Before leaving 1890 we will notice a very important step taken by the miners of Great Britain—the holding of the first International Miners' Conference at Jolimont in Belgium. As this was the first of the series it will be interesting if we give the origin.
The first idea originated in 1889. In that year two Labour Congresses were held in Paris: the Marx or Socialist, and the Possibilist or Trades Unionist. To the latter the Northumberland miners sent Messrs Burt and Fenwick. Prior to the meeting of the Congress those gentlemen sent a joint letter inviting the miners' representatives attending either the Marx or Trades Union Congress to meet for the purpose of a friendly interchange of opinions on questions relating to the condition of the miners. Some eighteen delegates responded, and the meeting took place in a dingy coffee-house in a back street.
The interpreter on that occasion was Miss Edith Simcox. The result was the miners of Great Britain were requested to take the initiative in the formation of an International. This request was conveyed to the Central Board of the National Miners' Union (Mr Crawford being at that time secretary). The matter was brought forward at a subsequent miners' conference at Birmingham. The outcome was the Congress held at Jolimont in Belgium in 1890.
1891-1892
Silksworth Strike—Claim for a Reduction—The General Strike—Aftermath of the Strike—The Eight Hours again
The year opened with a strike at Silksworth. It is mentioned here because of its being connected with, and being the last of, the disputes about the deputies. In order that there may be a proper understanding it will be necessary to retrace our steps a little. At the Miners' Council held on August 16th, 1890, a resolution was carried giving the Silksworth Lodge power "to take the ballot with a view of giving in their notices to compel the deputies to join the Union." The ballot resulted in the notices being tendered. They expired on November 22nd, and on November 26th, at a Federation Board Meeting, it was reported that the dispute between the deputies and the lodge had been settled amongst themselves, and they were ready to return to work. This had been forwarded to the employers by Mr Patterson and Mr Forman, from whom they had received a reply acknowledging the receipt of the information. They having, however, been informed "that many of the deputies, non-members of the Miners' Association, have been compelled by coercion and violence to join that Association, are not prepared to take any further steps with regard to the strike until they have consulted a general meeting of the owners, and this they will take an early opportunity of doing." Mr Patterson and Mr Forman wrote denying all knowledge of any force, reminding the owners that in all previous cases, whether general or local, the withdrawal of notices had always been mutual, and that they had instructed the workmen to present themselves for work. This action produced a deadlock, and three meetings were held between the Federation Board and the owners—on November 29th in Durham, and on December 1st and 2nd in Newcastle. The owners said they were convinced that some of the deputies had been driven through fear to join the Miners' Association, and therefore they could not sanction the resumption of work at Silksworth until the Federation agreed to provide for the security and freedom of the deputies who refused to join the Miners' Association pending the consideration of the question "whether it is consistent with the duties and responsibilities of deputies to belong to the Miners' Association, and that the deputies at Silksworth should have the opportunity, under proper safeguards, of freely declaring whether they wished to remain in the Miners' Association."
To these the workmen made reply that the action of the owners was against all former arrangements made between the two Associations. "In every case that has taken place the men either before or after giving the notices have had to agree to resume work" before the Urgency Committee was appointed, and yet the employers were asking, in the Silksworth case, to reverse that well-established practice, and were demanding that the pit should stand until a settlement was come to. That course of action the Board repudiated, and expressed their willingness to join any body or committee as soon as the pit started. The employers then modified the claim, and asked that a Joint Committee should be formed, and the deputies who had been compelled to join the miners should be allowed to appear before that Committee, and say whether they wanted to remain in such Association. With that understanding the pit should go to work as soon as got ready, and the Committee meet within the next three days, which would mean prior to work being resumed, except very partially. The Board was willing to agree to form the Committee. No settlement was come to, although strong endeavours were made. At last the employers decided to evict the men from the houses. The evictions commenced on February 19th, 1891, and in all there were 106 families turned out, many of whom found shelter with their friends and in the places of worship. To effect that purpose a very large contingent of police was drafted in from other parts of the country, with the usual accessories to these circumstances, the "candymen," to whom the occasion was a harvest, and just the kind of work their natures were akin to, and their minds eagerly desiring, and therefore ready to accept. There were most serious riots, and at one time a violent collision took place, between the crowd and the police. It was not the result of any action on the part of the Silksworth people, but was owing to the presence of strangers. It was customary for the police to escort the candymen out of the village to a large house a short distance off, which afterwards was given the name of "Candy Hall" because of the use it was put to. On a certain night when the escorting took place, the police and their charge were followed by a large concourse of people, some of whom threw stones and various kinds of missiles. In a few instances the officers were hurt. This they bore until they got outside the village, when suddenly wheeling they charged with their batons upon the crowd, many of whom were seriously injured. Before the whole of the people were evicted negotiations re-opened, and the proceedings stayed, which eventuated in the following agreement:—
It is agreed that the Owners' Committee advise the Silksworth deputies who joined the Durham Miners' Association after the notices were handed in to pay up at once their arrears of subscriptions to the present date, on the distinct understanding that they are to be at perfect liberty from this date to be members or non-members of the Miners' or any other Association pending the settlement of the general question of deputies between the two Associations.
On the arrears being paid work to be resumed at Silksworth, Seaham, and Rainton, all men being reinstated in the positions occupied by them before work ceased.
That ended the last of the privileges given to deputies.
THE CLAIM FOR A REDUCTION
In the beginning of July the Federation Board met the owners. The employers had made a claim for a reduction on April 25th which the Board met by asking for an advance. As this is the first of the series of events and negotiations which led up to the strike of 1892 it will enable us to better understand that occurrence if we record it in detail. At the meeting referred to, the employers said that as the Board had asserted that the state of trade did not warrant a reduction, but, on the contrary, an advance, they would officially ascertain present and prospective invoice prices, and would then ask the Board to meet and consider them. If that did not lead to an agreement they would ask that the question should be submitted to arbitration. The matter was delayed until November 27th, when another meeting took place. The following statement was handed to the Federation Board:—