A History of the Durham Miner's Association 1870-1904

by John Wilson

1885

Industrial Remuneration Conference—Extension of the Franchise—Labour Representation—Lloyd Jones

In January 1884 a peculiar but very useful conference was held in London. It was, and is, known as the "Industrial Remuneration Conference." In the preface to the proceedings, which were published, we are told why the conference was called.

"In the spring of 1884, a gentleman of Edinburgh determined to devote a considerable sum of money to the purpose of keeping before the public mind this vital question, viz.: What are the best means, consistent with justice and equity, for bringing about equal division of the daily products of industry between Capital and Labour, so that it may become possible for all to enjoy a fair share of material comfort and intellectual culture, and possible for all to lead a dignified life, and less difficult for all to lead a good life?"

For the purpose indicated he gave £1000, vested in seven trustees, Mr T. Burt being one of them. To the trustees there was a Committee added, and Mr Crawford was, by the consent of the Miners' Council, amongst the number. That Committee considered that the best means of carrying out the trust was by organising a conference and inviting all sorts and conditions of opinion. There were two main branches of inquiry: "Is the present system or manner whereby the products of industry are distributed between the various persons and classes of the community satisfactory; or if not, are there any means by which that system could be improved?" These general propositions were divided into many branches. The purpose of this historical outline is served by mentioning the connecting link being Mr Crawford's appointment on the Committee. The chairman of the conference was Sir C. Dilke.

While these important industrial matters were taking place the political affairs had not been neglected. The Franchise Association had kept up a close and instructive agitation not only at home, but outside the county, pressing the demand for an assimilation of county to borough. They urged that it was a glaring anomaly for a man to be eligible to vote in a borough, and because he passed over an arbitrary line (yet in all respects the same man in trade and duties of citizenship) he was not permitted to do so. At the Trades Union Congress held in Nottingham in 1883 the following resolution was proposed by the representatives from Durham:—

That, without accepting an equalisation of the county with the borough franchise as a final solution of the great question of Parliamentary Reform, this congress is of opinion that the Government should lose no time in introducing their promised measure, and calls upon the organised trades of the country to assist by every means in their power in promoting the popular movement in support of this long-expected reform, and authorises the Parliamentary Committee to join with the Durham Franchise Association and other Associations of all kinds in the proposed deputation to the Prime Minister.

The result of this resolution was the reception by Mr Gladstone of a very large deputation, representative of all the Trades Unions in the country, on January 3rd, 1884. Three speakers—J. Arch, A. Wilkie, and J. Wilson—were selected, and they received the assurance that the Government would introduce the Bill. It was introduced, and occupied nearly the whole of the session; was carried through the Commons, but was defeated by the Lords, or as Mr Gladstone said, they put "an effectual stoppage on the Bill; or in other words, they did practically reject it." The Liberals, however, were determined that the matter should be settled, and for that purpose summoned an autumn session. By the tact and eloquence of the Prime Minister the great measure was carried in spite of the most bitter opposition, in which constitutional means were stretched to their utmost limit, and the deepest depths of vulgarity were ransacked for the foulest epithets to use against the working classes, some of whom appear to have very short memories, as they forget this and other great acts done for them by the Liberals.

The passing of the Act did not take the miners of Durham or their colleagues over the Tyne by surprise, but found them expectant, and ready to use their newly acquired power. The twelve years of the teaching of the Franchise Association bore fruit at once. During the summer of 1884 numerous district meetings were held. The Miners' Executive and the Committee of the Franchise worked together. The two great questions were the political right withheld and the action of the irresponsible House of Lords in thwarting the will of the nation as expressed by the duly elected representatives of the people. The 4th of October was the appointed day to hold district meetings simultaneously all over the county. The people were urged to make them a success. The Committee was appointed to take charge, and the owners were notified that all the collieries would be off on that day. The whole county was in a political fever. John Morley had uttered his memorable words, which have passed into one of our epigrams: "End them or mend them." The political creed of the progressives was "Down with the Lords" and "Faith in Gladstone." One sentence may be quoted from Mr Crawford's circular of that time:

Mr Gladstone and the Government deserve the highest praise for their action in this matter, and with the support of the people they will yet carry the Bill against the organised and determined opposition of a class of men who have amassed immense wealth by, in past times, taking that which belonged to the people.

The practical effect of the Act in Durham was seen on January 24th, 1885, when the Federation Board called a special Council to consider the following programme:—

programme, 1885

(1) Shall there be Labour Representatives?

(2) If so, how many?

(3) If it be decided to have Labour Representatives, who shall he or they be?

(4) The ways and means of supporting such person or persons from the Associations.

(5) What should the salary of such man or men be?

(6) Should we nominate men other than Labour Representatives? That is, men who hold similar views to ourselves, but who will pay their own costs, both in contesting and otherwise.

(7) If this be done, who should they be?

(8) The selection of divisions.

The resolutions come to were—(1) there should be Labour representatives; (2) there should be bona fide Labour candidates selected from the workmen, but run in connection with the Liberals; (3) the candidates should be J. Wilson, W. Crawford, and L. Trotter; (4) the ways and means should be left in the hands of the Federation Board, and that the salaries should be £500 per year. On the same day the Board met, and decided to select the Bishop Auckland, Mid-Durham, and Houghton-le-Spring divisions—Mr Trotter for Bishop Auckland; Mid-Durham, W. Crawford; Houghton-le-Spring, J. Wilson. They further decided to inform the North and South Durham Liberal Associations what had been done, and asked them if they would co-operate with the Board.

A meeting between the representatives of the Liberal Associations, the Federation Board, and the Franchise Association was held in the County Hotel, Durham, when the following resolutions were agreed to:—

resolutions, 1885

That it is highly desirable for all sections of the new electorate to arrange for the object of securing the return of Liberal Members at the next election, and that this meeting is prepared to give support to the persons nominated by the Miners' Federation Board, providing their candidature is endorsed by the Liberals in each division.

That this meeting requests the constituencies to form Liberal organisations, and that small committees from the South and North Durham Liberal Associations, the Federation Board, and the Miners' Franchise Association be appointed to aid such organisations.

January 24th, 1885.

So far as the Mid-Durham and the Houghton divisions were concerned, all went on smoothly. The candidates were accepted with complete unanimity, but in the Auckland division the feeling in some quarters was in strong opposition. The Board were asked to withdraw Mr Trotter, which they refused to do. There were other two gentlemen in nomination, and he was asked to put himself in competition with them, and if rejected retire. He refused, and they, the Board, approved of his refusal, and arranged a meeting of the lodges in the division for the purpose of explaining the situation. At this point there arose a complication of a different order. At their meeting on October 22nd, 1885, the Board decided "that each candidate must be responsible for the returning officer's fees in their respective divisions." Shortly after this was made known Mr Trotter withdrew, the reason assigned being the refusal of the Board to pay the returning officer's fees, although all the candidates were treated alike. As a consequence the division was vacant, and open to any candidate. This only need be added, that at the General Election in November Mr Crawford and Mr Wilson were both returned by great majorities—the latter being defeated in 1886, but succeeding Mr Crawford in 1890 as the Member for Mid-Durham.

This may be a fitting place to try to remove a false impression, which has lingered in some minds unto this day, as to what they are pleased to call "the shameful treatment" of Mr Lloyd Jones, while in the Chester-le-Street division, by the Federation Board. There never was a grosser misstatement. The Board did nothing but what was fair and honourable throughout the whole proceedings, although they were made the object of a somewhat bitter attack by The Newcastle Chronicle, which attack was entirely founded upon a too slight knowledge of the facts. As mentioned above, an arrangement was made whereby the workmen were to have their divisions undisputed, and with the rest there was no claim for interferences set up. Mr J. (now Lord) Joicey was selected by the Liberals for the Chester-le-Street division, the Federation Board having no part or lot in the transaction. Mr Jones, who was an intimate friend of Mr J. Cowen, was brought out, it is well known, as Mr Cowen's nominee, and as such, contested the division. The Board, as such, did nothing in it in any way. If they had, their action would have been dishonourable in the light of the agreement. This, however, they did do: as soon as Mr Trotter withdrew from Bishop Auckland, they sent a deputation to interview Mr Jones and to make him an offer of that division. The writer was one of the deputation, and with the others did all possible to persuade him, but he refused. It was felt he was not free, or he would have accepted. This can be said without fear of contradiction: the Board as a whole regretted the refusal, for Mr Jones was a great orator, respected very much by the miners in Durham, as witness their continual choice of him for their arbitration cases, and he could have had a safe seat.