The year 1886 passed over uneventfully, and in a routine manner, except in the matter of trade, which continued very much depressed, and wages very low. At the beginning of 1887 the average selling price at the pit mouth was 4s. 5.56d. The Relief Fund (even with the principle of division of income) was in debt to the General Fund £3548, 4s. 11d. as per the balance sheet for quarter ending December 1886. The condition of trade was so bad generally that a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into it, the present county court judge of Durham being one of the members. He differed from the majority report, and signed a minority report. This objection was in relation to the fragmentary character of the evidence. In the coal and iron industries the witnesses were entirely from the employers. Without stating the whole of his able report, dealing as it did with every phase of our industrial life, a portion may be mentioned. Four causes of depression and low wages upon which he laid emphasis, were the land question and the royalties, way leaves and dead rents. Those who hold the land, claim these from the employers and employed who risk their capital and their lives to get the mineral which he, as landlord, does nothing to assist. In the midst of the dark times the Executive Committee was compelled to face two evils: a small banking account, and a heavy expenditure. The banking account for the quarter ending December 1886 was £16,000, exclusive of the deposit and shares in the Industrial Bank, which amounted to £1841, but which were nominal and, so far as use was concerned, simply on paper. In addition, there was a sum nearing £900 invested in buildings. In a short circular the Committee placed the whole financial position before the members. For the year 1886 the income was £44,506, with an expenditure of £54,126. "You will thus see that we cannot exist long at the rate of £9620 on the wrong side of the ledger. Soon all our funds will be gone, and nothing left for the members who have paid so long." They were compelled by rule to keep £10,000 in the funds, and were therefore driven to consider two propositions: either to increase the subscription by 3d. a fortnight or reduce the benefits. For that purpose they proposed to call a special Council to consider the questions. The reductions suggested would reduce the expenditure by £1600 per quarter. At the Council meeting an all-round reduction of 2s. per week for sickness, breakage, strikes, and sacrificed allowance was made, and £1 off the death legacies, to take place from the rising of the Council, which was held on 9th April. Happily, however, the trade began to turn and the position of the Association to amend, for on August 27th a slip was sent out informing the members "that the funds have so far recouped as to enable the Society to pay all benefits according to rule from Monday the 29th."
THE EIGHT HOURS—A RESTRICTION
On October 11th, 1887, and three following days a miners' conference was held in Edinburgh. The main purpose of the conference was the limitation of the output. There were a large number and variety of propositions discussed: five days per week, a week or fortnight's holiday, and the eight hours per day. Part of the resolution on the last question was in words that have become familiar to Durham in these later years: "That no miner be allowed to work more than eight hours in the twenty-four." The first resolution on the question did not appeal to the State, but on the fourth day it was brought forward containing an appeal to the legislature, and carried. The position of Durham was the same then as now (1906), and the opposition of to-day is based upon the thought of that day. Before the conference was held the Executive Committee gave their opinion upon the various questions on the programme of business.
On the eight hours they said:
EIGHT HOURS' RESOLUTION
Eight Hours.—This is to be sought for by Act of Parliament. To seek to fix the hours of men by Act of Parliament is, in the year 1887, a monstrous and illogical proceeding. If you fix the working hours by Act of Parliament, why not fix the rate of wages also? In the old feudal times wages were so fixed by Act of Parliament. Under such laws, men were serfs and slaves, and became as much the property of their employers as the horses that filled his stables. To demand eight hours, and even less, is in the hands of all men if they will only utilise their own organised power.
But if such an Act were passed, it would result in our own county in one of two ways, (1) the turning off of 10,000 or 15,000 hands; or (2) the adoption of two shifts of hewers, and two shifts of offhanded men and lads, and thus increase the hewers' hours by one hour, and, in many cases, one and a half hours per day. Again, if you seek by Act of Parliament an Eight Hours' Bill, it logically follows that you regard eight hours as the number of hours men should work. In such a case, you endanger your own position, and would strongly tend to bring upon you an eight hours' system. But why is this sought? It is sought because men are indifferent, apathetic, and consequently disorganised. If this law passed to-morrow, it would be an inducement to indifference and disorganisation, and as such materially injure you.
In September 1887 the Trades Union Congress decided to take a ballot of all the unions on the general eight hours. The questions submitted were: Should an eight hours' day be sought; if so, by what means, by Trades Union effort or by law? Again the Executive Committee advised the members to vote against it, which they did. "If this became law to-morrow," they said, "you could not make it operative. To do so you must turn off some thousands of coal hewers, or have two shifts of offhanded men and boys, and draw coals sixteen hours per day instead of as now drawing them ten and eleven hours. If this be sought it follows by clear implication that the men voting for it regard eight hours as a normal and fair time to work per day." The Congress of 1888 decided in favour of eight hours by law.
The question came again before a miners' conference held in Birmingham on 8th October 1889. There were three items discussed: "The International Miners' Congress, an advance in wages, and the eight hours." The delegates from Durham, Mr J. Johnson and Mr J. Wilson, drew up a report of the proceedings, which was sent out to the members. They were sent to the conference with definite instructions from the Council: "That we don't take any part in the agitation for an eight hours' day for underground workmen." The representatives in the report say:
Beyond that we could not (nor desired to) go. When the conference came to discuss the question we laid our position before the meeting, and told them we could not take any part in the agitation. We make no remarks about the sarcastic reflections which were made by some of the delegates on our position. They were no doubt natural reflections, although their repetition was galling, and evoked from us replies which were not of the calmest order. We stood firm to our instructions, and abstained from either voting or speaking, except in self-defence.
The conference resolved that on the 1st of January all men and boys represented there should commence working eight hours from bank to bank. Northumberland and the Forest of Dean voted against, with Durham neutral. Then followed a resolution pledging all the districts to give in notices to terminate with the year. This placed the conference in a dilemma. They were ready to pass resolutions, but few were prepared to say their members would give their notices in for it. Then it was decided to take a ballot and hold another conference in November. At our Council meeting on November 9th it was decided not to be represented.