This was fourfold, and it may be interesting to look at these seriatim. The first was not in the least unexpected. At that time Capital and Labour were looked upon as being natural enemies, and all their relations were on that principle. We see now how foolish is that idea. Then conflict and doubt formed the atmosphere which surrounded the two great parties in the industrial world. If men having common interest joined themselves, in order that they might act for the common welfare, the leaders were to be dealt with harshly, and if necessary banished. It was no infrequent occurrence, when the spirit of Union was abroad, for men to be driven away from localities they loved and from associations endeared by years of enjoyment. This was done with the view that terror might be struck into the hearts of others. The principle was: Drive away the shepherd and the sheep will flee. So much was that spirit abroad that in many places the establishment of the Permanent Relief Fund was treated coldly, obstacles thrown in its way, if not bitterly opposed, because it was regarded as the thin edge of the Union wedge. What more natural than for fierce opposition to rear itself, with threats for the braver spirits, and bribes and allurements for those whose nature was susceptible to such influences? Ale-houses were used as a means for preventing Unionism taking root and spreading. The sorrow of it is there have always been spirits who are ready to act meanly when required.
This opposition was, therefore, to meet and bear down and convince that a trades organisation was not an institution prone to evil, and set up for no other purpose. The men who are alive to-day, and who took part in that opposition, would, we may assert with confidence, confess their mistake if they were interviewed on the subject.
Then the law was against the Trades Unionists. We complain now, but they had more reason in those days. We must lift ourselves into the condition of things prior to the 1875 Act, which did a great deal towards equalising the positions of the employer and employed. The Master and Servants Act, with all its one-sided applications, was in force. For a long time an agitation was carried on for its repeal, but after twenty years the only result was the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the operation of the law. The law was very unequal. It had been framed on the principle that the workman alone was inclined to do wrong, and therefore wanted hedging in and punishing. In the year 1865 there were 1100 arrests under the Act in the country. Eight hundred of the accused were sent to prison. An Amending Act was passed in 1867, but between that time and 1875, 774 were convicted. "The state of the law was simply infamous. Its provisions made it a criminal act if a workman broke a contract, even under the most justifiable circumstances. He was arrested by warrant, and if the breach of contract was proved the magistrate was bound to inflict the punishment of imprisonment with hard labour. If, on the other hand, the employer broke the contract, ever so flagrantly, he could only be summoned by a civil process, and his punishment was simply a fine."
Then they were hindered by a system of boycotting before the word became proverbial. It was not merely difficult, but impossible in some places to get a meeting-place. The writer knows of one colliery where a place could not be got. Even the co-operative hall was closed against the Union, and the Union money had to be taken in the corner of a field. Beyond this, in Durham the printers refused to do the Union printing—all except Mr J. H. Veitch, who dared almost social ostracism and took the work, and the connection then formed has continued up till now. The refusal arose from two reasons—first, there was a fear that the Union would not be able to pay for the printing; and second, Trades Unions were in bad odour in the county generally, and none the less in Durham. There was none of the respectability about the institutions there is now, and little hope of them. Broadheadism at Sheffield, with its destructive policy, had filled men's minds with fear. The form of reasoning was: "Trades Unions are guilty of these evil things; this is a Trades Union, therefore it will be guilty of doing evil." Just as logical as if a man had said: "Murder is committed in England; these people are English, therefore they will commit murder." Mr J. H. Veitch (all honour to him) had none of those fears, nor that false logic. He took the work when social ostracism was in the air. We cannot forget the act nor the man.
Another great obstacle against which they had to contend was a host of anonymous writers, who wrote behind a variety of nom de plumes—such as "Geordie Close," which covered W. P. Shield, and "Jacky Close," but none under their own names. These writers used the most scurrilous and slanderous language about, and attributed the vilest motives to the men who were at the head of the movement. The situation was a complete analogue to that when Nehemiah commenced to build the walls of Jerusalem. Sanballat and Tobiah and Geshem laughed him to scorn, and despised him, and said: "What is this thing that ye do; will ye rebel against the king?" But as those sneerers in the far-off Jewish times had no effect on the builders of that day, so in those days the founders of our Association, the builders of our broken walls, heeded not those snarlers of thirty-six years ago, and the result is an all-round benefit.
The greatest of all the species of opposition they had to meet arose from the apathy and indifference of the people. Although the condition was bad in the extreme, yet often the earnest spirits and others scattered about the county had to ask each other, in the query of the prophet: "Who hath believed our report?" The state of apathy was quite natural. It was not because there was no real love of Union; it was the outcome of repeated failures. "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick." There had been spasmodic attempts at associated effort. The result was a feeling of hopelessness. Like men of whom we read in waterlogged ships or analogous situations on land, having tried oft to save themselves, they give up in despair, and say "Kismet," like an Eastern fatalist. The hold this feeling had on the mind is seen in the small results for a considerable time after the Association commenced. A thousand or two was their whole membership, their council was their committee as well, and the numbers so small that a room in an ordinary hotel could with ease contain them. At their meetings, sparse in attendance, they were often insulted and sometimes maltreated by the men they had come to help.
In this alone there was sufficient to deter them, and to lead men of talent and energy (such as they were) to turn themselves to other objects in life; but they loved their class, and, while they had aspirations for better conditions, they desired to raise their fellows with themselves. Any one of them could have made a position in other directions if their aims had been selfish; but they were men of different mould, and they were inspired by the love of the cause, and confident in its ultimate success if once they could clear away the dark pessimism which had fixed itself in the minds of the workmen. For this they endured the hardship and faced the opposition, until finally men saw the solidity and permanency of their work, with the result that the institution they founded occupies a rightly deserved foremost place among Trades Unions.