asked of them in
depressed times were offensive, and would not have to be repeated. In
the same letter Mr Crawford was told that the employers had that day
"unanimously decided to ask for a reduction in the wages of all men
employed about coal mines and that the Standing (Joint) Committee be
instructed to discuss the matter of such reductions and the date when
it should commence."
To this the Executive Committee replied that they would pass over the
question of reduction as it was premature to interfere with it, but
they complained of the tone of the letter sent to them, which was very
unbecoming, to say the least. They had a perfect right to send the
requests. No doubt they were annoying. "But however annoying a request
properly made may be, it ought, in keeping with the common courtesies
of life, to be denied without imperiousness. It was annoying to them
as workmen to receive an application for a reduction."
The response to that reached Mr Crawford on the 30th. It informed him
that they (the owners) felt it needful to claim such reduction as will
leave the wages of both underground and surface men ten per cent. in
excess of 1871, to take effect from the pay ending 13th March. Mr
Bunning added: "As it is our usual custom not to carry out a
resolution of this nature without first having a consultation with
you, I am requested to ask you to make such arrangements with your
clients as may enable you to meet our Committee at an early date to
decide."
A special Council meeting was called for the 6th of February to
consider whether a deputation should meet the employers; if so, how
many and whom they should be. The Council decided that as a deputation
the members of the Joint Committee should meet the employers, and Mr
Crawford was deputed to go to South Wales to inquire into the
condition of things amongst the miners there.
At an adjourned Council held on February 10th it was again considered,
and the following resolution carried:--
In looking at the last reduction, and the undue advantage the coal
owners have taken on us in making a call on the bankmen so soon after
the arbitration case, that we in future entertain no more reductions
on one separate class of workmen, without knowing their intentions as
to the rest of the workmen in our Association.
The meeting with the employers took place on 16th February, when six
reasons were given by them why the reduction was needed: Many
collieries were working at ruinous losses; a terribly increased cost
of production; at many collieries the men were restricting their work;
a greatly increased number of men were needed; the increased cost
owing to the great decrease in the working hours; and the fact that Mr
Gurney's award was delayed two months.
The employers again issued notices, but not to all men or all
collieries. The Committee immediately called a Council, and drew the
attention of the lodges to two resolutions which were passed on April
21st and December 5th, 1874.
That in future when there are notices given for a reduction of wages
throughout the county, and where a colliery or collieries of men do
not get their notices, they be requested to give them in.
Where men who are members of our Association and who have not
received notice should these refuse to give in their notices, their
names be struck from our books and never again re-entered.
In addition to this the Committee issued a circular in which they
reviewed the condition of trade, and pointed out that in many
districts life and death struggles were taking place. These men were
being supported by voluntary contributions from other mining districts
and the public. If Durham came out large support would be cut off, and
the state here rendered more dangerous. In Northumberland and
Cleveland arbitrations were proceeding. There was only two weeks'
money in the funds, therefore the best policy was to accept
arbitration. Facing these circumstances they advised the acceptance of
arbitration. The employers would be compelled to show sufficient
reasons for a reduction. If this were not done no umpire would reduce
the wages. This advice was accepted at the Council on 8th March, and
it was resolved to refer the whole matter to arbitration on the prices
and wages ruling at hearing of the last case, that Mr L. Jones and W.
Crawford be arbitrators, and the preparing and conducting of the case
be left to the Executive Committee. On March 10th they met the
employers, and made arrangements for the proceedings and the
withdrawal of the notices, and they informed the members that in every
case where the workmen had given notices they must at once be
withdrawn.
The first meeting on the arbitration case was held on April 15th in
the Queen's Head Hotel, Newcastle. The Right Hon. W. E. Forster, M.P.,
was the umpire. The arbitrators for the employers were Mr W. Armstrong
and Mr D. Dale; for the workmen Mr L. Jones and Mr W. Crawford. The
case was a dual one, a combination of the Miners' and Cokemen's
Associations. The latter agreed to accept the statement made by the
employers in the miners' case and then put in a separate reply. The
following was the order of the procedure:--The employers stated their
case. Then the miners replied on the first day. Second day, the
owners' reply to the miners, the miners' rejoinder; the cokemen's
reply to the employers, then their reply to the cokemen. The third
day's sitting was taken up by the cokemen's rejoinder. The same
arbitrators acted in both cases, but Mr Jackson Wilson presented the
cokemen's case. The umpire gave his award on the 23rd of April--the
reduction being five per cent. from the underground wages and four per
cent. from those of the surface men.
At the Council meeting held on May 4th a resolution was carried urging
upon the Miners' National Association to use their influence to have
established an important Board of Arbitration, such Board to say:
"First, what amount of interest ought to be claimed for capital
invested in coal-mining operations; secondly, whether or not the books
showing the profit and loss accounts of the employers ought to be laid
before the Arbitrators in deciding a matter in dispute as to the rise
or fall of the wages of their workmen; and thirdly, what portion of
the profits ought to go to the capitalist and what portion to the
labourer."
The programme for a Council meeting held on 21st August 1875 contained
a resolution dealing with the providing of a better class of houses.
"That we appeal to the owners to have better houses right throughout
the county for the members of the Durham Miners' Association, and not
to make such difference between brakesmen and members of the
Association. We believe that one man has the same right to a good
house as another."
In the balance sheet for the first quarter of the year is found an
item relating to the Coop Colliery--3100 shares in the Coop Mining
Company, £15,500. For some time, and especially during 1874, the idea
of a co-operative mine had been agitating the two northern counties.
Meetings were held in various parts, addressed chiefly by gentlemen
from Northumberland. The idea fell upon good ground in Durham, for
from time to time it was found on the Council programme, and, so far
as the Association is concerned, bore fruit in the shares mentioned.
The fruit was not merely collective, but on every hand those who could
took out shares, even to the extent of all their savings. The
Committee of management were:
Dr J. H. Rutherford, Chairman.
Mr T. Burt, M.P.
Mr J. Nixon.
Mr R. Young.
Mr J. Brown.
Mr R. Cramon.
Mr W. Crawford.
Mr J. Forman.
Mr W. H. Patterson.
Mr J. Byson.
Mr G. Fryer.
E. Lowther, Secretary.
--all good men, and, if it could have been established, would have
been. They were all tried co-operators and ardent believers in
productive co-operation. But the enterprise was doomed from the first.
The name of the colliery was Monkwood, near Chesterfield, Derbyshire.
On the 25th of September 1875 the Committee submitted a balance sheet
for the year ending 30th June. The auditors were Benson, Eland & Co.
They informed the members that after depreciation as per rule the net
loss up to date was £10,863, 15s. 8d. The Committee in presenting the
balance sheet said it had arisen from circumstances over which they
had no control. The output of the colliery had never reached to their
anticipations. The cost of production, and the unsatisfactory state in
which the Society found the colliery, had occasioned the loss. The
vendor had not truthfully represented the output. They had filed a
Bill in Chancery against him for the recision of the contract and the
return of the purchase money. The loss to Durham was £15,500.
On 6th November the ex-Committee was called upon to face the fourth
reduction. They received a letter on that date from the employers
conveying to them a demand for twenty per cent. reduction from all
underground earnings, including banksmen, and twelve and a half per
cent. off all above-ground labour, to take effect from the 27th. The
Committee replied protesting against the imperative way in which the
demand was made, and resolved to ask the county whether a deputation
should attend Newcastle to hear the reasons assigned for the
reduction. The county agreed to send a deputation and offer open
arbitration, the deputation being the Joint Committee, and that a
Council meeting be held on the 27th to hear the report. The Committee
met the owners on Monday, the 22nd, and the offer of open arbitration
was accepted, the Court to consist of four arbitrators and an umpire.
1876
Death of Burdon Sanderson--Appointment of Mr Meynell--The third
Arbitration--The General Treasurer and Executive--The new
Hall--Deputies' Association
JOINT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
In January 1876 the Joint Committee chairman, Mr R. B. Sanderson, was
in a serious railway collision on the Great Northern Railway at Abbots
Ripton. He was not killed outright, but was so seriously injured that
he died shortly afterwards. He was the first chairman, and sat all
through the meetings up to his death. The Joint Committee at their
meeting on January 28th passed a resolution paying high respect to his
character and to his ability and impartiality in his decisions. From
that time until 11th September the chairman was selected from the
meeting _pro tem_. On that date Mr Meynell was appointed, and from
that time until his death in 1900 he occupied that position to his
credit and with fairness to everyone concerned. It would be incorrect
to say that no fault was ever found with him; but it is well known
that at his death all who had been at the Joint Committee regretted
it, and he has been sorely missed, because he had years of
experience--experience which is worth a great deal in that position.
The proceedings in the arbitration did not proceed further in 1875,
but rested over until January 1876. The arbitrators were the same as
in the previous case, and the umpire chosen by them was C. H. Hopwood,
M.P. The advocates for the owners were Mr H. T. Morton, Mr Lindsay
Wood, and Mr T. Wood Bunning, the Secretary of the Owners'
Association, and for the workmen Mr J. Forman and Mr W. H. Patterson.
The names of the Committee who assisted were:
N. Wilkinson.
J. Holliday.
M. Thompson.
W. Prentice.
G. Parker.
J. Cummings.
C. Kidd.
C. Cooper.
J. Crowther.
F. Smith.
G. Jackson.
J. Day.
G. Newton.
The first meeting was held on Tuesday, 18th January 1876, in the
Queen's Head Hotel, Newcastle. There were two days' sittings. At the
close of the sittings in Newcastle the arbitrators and umpire held a
meeting in London on 16th February, when the umpire gave his award
that there should be a reduction of seven per cent. underground and
four per cent. on the surface.
Out of this case and the meeting in London there arose a serious
disturbance. The treasurer (Mr Wilkinson) refused to pay the Committee
for going to London. He alleged that they went without authority. They
went on the vote of seven out of seventeen members of the Committee,
the rest being either absent or lying neutral. Their going, he said,
was a waste of public money. He finally showed there had been an
extravagant expenditure and charges for unnecessary meetings. Along
with his explanation he sent out a detailed statement in which it is
shown that for one fortnight they had received sums varying from £7,
1s. 9d. to £11, 15s. 7d., or an average of £8, 14s. 11d. per man. For
another fortnight the average worked out at £12, 12s. each. To this
the Committee made a long reply, but all unavailing, for at the
Council meeting held on March 4th, 1876, the following resolution was
carried:--
"That the members of Executive Committee who went to London be
expelled, and that they have no payment for going."
By another resolution the number of the Committee was reduced to nine.
The result was to leave only three Committee men to transact the
business until a new Committee was elected. A word of explanation may
be necessary. At the election of Committee in December 1875 three new
men were elected. These were C. Simpson, W. Gordon, and J. Wilson. As
the arbitration was proceeding when the election of 1875 took place
the Executive Committee asked the members whether they should be
allowed to continue in office until it was finished. This was granted,
and as a consequence the newly elected members did not take their
places until the decision was given. The Durham Miners' Triumvirate
ruled until May 4th, when the full Committee was elected.
As a further result of the dispute between the treasurer and Committee
certain rules were suggested by the Executive Committee and approved
by Council on 29th April.
(1) That in future there be no night sittings of the Committee.
(2) For a long time, a custom has existed of the Committee, asking
questions on their reassembling after dinner hours. These questions
were put on paper during the forenoon and handed in to be read after
dinner. It will be seen, that this practice can be abused, and made
to lengthen out Committee meetings to any extent. That this practice
be entirely abolished unless it be a mere asking a question from the
Secretary. The question and answer to be printed on the Minutes; but
no discussion whatever to be held on the matter.
(3) That the General Secretary alone have the power both to call and
disperse Committee meetings.
(4) That the Committee have no power to either shorten their hours or
alter modes of payment.
In a letter bearing date May 19th the employers made another demand
for a considerable reduction of wages both above and below ground, and
fixing Saturday, the 27th, as the date for a meeting upon the matter.
On that date nothing definite was done, and an adjournment took place
until 13th June. A special Council was called for June 17th, when
lodges were asked to instruct their representatives what should be
done in the matter. In the meantime the Committee issued a circular,
giving an account of the meeting with the employers, and informing the
members that the owners' demand was for fifteen per cent. off
underground labour and ten per cent. off surface labour, or they were
willing to refer the whole question to arbitration in order to avoid a
stoppage of work. They (the Committee) then urged the acceptance of
arbitration at once. To refuse it would be to run counter to the
efforts of working men in the past who "had fought some of their most
severe struggles in trying to enforce arbitration as a means of
settling their trade disputes." Many hundreds of thousands of pounds
had to be spent before the employers would even recognise the right of
the workmen to the merest inquiry in advances or reductions of wages.
The employers claimed the right to be the sole judges in matters of
that kind.
"When the employers arrogated to themselves the right to judge both
for them and us, we were not slow in applying the words tyranny,
despotism, and even villainy to their actions. Don't let us then be
guilty of an imprudence, both by a repudiation of our own principles
and going into a battle when everything is against us."
The Committee supported that bold and candid statement by drawing
attention to the success which had attended the arbitration in the
past. "If ever a body of men ought to be satisfied with a means of
adjusting differences we ought with arbitration. It has in every
instance so far immensely reduced the application of the owners. There
is no other means by which we could have fared better. On every
occasion the owners complained about the insufficient amount awarded
them." The alternative to arbitration was a strike. That course would
be madness. There was a complete stagnation in trade, nowhere more
felt than in Durham. Pits were working half time, and there were
hundreds of men who could not find an hour's work. To strike would be
to jeopardise "an organisation which in the very short space of time
has done more for its members than any other trades' organisation
that ever existed." They urged other reasons in as forcible a manner,
and concluded by saying, if arbitration were refused and a struggle
entered upon, there could be but one end, "that of utter and terrible
defeat for the miners of this county."