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

by John Wilson

1897

Miners' Federation—Washington Strike

The year 1897 was memorable for two things: the refusal of the Miners' Federation to accept Durham as a member unless the county would agree to support a legislative Eight Hours' Bill, and the conflict between the Executive Committee and Washington Lodge, which settled the question once for all whether money could be paid if a colliery were stopped illegally, even if the Council decided to pay. These we will take in the order stated. Towards the end of 1896 it was decided to join the Miners' Federation. The information was sent to Mr Ashton, the secretary of the Federation, and the application was accepted. Then arose the question as to the meaning of Object 5:

"To seek and obtain an eight hours' day from bank to bank in all mines for all persons working underground."

In order that the intention might be made clear the Executive passed the following resolution:—

That Mr Ashton be written to, asking whether Object 5 in the Miners' Federation Rules means that the eight hours have to be obtained by State interference alone, or by organised efforts, and whether the districts have any option or choice in the matter.

Mr Ashton replied that Object 5 was to be brought about by organised effort or legislation, or both. As far as the district having option or choice was concerned all members were expected to be loyal to the Federation, to be guided by the rules, and assist in carrying out the resolutions passed at the conferences of the Federation. That was interpreted to mean that if Durham became a member, as all the other districts were voting for legislative action, it would be virtually bound to join in the demand for eight hours by State, and the Executive placed the question on the programme for the Council held on February 6th in the following form:—

That the county having decided to join the Miners' Federation, and we having been informed that we must agree to support a legislative eight hours as a condition of membership, and as we remember that the county has decided, by ballot in 1892 and by resolution in 1895, not to support such a measure, we cannot agree to accept that condition until the county alter the previous resolution on the question, either by Council, motion, or ballot.

Will delegates come prepared to say what shall be done in this matter?

(1) Shall we rescind the previous resolutions?

(2) Shall we support an Eight Hours' Bill?

(3) Shall a ballot be taken on the subject?

The Council passed a general resolution:

"We adhere to the resolutions now standing in the Association's minute-books—viz. that we do not go in for the parliamentary eight hours' day, and that there be no ballot taken on the question."

That decision was sent to Mr Ashton on February 10th, the following being the letter:—

At our Council meeting held on February 6th our members decided to abide by their previous resolution to oppose any State interference with the hours of labour. I am instructed by our Committee to inform you of this decision and to ask you to let us know whether under these conditions your Executive Committee accept us as members of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. On the presumption that you will accept us as members on those conditions, I enclose you a cheque on the National Provincial Bank, value £59 (fifty-nine pounds), being our entrance fee at one pound per thousand members.—I am yours,

John Wilson.

The receipt for the entrance fee not being sent the Executive Committee wrote again on February 18th:

If you do not send the receipt the inference on all sides must be that you do not accept us on the conditions stated (our opposition to State interference with hours). If you do send a receipt, then we shall conclude that you do accept us on the conditions, and there will be no need to repeal the resolution of exclusion of 1893.

Two days after that was sent Mr Ashton sent a receipt, and said:

I have no desire to delay the matter of your district becoming connected with the Federation. I enclose receipt for the entrance fee.

As this was written two days after the Committee placed the alternative before the Federation it was assumed that Durham was not to be bound to the legal eight hours. This impression was communicated to Mr Ashton on February 25th, and on the 27th the Committee was surprised to be told:

"In reply to your letter of yesterday, Durham has been accepted into the Federation as all other districts have been. Whatever resolutions you may pass on general questions in your Council or Committee meetings you must be governed by majorities at the Federation."

Then there arose a dispute about some contributions which were sent to Mr Ashton. The amount was £245, 16s. 8d. The dispute was as to the period which was covered by the payment. On June 30th, in a letter dealing with the disputed point, Mr Ashton said:

I think you will agree with me that the difference on the hours question is so great that until Durham can agree to withdraw their opposition to the Miners' Eight Hours' Bill, it is most unwise to keep their connection with the Federation.

And on July 10th the cheque for the £245, 16s. 8d. was returned to Durham, and the separation mentioned above was effected by the return of the contributions.

The Executive Committee then summarised the situation as follows:—

We decided to join the Federation. We then found that we had resolutions standing against the eight hours. By our own decision of February 6th we resolved to abide by those previous resolutions. We then informed Mr Ashton, as secretary of the Federation, that we had so resolved, and enclosed the cheque for our entrance fee, with the understanding that if the receipt were sent we were accepted on those conditions. Our Council again on May 29th reaffirmed our opposition to the eight hours, and we wrote to Mr Ashton and sent our quarter's contributions, and said we were desirous of remaining members on wage questions. We were then asked to say whether we could pledge the county to come out on strike, which we could not do. The conclusion of the whole matter then is, because we could not give a pledge to come out on strike on every occasion when so ordered, and because we were resolved to oppose the eight hours by State interference, our contributions are returned, and we are told by actions—which speak louder than words—that we are not to be members. We are not to be allowed to judge of our own circumstances and peculiarities, but must submit the most important part of the conditions of our labour to those whose conditions are widely different from ours, and who, knowing nothing of our circumstances, would force us to be guided by the changes they require in the hours of labour.

THE WASHINGTON STRIKE

It will be observed that there has been no mention of local strikes except there be some peculiarity related to them. There is such in connection with this strike. It was of great importance to the Association and the maintenance of the rules. There had been numbers of illegal stoppages, and although the leaders and members at the lodges affected knew they were breaking the rule, yet they persisted, and were enabled to carry a vote in Council that they should be paid from the General Fund. It was felt that once and for all the question should be decided, and it should be shown that where the constitution of the Association was violated the violation should entail forfeiture of benefit, or else of what use was it to have rules or Committee of Management? To go on in such a loose manner was to make the rules a byword and a mockery. It was time they should have the seal of reality, and be placed on a sure foundation, so that order should be maintained, or at least those who with open eye did wrong should know that their action would not receive condonement, and they be paid the benefit of the Association, as if they had obeyed its provisions.

That was the question to be decided. Should the rule be the guide, and the Executive Committee have the management, or should lodges be allowed to stop their colliery in opposition to the constitution, and suffer none of the consequences? The Washington case afforded the opportunity for the settlement, and that is the reason why it is made part of this history. The dispute arose about the application of an agreement made by themselves. The nature of the agreement is of no import now. The action of the lodge and its relation to the rule is what we have to consider. The manager put one interpretation on the agreement, the workmen another, and they were the signatories. Numbers of agreements had been disputed prior to that, and had been brought before Joint Committee or some other properly arranged tribunal, and managed by the agents, or Executive, in accordance with rule. Washington, however, set rule aside, disregarded the Committee, and stopped the pit on the 10th of August. On the 11th the corresponding secretary met their deputation in Newcastle, and told them they were acting illegally, and that they could not be paid from the funds. The deputation, however, were confident the Council would grant them strike pay, although they admitted they were breaking the rule. Other means were adopted to induce them to resume work. The lodge appealed to the Council for a grant; it was not put on the programme. The trustees objected to the treasurer paying the money. They had taken the opinion of Mr Atherley Jones previously. The question submitted to the Counsel was: "Supposing a lodge came out on strike in violation of the rule, without first having obtained the permission of the Committee or Council, would the fact that the Council, after the men came out on strike, approved of their action alter the position or liability of the trustees?"

The opinion was as follows:—

MR JONES' OPINION

August 30th, 1897.

With regard to the question raised, whether, under the circumstances described, the trustees have power to allow payments to be made to the men on strike who have violated Rule 50, I am of opinion that they have no such powers, and any payment so made would appear to be a direct breach of trust. Nor do I think the position or liability of the trustees would in any way be altered by the subsequent vote of the Council approving such payments. The wording of Rule 51 is quite clear:—

"Any lodge ceasing work" "under the circumstances which have happened" "shall forfeit all claims on this Association"; and even though the whole Association were to vote in favour of strike pay being granted, I cannot see how the effect of that rule could be removed.

Standing upon that advice, the trustees refused to allow the money to be paid. The lodge requested the Executive to call a special Council to consider whether a grant should be given them. The request was refused, because, as the rules had been violated and the trustees had decided that no money should be paid, it was no use calling the Council, seeing, if the vote were given to pay, the decision could not be carried out. However, the question was brought forward at the conclusion of a Council, and the delegates decided to pay a grant equal to strike allowance, but the trustees refused to allow the money to be drawn from the bank.

The Executive then placed the position before the members. They said the giving of a grant was but a form of evading the provisions of the constitution. The decision of the Council placed the treasurer in a dilemma: either he had to refuse to pay, or face a prosecution in court for paying money contrary to rule. The Committee had, therefore, either to leave the treasurer to his own devices, or call the trustees together, and place the whole question before them. The meeting was held in the office of Dr R. S. Watson, who was one of the trustees. They decided to take the case to the Court of Chancery, and to inform the Washington Lodge of their intention, and give them the opportunity of being parties to the case. Mr Isaacs (the Association lawyer) was instructed to write the lodge, which he did. He said he was instructed to inquire whether they wished "to be a party to the proceedings, and if so, to kindly supply me with the name and address of any one of your members whom you may appoint to represent the lodge."

After some negotiations, and with the view to make the matter mutual, the Executive agreed to bear the cost of the trial for both sides. The hearing did not take place until the 8th of February 1900, but in order that we may keep it in close connection it will be well to consider it here. It was heard in the Chancery Court, before Justice Cozens Hardy. The Association was represented by Mr I. Isaacs, its legal adviser, and the lodge by Mr C. W. Newlands of South Shields. There were able barristers on both sides. The judge decided:

If these men came within Section 22 it must be because these particular men must be considered deserving, and also within the objects of the Association. He thought unless there was something to strike them out the argument on their behalf was well founded. The real question was whether, although the language of Rule 3 defining the objects of the Association included them, they had not by 51 been removed. He thought that was the case. He did not think he could limit the effect of that rule so as to make it mean that they should forfeit only the absolute right to have 10s. per week under Rule 52, which it was admitted they had lost. He thought the exclusion applied not merely to claims as of right, but to all protection from the Association, and they could not be deemed legally or properly objects of the benefits of the Association.

So far as the Executive and trustees were concerned that trial and decision were satisfactory, but the lodge said they wanted it taken to the Court of Appeal. So far as bearing the cost of the trial was concerned the pledge had been carried out, and the Committee were surprised when it was suggested to carry the case to a higher court. However, as they were desirous to have the case properly decided, and that there should be no room for doubt (the welfare of the Association being their great consideration), they agreed, and guaranteed the payment of the entire costs. The appeal was heard on November 11th and 12th, the Judges being Rigby, Romer, and Vaughan Williams.

A strong effort was made to reverse the decision. All the skill, plausibility, and sophistry of very able lawyers were used. The rules were purposely disparaged and travestied, in order that a prejudice might be created against them, but the judges unanimously agreed with the finding of the Court of Chancery.

This is a bare record of facts of a dispute and trial which was fraught with importance to the Association. It generated a great deal of bitterness. The leaders could have had no personal ends to serve. Their aim will be truly set forth by a quotation from the Monthly Circular for November 1900.

MONTHLY CIRCULAR, 1900

(The Lessons of the Trial)

The trial is over, and, so far as any personal feelings are concerned, the sooner it is forgotten the better it will be for our Association. To guard and strengthen that should be our first thought and care. But while it will be beneficial for us to forget any attribution of ill motives, and evil speaking or ruffled feelings consequential thereto, we shall be wise men if we gather up the lessons which come to us. This battle has been fought for one purpose only, and that is to support the authority of the rules. To that end, and that alone, have our efforts been devoted. The great question at this moment is:

Whether it is better to have a set of rules which requires that the Committee of picked men (responsible year by year to the will of the members) should have a knowledge of, and be called in to assist in, the settlement of disputes before a large colliery is stopped, and a serious expenditure thrown upon the Association; or whether a lodge shall have a free hand to stop a colliery at will, and then run a chance of creating a favourable feeling, and receiving large sums from the funds, when, if the Committee had been consulted, the matter might have been settled; or if not, a strike entered upon legally.

Another lesson is that, having received the sanction of the courts to our rules, and having lifted them out of the uncertainty by which they were surrounded, we shall do well to keep them in the certainty in which they have been placed. It is very clear that an attempt will be made to alter the rules which guide this matter. If so, a lax (and ruinous) state of things will be introduced. For the last two or three years the same attempts have been made, and again this year resolutions with the same object are sent in. The rules which place the affairs of the Association in the hands of the Committee (before a stoppage) have to be erased or mutilated, and rendered useless. Surely it is better, and more conducive to the welfare of the Society, to have our affairs placed on business lines, than to have a code of rules which will admit of loose procedure, and spending illegally large sums of money, which will be wanted whenever the depression of trade sets in.

My advice to you is to consider carefully every amendment which may come before you. Trades organisations will prosper most when they are founded upon, and guided by, business principles.