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."
Towards the end of May preparations were being made for opening the new Hall, and a return was taken as to the mode of procedure. The place of meetings had been on a movable plan. At first the Committee meetings were held in 58 North Road, Durham. Then both Councils and Committees were held in the Market Hall. As the organisation increased the Councils alternated between the Shakespeare Hall and the Town Hall, and the Committees in the Western Hotel, Western Hill, Durham. The opening of the Hall took place on Saturday, June 3rd, the occasion being the consideration of a ten per cent. reduction at a special Council meeting. The cost of the buildings was £6000, and the architect, Mr T. Oliver, Newcastle—the council-room fifty-two feet by thirty-four; the tower thirty feet above the body of the Hall. The clock cost £130. The arrangements as to the lighting of the clock are: the city authorities pay for the gas, while the miners keep the clock in repair. For some time the City Council refused to bear the charge for lighting, and at first only agreed for six months as a trial.
There was no opening ceremony beyond a few words from the president, Mr Forman. The delegates took their places as per number of seat. Mr Forman then said he was glad to welcome them to their new Hall.
"The noble building had been built with the money of the working miners of the county of Durham. It was a great example of their forethought, their economy, industry, enterprise and unity, and he hoped that it would be one more link that would bind them together in the cause of mutual help and mutual endeavour, and be another great supporting prop to the noble edifice they had reared in their Association. He was sorry that the first business at the opening was to be the unpleasant one of discussing a ten per cent. reduction."
The first Council meeting was held in the new Hall on 17th June, and the first resolution was "that we refuse to send the reduction question to arbitration." The spirit of war was in the air, at least among the men who attended the lodge meeting to consider the subject at first. During the next week, however, a ballot of the members was taken, the result of which was declared at a special Council meeting—the voting being for arbitration, 20,190; against, 16,435; majority for, 3,755. There were resolutions passed to remit the question to open arbitration: That the Committee get up the case, but "if any person has to accompany the arbitrators out of the county, only the two men who conduct the case do so." At the same meeting Mr N. Thompson and T. Mitcheson (two of the London Committee) were removed from the trusteeship, and their places filled by John Wilson, Wheatley Hill, and W. Gordon, Ravensworth.
The arbitration commenced on 29th August in the Queen's Head Hotel, Newcastle, the umpire being G. J. Shaw-Lefevre, M.P. The arbitrators for the employers were Mr W. Armstrong and H. T. Morton, Mr L. Jones and Mr W. Crawford acting again for the workmen. The advocates on the owners' side were Mr Lindsay Wood and Mr J. B. Simpson and Mr T. W. Bunning; for the workmen were Mr J. Forman and Mr N. Wilkinson. There were two sittings. There is no need to review the arguments or facts in these cases, as that would extend our work too much, but there is one interesting point advanced by the employers in their rejoinder to the workmen's case. It refers to the cost of production at that time over 1871. The increase was thirty-seven or thirty-five per cent. higher than 1871—the items being, wages 14.68 per cent., and the effect of the Mines Bill 22.67 per cent. Assuming that the cost arising from the operation of the mines was divided between employers and workmen—eleven per cent. to each—there was still 26.35 per cent. to the disadvantage of the employer. On the credit side coal was only 5½ or 8.8 per cent. higher than in 1871, and therefore their conclusion was that the claim for fifteen and ten per cent. reduction was amply justified. At the conclusion of the two days' sitting it was agreed that the arbitrators should meet on the 16th of September, and if they failed to agree the umpire would decide. That meeting took place, and the umpire was asked to decide, which he did on September 25th, and awarded a reduction of six per cent. in the wages underground and four per cent. in the wages paid to surface men.
No sooner was the arbitration finished than the Association found itself face to face with a difficulty of a different but yet perplexing nature. The employers conceived the idea of separating the deputies from the miners. Their reasons for taking this step are stated in a subsequent letter. The mode of procedure they adopted was to exempt the deputies from the six per cent. reduction, providing a majority of the deputies on any colliery would leave the Miners' Association. The employers said their action was in response to a request by some of the deputies. The action drew from the Executive Committee a strong remonstrance. They pleaded with the deputies and protested against the action of the owners. The circular they issued was a lengthy one. Our object will be served if we quote a few portions. Addressing the deputies, they said:
"It appears in response to some application made by some of you the Owners' Committee have agreed that where a majority of deputies on any colliery are not members of ours, they will recommend that such deputies be freed from the recent reduction. Call this offer by what name you will it is neither more nor less than a special kind of bribery held out to you and we regret to hear, that some of you have been imprudent enough to accept it. Why make this difference between those who belong and those who do not belong to our Association? It is not because they respect the one party more than the other, or that the party who have left us are any better workmen or in any way more useful to the owners than those deputies who still belong to our Association. The most unknown amongst you as to your past history, or the most casual observer of present doings, ought to know that the motive which has induced the Owners' Committee to make this offer is not respect for you as a class, is not because they think your responsibilities are increased more than heretofore, neither is it because they think you underpaid, but it is because they want to induce you to sever your connection with an Association which has hitherto been able to gain many advantages for members and for none more than for your class. They offer you an inch now in order that they may take from you a foot hereafter. Most of you can remember the time (only five years ago) when your wages varied from 3s. 4d. to 3s. 8d. per day of eight hours' working, while with the recent reduction of six per cent. your wages are now 4s. 8d. for 7½ hours' working, or an advance in time and money of 39.58 per cent."
The circular then draws attention to a portion of a letter from the deputies who had left the miners to those of another colliery, and to the resolution of the Owners' Association. The portion of the deputies' letter said:
"If any member of our [the Deputies'] Association leaves and starts to hew, and has to go back to the Hewers' Association, the two pounds' entrance fee will be paid out of the Deputies' Association."
The resolution of the Owners read:
That this Association thinks that deputies, like overmen, should be the agents of the masters, and that under these circumstances it is imperative that they should not be restricted by any Trades Union resolutions.
In relation to these the Committee point out that they (the deputies) could not honestly be members even of the Deputies' Association, for by the stipulation of the employers they were not to be restricted by any Trade Union regulations. "It will thus be seen that if you do this, you sell your birthright, your independence, your manhood, your all, not even for a necessitous 'mess of pottage' but for an insignificant present advantage, in order that you may bring upon yourselves a future permanent and great evil."
Some of the deputies were desirous of serving two masters: they wanted to remain in the Miners' and at the same time enter the Deputies' Association for the sake of the six per cent. At the Council held on Saturday, 30th September, a resolution was carried declaring "that the Deputies be not allowed to remain in our Association and also become members of what is called the Deputies' Association." At the same time a sharp correspondence took place between the Owners' Association and the Miners', in which Mr Bunning sent a letter, bearing date 3rd November, which contained a protest and an extenuation.
November 3rd, 1876.
RESOLUTION OF COAL OWNERS
The members of this Association regret that the Representatives of the Miners' Association after five years' amicable correspondence, should have thought it necessary to communicate to them so uncourteous and offensive a document as that bearing date 24th October 1876, and relating to the resolution passed respecting the deputies, on October 11th, 1876. And, as this resolution was arrived at after mature deliberation, and from the conviction that both the safety of the mine, and discipline of the pits, are seriously endangered, by having the deputies subject to the restrictions imposed by the Miners' Union, no good can possibly arise from any discussion of the subject at a meeting of the two Associations.
The reply sent by the Executive repudiated all intention to be uncourteous or offensive in language, but at the same time they repeated the charge of bribery, for, said they, "viewed from the most favourable standpoint, your action in the matter can only be characterised as that of holding out a manifestly unfair inducement to the deputies." They asked what the employers would have thought, if, having the power, the Miners' Association had held out inducements to charge men? They reminded the owners that they asked for a reduction off all wages, and the award of six per cent. applied to all underground labour. Considering these facts they could not but look upon the action as a covert attack on the Association.
The Executive acting on instruction from Council took a return, which resulted as follows:—
Total number of Deputies—2557.
Total number in our Association—936.
Total number in Deputies' Association—1621.
Total number paid old wage—1449.
Total number paid reduced wage—1044.