Trade.England
and Wales.		Scotland.Ireland.Total.
Compositors and Press and Machine Men27,2504,0002,00033,250
Bookbinders5,1507003006,150
Papermakers3,150500...3,650
Miscellaneous Printing Trades2,4004501002,950
————————————
Totals37,9505,6502,40046,000

There remained a number of trades which it was difficult to classify. These miscellaneous crafts furnished over 130 societies and 58,000 Trade Unionists. Some, like the Coopers, Cigarmakers, Brushmakers, Basketmakers, and Glassworkers, were usually well organised; others, like the Coachbuilders, Potters, Bakers, and Ropeworkers, included but a small percentage of their trades. [590]

Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists in the Miscellaneous Trades.

Trade.England
and Wales.		Scotland.Ireland.Total.
Basket and Brushmakers2,8003501003,250
Coach and Waggon Builders6,0004006007,000
Coopers4,4001,3003006,000
Glassworkers7,3505001508,000
Millers and Bakers7,0002,5002,50012,000
Potters6,2501,650...7,900
Sundry Trades12,75075035013,850
————————————
Totals46,5507,4504,00058,000

The great army of labourers, seamen, and transport workers of every kind we enclosed in a single division. Out of the 120 organisations belonging to this group the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (established 1872), with its permanent membership of 31,000, its high contributions, extensive friendly benefits, and large accumulated funds, resembled in character the large national societies of the engineering and building trades. Alongside this stood the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (established 1880, 7000 members). Some other Unions in this group, such as the London and Counties Labour League (established 1872, 13,000 members), and the National Agricultural Labourers’ Union (established 1872, 15,000 members), had become essentially friendly societies. But the predominating type in this division was, as might have been expected, the new Union, with low contributions, fluctuating membership, and militant trade policy. Of these the strongest and apparently the most stable was the National Union of Gas-workers and General Labourers (established 1889), with 36,000 members on the books. Next in membership came the Dock, Wharf, and Riverside Labourers’ Union (established 1889), the Tyneside and National Labour Union (established 1889), and the National Amalgamated Sailors and Firemen’s Union (established 1887), each with a membership fluctuating between 20,000 and 40,000. Other prominent Unions in this division were the General Railway Workers’ Union (established 1889), the National Union of Dock Labourers (established 1889), the National Amalgamated Coalporters’ Union (established 1890), and the Navvies, Bricklayers’ Labourers, and General Labourers’ Union (established 1890). The builders’ labourers and the carmen were organised in numerous local Unions, which, in some cases, such as the Mersey Quay and Railway Carters’ Union (established 1887), and the Leeds Amalgamated Association of Builders’ Labourers (established 1889), were effective trade societies. The chief exponent of New Unionism among the agricultural labourers was then the Eastern Counties Labour Federation (established 1890), which had enrolled 17,000 members in Suffolk and the neighbouring counties. But any statistical estimate of the ill-defined and constantly fluctuating membership of the Unions in this division must necessarily be of less value than in the more definitely organised trades. [591]

Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists among the Labourers and Transport Workers of every kind.

Trade.England
and Wales.		Scotland.Ireland.Total.
Seamen, Fishermen, Watermen, &c.33,8503,9001,50039,250
Railway Traffic Workers43,5001,5003,00048,000
Enginemen, &c. (other than
Colliery or Railway)6,3003701006,770
Carmen, &c.19,0003,5001,00023,500
Miscellaneous Labourers200,23012,4004,850217,480
——————————————
Totals302,88021,67010,450335,000

It would have been an interesting addition to our statistics if we could have added to these tables a column showing the proportion which the Unionists in each trade bore to the total number of workers in it. Unfortunately the classification of the census[592] is not sufficiently precise to enable this to be done. We were therefore thrown back upon such information on the point as we can obtain from other sources. We knew, for instance, that in Lancashire the Amalgamated Association of Cotton-spinners included practically every competent workman engaged in the trade. The same might be said of the Boilermakers’ Society in all the iron shipbuilding ports, though not in some of the Midland districts. And to turn to an even larger industry, 80 per cent of the coalminers were in union, some districts, such as Northumberland and parts of the West Riding of Yorkshire, having practically every hewer in the society. And in other industries and localities the Union was sometimes equally inclusive. Among the Dublin Coopers or the Midland Flint Glass Makers, the Nottingham Lacemakers or the Yorkshire Glass Bottle Makers, non-Unionism was practically unknown. We see, therefore, that instead of numbering only 4 per cent of the total population, the Trade Union world was in certain districts and in certain industries, already in 1892 practically co-extensive with the manual labour class. On the other hand, there were many occupations in which Trade Unionism was non-existent. Whole classes of manual workers were practically excluded from the Trade Union ranks by the fact that they were not hired workers at wages. In the nooks and crannies of our industrial system were to be found countless manual workers who obtained a precarious livelihood by direct service of the consumer. Every town and village had its quota of hawkers, costermongers, tallymen, and other petty dealers; of cobblers, tinkers, knifegrinders, glaziers, chairmenders, plumbers, and other jobbing craftsmen; of cab-runners, “corner boys,” men who “hang about the bridges,” and all the innumerable parasites of the life of a great city. When we passed from these “independent producers” to the trades in which the small master survived, or in which home work prevailed, we saw another region almost barren of Trade Unionism. The tailors and cabinetmakers, for instance, though often highly-skilled craftsmen, had only a small minority of their trades in Union, whilst the chain and nailmakers were almost unorganised. The effect upon Trade Unionism of a backward type of industrial organisation was well seen in the manufacture of boots and shoes. In Leicestershire and Stafford, where the work was done in large factories, practically every workman was in the Union. In the Midland villages, where this was carried on as a domestic industry, and in East London, where it was only passing out of that phase, the National Society of Boot and Shoe Operatives counted but a small proportion of members. And in those districts in which the small master system still held its own it cast a blight even on other trades. Thus the Birmingham district and East London were bad Trade Union centres, not only for the sweated trades, but also for those carried on in large establishments. But the great bulk of non-Unionism was to be found in another field. The great army of labourers, as distinguished from mechanics, miners, or factory operatives, were in normal times as unorganised as the women workers. Except in certain counties, such as Kent, Suffolk, Norfolk, Oxfordshire, Wiltshire, and the Fen districts, Trade Unionism among the farm labourers could scarcely be said to exist. Of the three-quarters of a million of agricultural labourers in the United Kingdom, not more than 40,000 were then in union. Nor were the other classes of labour in much better plight. The two hundred thousand workers in the traffic department of the railways contributed only 48,000 Trade Unionists, mostly from such grades as guards and engine-drivers. The large class of tramway and omnibus workers had, after a brief rally, reverted to a state of disorganisation. The great army of warehousemen, porters, and other kinds of city labourers counted only a few hundred Trade Unionists in all the kingdom.

The Trade Union world was, therefore, in 1892, in the main composed of skilled craftsmen working in densely populated districts, where industry was conducted on a large scale. About one-half of the members belonged to the three staple trades of coalmining, cotton manufacture, and engineering, whilst the labourers and the women workers were, at this date, on the whole, non-Unionists.

But the influence of Trade Unionism on working-class life cannot be measured by the numbers actually contributing to the Union funds at any one time. Among the non-Unionists in the skilled trades a large proportion have at one time or another belonged to their societies. Though they have let their membership lapse for one reason or another, they follow the lead of the Union, and are mostly ready, on the slightest encouragement from its members, or improvement in their own position, to rejoin an organisation to which in spirit they still belong. In the Labour Unions the instability of employment and the constant shifting of residence caused the organisation, in 1892, to resemble a sieve, through which a perpetual stream of members was flowing, a small proportion only remaining attached for any length of time. These lapsed members constitute in some sense a volunteer force of Trade Unionism ready to fight side by side with their old comrades, provided that means can be found for their support. Moreover, the Trade Unionists not only belong to the most highly-skilled and best-paid industries, but they include, as a general rule, the picked men in each trade. The moral and intellectual influence which they exercise on the rest of their class is, therefore, out of all proportion to their numbers. In their ranks are found, in almost every industrial centre, all the prominent leaders of working-class opinion. They supply the directors of the co-operative stores, the administrators of clubs and friendly societies, and the working-class representatives on Parish, District, and Town Councils. Finally we may observe that the small but rapidly increasing class of working-men politicians invariably consists of men who are members of a trade society. We may safely assert that, even in 1892, no one but a staunch Trade Unionist would have had any chance of being returned as a working-class member to the House of Commons, or elected to a local governing body as a Labour representative.