Then the loss in wages. This was twofold. There was the three months' irredeemable loss and there was the lessening of the reduction. It was admitted on all hands that less than the ten per cent. would have kept the pits working if the Federation Board had been trusted with power to settle, even up to the eve of the strike. In saying this there is no intention of measuring the result of a strike by the money loss or gain. The world would not have been so far as it is in the path of reform and better life if the forlorn hopes of labour had not been fought, but it would be a piece of false logic if we were to infer that strikes should, therefore, be entered upon at all times. And certainly no one who in 1892 was able to appreciate the situation then would say it was one of those necessities of our industrial life. It was far from that; the gain would have been greater by the avoidance of the quarrel. If in writing our history this is emphasised, it is not in the spirit of reflection, but rather that we may learn wisdom; for in these matters it cries aloud in the street, and we can from a remembrance of such events escape the like evils. If this be done, then the strike of that day will be useful in the greatest degree to those of us who are active in this. Using Longfellow's figure, it is part of our dead selves, of which we can make a ladder, by which we can rise to higher things.
Another part of the aftermath was the burden which was thrown upon the funds. This was twofold. There were the men who could not get started, in the first instance, because of the state some of the pits were in; and second, because of the dislocation of trade, which was sure to follow a stoppage of work for three months. Business connections are liable to break, and the difficulty is to heal them again. The consequence was that there were men out of work for a long time after the actual strike was settled, and these were to maintain for a considerable time, many of them so long that they had to be transferred to the Relief Fund. The money paid to them was the outcome of a levy, which pressed heavily on those at work.
Then there was another burden, the result of the strike, but which was not any portion of the obligations of rule, the payment of the back rent of those who were living in rented houses. There was one peculiar and pleasing feature in connection with that strike, as with that of 1879, there was no interference with the men who were living in the colliery houses. There was in one or two places some little talk of a rent obligation from such men, but it came to nothing. Perhaps it was never intended that it should. This much it is our duty to state, to the credit of the employers: the men who were in battle with them were allowed to live in their houses, and were not prevented from gathering coal wherever such was lying about. To the men who were in rented houses the case was vastly different. Every week off work added to their debt, which they were bound to pay when they resumed work. With a spirit of generosity which is not restricted the whole of the members recognised the debt of those men as belonging to the whole county, and resolved to pay a levy for the purpose of paying the back rent. The resolution was carried at the Council meeting on June 18th, 1892:
"That a levy of 3d. per full member and 1½d. per half member throughout the county be made to help to pay the house rent of the members living in rented houses."
At the same meeting the present (1906) Relief Fund was formed, to support men who were out of work. The system adopted in paying rent was to cavil the collieries, and pay them as they were drawn, with this provision, that if any colliery were drawn, but had not paid the levy, no rent was allowed until the levy was paid.
THE EIGHT HOURS AGAIN
The only remaining subject in 1892 was the ballot on the legal eight hours. We have noted previously how and when this was first introduced, with some plain advice given by Mr Crawford—advice which has never been shown to be wrong. It was decided at the Council meeting held on August 13th "that the county be balloted for and against the eight hours." On September 21st the Committee took the ballot, and issued a circular setting forth their views on the subject. As we have now (1906) reached a crucial stage in the discussion, it will be useful to place on record what the Committee of that date thought of the question and the difficulties it involved. In their opinion there were two modes of procedure by which the hours of labour might be shortened: legal interference and Trades Union effort. The latter was the one they had adopted, and it had been successful. No man could think they were against short hours; any opportunity to shorten them would be welcomed. They referred the members to the action in 1890: how they had given up a claim for ten per cent. and accepted a shorter day. "We are not now to set up a show of weakness, and sacrifice our manhood and independence, by handing ourselves over to the supervision and control of the House of Commons, which is not acquainted with the peculiarities of our occupation."
If it were the function of the State to fix hours of labour, was it not logically its function to fix the wages of the workman? "It is said that some of the organisations are weak, and therefore the State should protect." The reply was: "Where weak organisations exist low wages are found. It is therefore necessary for the State to fix the amount of wages men should be paid, for men require bread as well as hours." They then turned to the difficulty.
eight hours
Those who favour legal eight hours must consider how it would work. There would be serious alteration needed in our present mode of working. We must either have two shifts of 8 hours, making 16 hours' coal drawing and 8 hours' shifts, increasing the hours of hewers by 1 to 1½ hours per diem, and deputies half hour per day. This would increase the output, and consequently the price of coal, and necessarily the wages of all men. The other alternative is an 8 hours' shift for all men and boys, which would throw into the labour market thousands of men. Consequently, competition amongst ourselves such as we experienced in '76 and '77 would arise, and thus we would have a repetition of the hardships we underwent in those disastrous times. Much is made of the hours of boys; these we will shorten at the earliest opportunity. Under our present system, and taking a number of years, we work less than we should do under eight hours by law.
We therefore strongly urge on you to vote to a man against any Parliament fixing the hours of labour, as in our opinion it would be injurious to the working classes generally, and to ourselves in particular. Do not be led away by the idea that the short hours we have obtained for the hewers will be maintained. The request is eight hours from bank to bank for all and every man who works down the pit. To this, it may be said, it is a maximum number of hours, and that, therefore, some might be allowed to work less. That will depend upon the arrangement. If the employers get the sanction of the law, and they require us to work eight hours, we shall be expected to so work.
There is another point which demands consideration. It is a question of wages. Let us suppose the Act passed, and those who work ten hours (both below and above ground) were reduced to eight, how much should the wages be reduced? If we shorten the hours by negotiation, it will be done gradually, and wages could be arranged.
The result of the ballot was: for parliamentary eight hours, 12,684; against it, 28,217.