1875

William Crawford, M.P.

We now come to the second claim for a reduction in wages. On July 17th Mr Crawford read to the Committee a resolution he had received from the employers making a claim for a reduction:

"That the Durham Coal Miners' Association, through Mr Crawford, be informed that the associated Coal Owners consider that it is necessary to reduce wages substantially and promptly. Thatthe amount of such reduction, as well as the date of the commencement, will be considered by the owners on the 7th day of August next, and that in the meantime the Association will be ready to give their best consideration to anything the representatives of the workmen may desire to lay before it."

To this request the Executive Committee could not accede, and on 7th August the employers sent another claim for a reduction of twenty per cent. They said "that the best policy to pursue in the exigencies of the trade, and to restore the activity of the coal and iron trades, was for the men to submit to a twenty per cent. reduction." In the event of the workmen not agreeing to such a reduction the owners would be prepared to leave the whole case to the arbitration of any gentleman mutually appointed, each party being left free to produce such evidence as they may think fit and satisfactory, arrangement being made for prompt decision, and for securing the operation of the arbitrator's award from the 29th of this month.

Mr Crawford was instructed by the Executive Committee to inform the employers that, while they did not offer any opinion on the reduction, they would call the attention of the owners to the last portion of their resolution, wherein the date of the reduction was fixed, and said:

"In seeking advances we never yet fixed a date, even when coal was going up in an unparalleled manner and certainly very much more rapidly than ever it has come down. Both in March last and now you wish to fix the date in what seems to us rather an arbitrary manner. Had we in seeking advances pursued this course, you would have been more thanjustified in doing the same thing, but having pursued a course diametrically opposite, we fail to see the grounds of your justification for the course you are at present pursuing."

A Council meeting was held on August 22nd, when the first question discussed was the owners' application for the twenty per cent. reduction. The following resolution was carried:â€”

(1) We cannot see where in the Cleveland, or the Coasting, or other markets the prices of coal and coke are down sufficiently low to warrant a further reduction of wages. (2) The stacking of coal and coke may be made to haveâ€”but ought not to haveâ€”any very material effect on the workmen's wages, seeing that, if too much is being produced, we have no objection to be put on short time, or any other fair process whereby a reduction of wages can be averted.We fail to see why the employers ought to seek arbitration. We are now in the same position which they were in during the last two and a half years. They were at that time so fully certain that trade would not give any further advance that arbitration was pointedly refused. We are now so sure that the present, as compared with past prices of coal and coke, does not warrant any further reduction, that we think arbitration is only an unnecessary waste of time and money, causing no end of annoyance without any good resulting therefrom.

We fail to see why the employers ought to seek arbitration. We are now in the same position which they were in during the last two and a half years. They were at that time so fully certain that trade would not give any further advance that arbitration was pointedly refused. We are now so sure that the present, as compared with past prices of coal and coke, does not warrant any further reduction, that we think arbitration is only an unnecessary waste of time and money, causing no end of annoyance without any good resulting therefrom.

This resolution was sent, accompanied by a demand for fifteen per cent. advance, to the employers, who held a meeting on 28th August, under the presidency of Mr Stobart, for the purpose of considering it and what action they should take. After considerablediscussion a resolution was passed to enforce the twenty per cent. reduction and to give the men fourteen days' notice, to expire on the 19th of September, seeing that their claim and arbitration had been refused. The notices were issued in keeping with that resolve, but not to all men alike. The form of notice was as follows:â€”

On behalf ofâ€”â€” Colliery I do hereby give you notice to determine your existing hiring on the nineteenth day of September eighteen hundred and seventy-four, and that the wages and prices heretofore paid at this colliery will from that date be reduced to the rate of twenty per cent. and that if your service be continued, it must be on these terms.

In these circumstances the Executive Committee issued a circular and called a special Council. The lodges were asked to send their delegates prepared to discuss and decide upon three questions:

"1. Ought bankmen, horsekeepers, furnacemen, etc., to give in their notices?"2. Ought collieries of men (hewers included) who have not received any notice to give in their notices?"3. The matter of arbitration."

"1. Ought bankmen, horsekeepers, furnacemen, etc., to give in their notices?

"2. Ought collieries of men (hewers included) who have not received any notice to give in their notices?

"3. The matter of arbitration."

We will quote a portion or two of the circular. It is very serious and impressive:

"It must be clear to all that we are passing through the most important crisis which has marked the history of the present organisation on the need or otherwise of a further reduction; we here offer no opinion, that being a matter which will take the collective wisdom of the county to determine.We wish, however, to point out what seems to us to be one of two ultimatums to the present unpleasant condition of matters in the county. If a stolid and unreasoning resistance be persevered in, a strike is inevitable. We feel certain that nothing can or will prevent a stop. How long such struggle might continue it is impossible to say. But whether it might be for a longer or a shorter period an immense amount of suffering would be entailed. We want you therefore to very carefully consider the whole matter. View the entire position with an unbiased mind, not from the standpoint of mere abstract justice, but from that of probabilities or even possibilities. We are offered arbitration. If we refuse, the press and public will most assuredly say that our position is untenable. If we persistently refuse to submit the entire matter to arbitration, we must prepare to cope with the following difficulties in conducting a struggle."(1) The strongest combination of employers the North of England ever saw."(2) Stacks of coal and coke laid up in every direction of the county."(3) Coal and coke brought from other districts to supply what we may be short of supplying from our own heaps."(4) The press and public opinion would be against us."

"(1) The strongest combination of employers the North of England ever saw.

"(2) Stacks of coal and coke laid up in every direction of the county.

"(3) Coal and coke brought from other districts to supply what we may be short of supplying from our own heaps.

"(4) The press and public opinion would be against us."

The dispute was brought to an amicable settlement by the whole question being referred to open arbitration. By that decision the Association passed out of the era of negotiations into that of arbitration re underground wages. As that was the first step in the path of conciliation it may be useful to give in detail the proceedings. The inquirer after further information may very usefully consult the printed proceedings of the case. There were for arbitratorsMr G. Leeman and Mr D. Dale acting for the owners, and Mr L. Jones and Mr T. Burt for the workmen. The case was conducted by Mr W. Armstrong and Mr L. Wood (now Sir Lindsay Wood) on behalf of the employers. Mr W. Crawford and Mr J. Forman were for the employed. There were with these arbitrators and conductors other gentlemen, whose names we can find no record of either in the press, the owners' books, or in ours.

The first meeting was held on Tuesday, 13th October, in the Queen's Head Hotel (now the Liberal Club), Newcastle. After a long sitting the case was adjourned until the 15th, when Mr Forman on behalf of the workmen, and because there had not been sufficient time to prepare a reply to the employers' case, asked for an adjournment. Mr Crawford said they had "sat twenty-eight consecutive hours, and never moved the whole of the time." It was therefore decided to adjourn until the 16th. During the discussion Mr Crawford made the request that the owners should produce their books in order that both costs of production and the selling prices of coal might be obtained. The fourth day's proceedings was held on the 19th. The arbitrators met on the 26th in London. Failing to agree, they agreed to refer the question to the Right Hon. Russell Gurney, M.P., whom they met on the 30th in the Abbey Hotel, Malvern. On November 3rd he gave his award. Without giving the whole of the award it will be explained by a quotation from a circular sent out by Mr Crawford: "The reduction is as follows:â€”At present time our advances amount to 43 per cent. over 1871 prices. This by Mr Gurney's award is reduced to 30. That is a reduction of 9per cent. on the gross wages and will take effect from Monday, November 2nd."

At that time the attention of the county was turned to the sanitary condition of the mining villages. The Committee took a return in which they asked eleven questions:

"What is the size of your best houses? What size are the rooms, and how many to a house? Size of single houses? Is there attached to your houses or on the colliery any private accommodation? Are there any channels or underground sewers to take away the dirty water and other refuse made in the houses? Are the houses damp and incompatible with health, or dry and healthy? Are there many of the members who have houses of their own? What number of double and single houses have you? Have you a good or bad supply of water and whence supplied? What is your school accommodation, national or colliery? Have you a Mechanics' Institute? Is it colliery or private property? Are there any gardens to the houses?"

W. Golightly

On Saturday, November 7th, the owners made a claim for a reduction from all the men at bank. This was before the Executive Committee. They by resolution expressed their surprise, and their opinion that they had not been treated fairly, as the employers ought to have dealt with the classes now to be affected in the arbitration just concluded. They considered that "such a mode of procedure cannot but have an injurious effect on that good and desirable understanding which has so long existed between the two Associations." The owners gave the surface men notice to terminate their engagement on 12th December. A special Council meeting was called. The questions to be decided wereâ€”first, should the Miners' Committee act for the cokemen, seeing those men were forming an association of their own, and over two-thirds of that class had joined it? Of the other classes three questions were asked: "Ought these men to follow Russell Gurney's award? Ought the reduction to be resisted or ought arbitration to be sought?" The Council decided on Saturday, December 5th, that the Cokemen's Association meet the employers themselves, but "that the members of the Joint Committee should meet them on the banksmen, screeners, labourers, etc." The arrangement come to by the Joint Committee was:

"The banking-out men having been generally classed with the underground men, should in all cases be dealt with strictly according to the terms of Mr Gurney's award, that is, remain 30 per cent. in excess of March 1871 and it was recommended that the case of men earning less than 3s. per diem be left to the consideration of individual owners."

There are two matters not dealt with in the general statement of this year. These are the appointment of Mr Forman as permanent president on 2nd May and the appointment of the first clerk. The first was Mr A. Hall Shotton; but his stay was short, and he was succeeded by Mr W. Golightly, who was in the office for over thirty-one years.

The third Reductionâ€”Co-operative Collieryâ€”The demand for better Housesâ€”The fourth Reduction

Earlyin the year the Association was called upon to face another reduction in wages. The ExecutiveCommittee had sent some requests with respect to hewers putting in the foreshifts and working hard places. The owners sent a reply on January 15th refusing the requests, and at the same time saying, such things being asked of them in depressed times were offensive, and would not have to be repeated. In the same letter Mr Crawford was told that the employers had that day "unanimously decided to ask for a reduction in the wages of all men employed about coal mines and that the Standing (Joint) Committee be instructed to discuss the matter of such reductions and the date when it should commence."

To this the Executive Committee replied that they would pass over the question of reduction as it was premature to interfere with it, but they complained of the tone of the letter sent to them, which was very unbecoming, to say the least. They had a perfect right to send the requests. No doubt they were annoying. "But however annoying a request properly made may be, it ought, in keeping with the common courtesies of life, to be denied without imperiousness. It was annoying to them as workmen to receive an application for a reduction."

The response to that reached Mr Crawford on the 30th. It informed him that they (the owners) felt it needful to claim such reduction as will leave the wages of both underground and surface men ten per cent. in excess of 1871, to take effect from the pay ending 13th March. Mr Bunning added: "As it is our usual custom not to carry out a resolution of this nature without first having a consultation with you, I am requested to ask you to make such arrangements with your clients as may enableyou to meet our Committee at an early date to decide."

A special Council meeting was called for the 6th of February to consider whether a deputation should meet the employers; if so, how many and whom they should be. The Council decided that as a deputation the members of the Joint Committee should meet the employers, and Mr Crawford was deputed to go to South Wales to inquire into the condition of things amongst the miners there.

At an adjourned Council held on February 10th it was again considered, and the following resolution carried:â€”

In looking at the last reduction, and the undue advantage the coal owners have taken on us in making a call on the bankmen so soon after the arbitration case, that we in future entertain no more reductions on one separate class of workmen, without knowing their intentions as to the rest of the workmen in our Association.

The meeting with the employers took place on 16th February, when six reasons were given by them why the reduction was needed: Many collieries were working at ruinous losses; a terribly increased cost of production; at many collieries the men were restricting their work; a greatly increased number of men were needed; the increased cost owing to the great decrease in the working hours; and the fact that Mr Gurney's award was delayed two months.

The employers again issued notices, but not to all men or all collieries. The Committee immediately called a Council, and drew the attention of the lodges to two resolutions which were passed on April 21st and December 5th, 1874.

That in future when there are notices given for a reduction of wages throughout the county, and where a colliery or collieries of men do not get their notices, they be requested to give them in.Where men who are members of our Association and who have not received notice should these refuse to give in their notices, their names be struck from our books and never again re-entered.

That in future when there are notices given for a reduction of wages throughout the county, and where a colliery or collieries of men do not get their notices, they be requested to give them in.

Where men who are members of our Association and who have not received notice should these refuse to give in their notices, their names be struck from our books and never again re-entered.

In addition to this the Committee issued a circular in which they reviewed the condition of trade, and pointed out that in many districts life and death struggles were taking place. These men were being supported by voluntary contributions from other mining districts and the public. If Durham came out large support would be cut off, and the state here rendered more dangerous. In Northumberland and Cleveland arbitrations were proceeding. There was only two weeks' money in the funds, therefore the best policy was to accept arbitration. Facing these circumstances they advised the acceptance of arbitration. The employers would be compelled to show sufficient reasons for a reduction. If this were not done no umpire would reduce the wages. This advice was accepted at the Council on 8th March, and it was resolved to refer the whole matter to arbitration on the prices and wages ruling at hearing of the last case, that Mr L. Jones and W. Crawford be arbitrators, and the preparing and conducting of the case be left to the Executive Committee. On March 10th they met the employers, and made arrangements for the proceedings and the withdrawal of the notices, and they informed the members that in every case where the workmen had given notices they must at once be withdrawn.

The first meeting on the arbitration case was held on April 15th in the Queen's Head Hotel, Newcastle. The Right Hon. W. E. Forster, M.P., was the umpire. The arbitrators for the employers were Mr W. Armstrong and Mr D. Dale; for the workmen Mr L. Jones and Mr W. Crawford. The case was a dual one, a combination of the Miners' and Cokemen's Associations. The latter agreed to accept the statement made by the employers in the miners' case and then put in a separate reply. The following was the order of the procedure:â€”The employers stated their case. Then the miners replied on the first day. Second day, the owners' reply to the miners, the miners' rejoinder; the cokemen's reply to the employers, then their reply to the cokemen. The third day's sitting was taken up by the cokemen's rejoinder. The same arbitrators acted in both cases, but Mr Jackson Wilson presented the cokemen's case. The umpire gave his award on the 23rd of Aprilâ€”the reduction being five per cent. from the underground wages and four per cent. from those of the surface men.

At the Council meeting held on May 4th a resolution was carried urging upon the Miners' National Association to use their influence to have established an important Board of Arbitration, such Board to say: "First, what amount of interest ought to be claimed for capital invested in coal-mining operations; secondly, whether or not the books showing the profit and loss accounts of the employers ought to be laid before the Arbitrators in deciding a matter in dispute as to the rise or fall of the wages of their workmen; and thirdly, what portion of the profits ought to go to the capitalist and what portion to the labourer."

The programme for a Council meeting held on 21st August 1875 contained a resolution dealing with the providing of a better class of houses.

"That we appeal to the owners to have better houses right throughout the county for the members of the Durham Miners' Association, and not to make such difference between brakesmen and members of the Association. We believe that one man has the same right to a good house as another."

In the balance sheet for the first quarter of the year is found an item relating to the Coop Collieryâ€”3100 shares in the Coop Mining Company, Â£15,500. For some time, and especially during 1874, the idea of a co-operative mine had been agitating the two northern counties. Meetings were held in various parts, addressed chiefly by gentlemen from Northumberland. The idea fell upon good ground in Durham, for from time to time it was found on the Council programme, and, so far as the Association is concerned, bore fruit in the shares mentioned. The fruit was not merely collective, but on every hand those who could took out shares, even to the extent of all their savings. The Committee of management were:

Dr J. H. Rutherford,Chairman.Mr W. Crawford.Mr T. Burt, M.P.Mr J. Forman.Mr J. Nixon.Mr W. H. Patterson.Mr R. Young.Mr J. Byson.Mr J. Brown.Mr G. Fryer.Mr R. Cramon.E. Lowther, Secretary.

â€”all good men, and, if it could have been established, would have been. They were all tried co-operatorsand ardent believers in productive co-operation. But the enterprise was doomed from the first. The name of the colliery was Monkwood, near Chesterfield, Derbyshire.

On the 25th of September 1875 the Committee submitted a balance sheet for the year ending 30th June. The auditors were Benson, Eland & Co. They informed the members that after depreciation as per rule the net loss up to date was Â£10,863, 15s. 8d. The Committee in presenting the balance sheet said it had arisen from circumstances over which they had no control. The output of the colliery had never reached to their anticipations. The cost of production, and the unsatisfactory state in which the Society found the colliery, had occasioned the loss. The vendor had not truthfully represented the output. They had filed a Bill in Chancery against him for the recision of the contract and the return of the purchase money. The loss to Durham was Â£15,500.

On 6th November the ex-Committee was called upon to face the fourth reduction. They received a letter on that date from the employers conveying to them a demand for twenty per cent. reduction from all underground earnings, including banksmen, and twelve and a half per cent. off all above-ground labour, to take effect from the 27th. The Committee replied protesting against the imperative way in which the demand was made, and resolved to ask the county whether a deputation should attend Newcastle to hear the reasons assigned for the reduction. The county agreed to send a deputation and offer open arbitration, the deputation being the Joint Committee, and that a Council meeting beheld on the 27th to hear the report. The Committee met the owners on Monday, the 22nd, and the offer of open arbitration was accepted, the Court to consist of four arbitrators and an umpire.

Death of Burdon Sandersonâ€”Appointment of Mr Meynellâ€”The third Arbitrationâ€”The General Treasurer and Executiveâ€”The new Hallâ€”Deputies' Association

In January 1876 the Joint Committee chairman, Mr R. B. Sanderson, was in a serious railway collision on the Great Northern Railway at Abbots Ripton. He was not killed outright, but was so seriously injured that he died shortly afterwards. He was the first chairman, and sat all through the meetings up to his death. The Joint Committee at their meeting on January 28th passed a resolution paying high respect to his character and to his ability and impartiality in his decisions. From that time until 11th September the chairman was selected from the meetingpro tem. On that date Mr Meynell was appointed, and from that time until his death in 1900 he occupied that position to his credit and with fairness to everyone concerned. It would be incorrect to say that no fault was ever found with him; but it is well known that at his death all who had been at the Joint Committee regretted it, and he has been sorely missed, because he had years of experienceâ€”experience which is worth a great deal in that position.

The proceedings in the arbitration did not proceedfurther in 1875, but rested over until January 1876. The arbitrators were the same as in the previous case, and the umpire chosen by them was C. H. Hopwood, M.P. The advocates for the owners were Mr H. T. Morton, Mr Lindsay Wood, and Mr T. Wood Bunning, the Secretary of the Owners' Association, and for the workmen Mr J. Forman and Mr W. H. Patterson. The names of the Committee who assisted were:

N. Wilkinson.J. Holliday.M. Thompson.W. Prentice.G. Parker.J. Cummings.C. Kidd.C. Cooper.J. Crowther.F. Smith.G. Jackson.J. Day.G. Newton.

The first meeting was held on Tuesday, 18th January 1876, in the Queen's Head Hotel, Newcastle. There were two days' sittings. At the close of the sittings in Newcastle the arbitrators and umpire held a meeting in London on 16th February, when the umpire gave his award that there should be a reduction of seven per cent. underground and four per cent. on the surface.

Out of this case and the meeting in London there arose a serious disturbance. The treasurer (Mr Wilkinson) refused to pay the Committee for going to London. He alleged that they went without authority. They went on the vote of seven out of seventeen members of the Committee, the rest being either absent or lying neutral. Their going, he said, was a waste of public money. He finally showed there had been an extravagant expenditureand charges for unnecessary meetings. Along with his explanation he sent out a detailed statement in which it is shown that for one fortnight they had received sums varying from Â£7, 1s. 9d. to Â£11, 15s. 7d., or an average of Â£8, 14s. 11d. per man. For another fortnight the average worked out at Â£12, 12s. each. To this the Committee made a long reply, but all unavailing, for at the Council meeting held on March 4th, 1876, the following resolution was carried:â€”

"That the members of Executive Committee who went to London be expelled, and that they have no payment for going."

By another resolution the number of the Committee was reduced to nine.

The result was to leave only three Committee men to transact the business until a new Committee was elected. A word of explanation may be necessary. At the election of Committee in December 1875 three new men were elected. These were C. Simpson, W. Gordon, and J. Wilson. As the arbitration was proceeding when the election of 1875 took place the Executive Committee asked the members whether they should be allowed to continue in office until it was finished. This was granted, and as a consequence the newly elected members did not take their places until the decision was given. The Durham Miners' Triumvirate ruled until May 4th, when the full Committee was elected.

As a further result of the dispute between the treasurer and Committee certain rules were suggested by the Executive Committee and approved by Council on 29th April.

(1) That in future there be no night sittings of the Committee.(2) For a long time, a custom has existed of the Committee, asking questions on their reassembling after dinner hours. These questions were put on paper during the forenoon and handed in to be read after dinner. It will be seen, that this practice can be abused, and made to lengthen out Committee meetings to any extent. That this practice be entirely abolished unless it be a mere asking a question from the Secretary. The question and answer to be printed on the Minutes; but no discussion whatever to be held on the matter.(3) That the General Secretary alone have the power both to call and disperse Committee meetings.(4) That the Committee have no power to either shorten their hours or alter modes of payment.

(1) That in future there be no night sittings of the Committee.

(2) For a long time, a custom has existed of the Committee, asking questions on their reassembling after dinner hours. These questions were put on paper during the forenoon and handed in to be read after dinner. It will be seen, that this practice can be abused, and made to lengthen out Committee meetings to any extent. That this practice be entirely abolished unless it be a mere asking a question from the Secretary. The question and answer to be printed on the Minutes; but no discussion whatever to be held on the matter.

(3) That the General Secretary alone have the power both to call and disperse Committee meetings.

(4) That the Committee have no power to either shorten their hours or alter modes of payment.

In a letter bearing date May 19th the employers made another demand for a considerable reduction of wages both above and below ground, and fixing Saturday, the 27th, as the date for a meeting upon the matter. On that date nothing definite was done, and an adjournment took place until 13th June. A special Council was called for June 17th, when lodges were asked to instruct their representatives what should be done in the matter. In the meantime the Committee issued a circular, giving an account of the meeting with the employers, and informing the members that the owners' demand was for fifteen per cent. off underground labour and ten per cent. off surface labour, or they were willing to refer the whole question to arbitration in order to avoid a stoppage of work. They (the Committee) then urged the acceptance of arbitration at once. To refuse it would be to runcounter to the efforts of working men in the past who "had fought some of their most severe struggles in trying to enforce arbitration as a means of settling their trade disputes." Many hundreds of thousands of pounds had to be spent before the employers would even recognise the right of the workmen to the merest inquiry in advances or reductions of wages. The employers claimed the right to be the sole judges in matters of that kind.

"When the employers arrogated to themselves the right to judge both for them and us, we were not slow in applying the words tyranny, despotism, and even villainy to their actions. Don't let us then be guilty of an imprudence, both by a repudiation of our own principles and going into a battle when everything is against us."

The Committee supported that bold and candid statement by drawing attention to the success which had attended the arbitration in the past. "If ever a body of men ought to be satisfied with a means of adjusting differences we ought with arbitration. It has in every instance so far immensely reduced the application of the owners. There is no other means by which we could have fared better. On every occasion the owners complained about the insufficient amount awarded them." The alternative to arbitration was a strike. That course would be madness. There was a complete stagnation in trade, nowhere more felt than in Durham. Pits were working half time, and there were hundreds of men who could not find an hour's work. To strike would be to jeopardise "an organisation which in the very short space of time has done morefor its members than any other trades' organisation that ever existed." They urged other reasons in as forcible a manner, and concluded by saying, if arbitration were refused and a struggle entered upon, there could be but one end, "that of utter and terrible defeat for the miners of this county."

Towards the end of May preparations were being made for opening the new Hall, and a return was taken as to the mode of procedure. The place of meetings had been on a movable plan. At first the Committee meetings were held in 58 North Road, Durham. Then both Councils and Committees were held in the Market Hall. As the organisation increased the Councils alternated between the Shakespeare Hall and the Town Hall, and the Committees in the Western Hotel, Western Hill, Durham. The opening of the Hall took place on Saturday, June 3rd, the occasion being the consideration of a ten per cent. reduction at a special Council meeting. The cost of the buildings was Â£6000, and the architect, Mr T. Oliver, Newcastleâ€”the council-room fifty-two feet by thirty-four; the tower thirty feet above the body of the Hall. The clock cost Â£130. The arrangements as to the lighting of the clock are: the city authorities pay for the gas, while the miners keep the clock in repair. For some time the City Council refused to bear the charge for lighting, and at first only agreed for six months as a trial.

There was no opening ceremony beyond a few words from the president, Mr Forman. The delegates took their places as per number of seat. Mr Forman then said he was glad to welcome them to their new Hall.

"The noble building had been built with the money of the working miners of the county of Durham. It was a great example of their forethought, their economy, industry, enterprise and unity, and he hoped that it would be one more link that would bind them together in the cause of mutual help and mutual endeavour, and be another great supporting prop to the noble edifice they had reared in their Association. He was sorry that the first business at the opening was to be the unpleasant one of discussing a ten per cent. reduction."

The first Council meeting was held in the new Hall on 17th June, and the first resolution was "that we refuse to send the reduction question to arbitration." The spirit of war was in the air, at least among the men who attended the lodge meeting to consider the subject at first. During the next week, however, a ballot of the members was taken, the result of which was declared at a special Council meetingâ€”the voting being for arbitration, 20,190; against, 16,435; majority for, 3,755. There were resolutions passed to remit the question to open arbitration: That the Committee get up the case, but "if any person has to accompany the arbitrators out of the county, only the two men who conduct the case do so." At the same meeting Mr N. Thompson and T. Mitcheson (two of the London Committee) were removed from the trusteeship, and their places filled by John Wilson, Wheatley Hill, and W. Gordon, Ravensworth.

The arbitration commenced on 29th August in the Queen's Head Hotel, Newcastle, the umpire being G. J. Shaw-Lefevre, M.P. The arbitrators for the employers were Mr W. Armstrong and H. T. Morton,Mr L. Jones and Mr W. Crawford acting again for the workmen. The advocates on the owners' side were Mr Lindsay Wood and Mr J. B. Simpson and Mr T. W. Bunning; for the workmen were Mr J. Forman and Mr N. Wilkinson. There were two sittings. There is no need to review the arguments or facts in these cases, as that would extend our work too much, but there is one interesting point advanced by the employers in their rejoinder to the workmen's case. It refers to the cost of production at that time over 1871. The increase was thirty-seven or thirty-five per cent. higher than 1871â€”the items being, wages 14.68 per cent., and the effect of the Mines Bill 22.67 per cent. Assuming that the cost arising from the operation of the mines was divided between employers and workmenâ€”eleven per cent. to eachâ€”there was still 26.35 per cent. to the disadvantage of the employer. On the credit side coal was only 5Â½ or 8.8 per cent. higher than in 1871, and therefore their conclusion was that the claim for fifteen and ten per cent. reduction was amply justified. At the conclusion of the two days' sitting it was agreed that the arbitrators should meet on the 16th of September, and if they failed to agree the umpire would decide. That meeting took place, and the umpire was asked to decide, which he did on September 25th, and awarded a reduction of six per cent. in the wages underground and four per cent. in the wages paid to surface men.

No sooner was the arbitration finished than the Association found itself face to face with a difficulty of a different but yet perplexing nature. The employers conceived the idea of separating the deputies from the miners. Their reasons for taking this stepare stated in a subsequent letter. The mode of procedure they adopted was to exempt the deputies from the six per cent. reduction, providing a majority of the deputies on any colliery would leave the Miners' Association. The employers said their action was in response to a request by some of the deputies. The action drew from the Executive Committee a strong remonstrance. They pleaded with the deputies and protested against the action of the owners. The circular they issued was a lengthy one. Our object will be served if we quote a few portions. Addressing the deputies, they said:

"It appears in response to some application made by some of you the Owners' Committee have agreed that where a majority of deputies on any colliery are not members of ours, they will recommend that such deputies be freed from the recent reduction. Call this offer by what name you will it is neither more nor less than a special kind of bribery held out to you and we regret to hear, that some of you have been imprudent enough to accept it. Why make this difference between those who belong and those who do not belong to our Association? It is not because they respect the one party more than the other, or that the party who have left us are any better workmen or in any way more useful to the owners than those deputies who still belong to our Association. The most unknown amongst you as to your past history, or the most casual observer of present doings, ought to know that the motive which has induced the Owners' Committee to make this offer is not respect for you as a class, is not because they think your responsibilities are increased more than heretofore, neither is it because they think you underpaid, but it is because they want to induce you to sever your connection with an Association which has hitherto been able to gain many advantages for members and for none more than for your class. They offer you an inch now in order that they may take from you a foot hereafter. Most of you can remember the time (only five years ago) when your wages varied from 3s. 4d. to 3s. 8d. per day of eight hours' working, while with the recent reduction of six per cent. your wages are now 4s. 8d. for 7Â½ hours' working, or an advance in time and money of 39.58 per cent."

The circular then draws attention to a portion of a letter from the deputies who had left the miners to those of another colliery, and to the resolution of the Owners' Association. The portion of the deputies' letter said:

"If any member of our [the Deputies'] Association leaves and starts to hew, and has to go back to the Hewers' Association, the two pounds' entrance fee will be paid out of the Deputies' Association."

The resolution of the Owners read:

That this Association thinks that deputies, like overmen, should be the agents of the masters, and that under these circumstances it is imperative that they should not be restricted by any Trades Union resolutions.

In relation to these the Committee point out that they (the deputies) could not honestly be members even of the Deputies' Association, for by the stipulation of the employers they were not to be restricted by any Trade Union regulations. "It will thus be seen that if you do this, you sell your birthright, your independence, your manhood, your all, not even for a necessitous 'mess of pottage' but for an insignificant present advantage, in order that you may bring upon yourselves a future permanent and great evil."

Some of the deputies were desirous of serving two masters: they wanted to remain in the Miners' and at the same time enter the Deputies' Association for the sake of the six per cent. At the Council held on Saturday, 30th September, a resolution was carried declaring "that the Deputies be not allowed to remain in our Association and also become members of what is called the Deputies' Association." At the same time a sharp correspondence took place between the Owners' Association and the Miners', in which Mr Bunning sent a letter, bearing date 3rd November, which contained a protest and an extenuation.

November 3rd, 1876.RESOLUTION OF COAL OWNERSThe members of this Association regret that the Representatives of the Miners' Association after five years' amicable correspondence, should have thought it necessary to communicate to them so uncourteous and offensive a document as that bearing date 24th October 1876, and relating to the resolution passed respecting the deputies, on October 11th, 1876. And, as this resolution was arrived at after mature deliberation, and from the conviction that both the safety of the mine, and discipline of the pits, are seriously endangered, by having the deputies subject to the restrictions imposed by the Miners' Union, no good can possibly arise from any discussion of the subject at a meeting of the two Associations.

November 3rd, 1876.

RESOLUTION OF COAL OWNERS

The members of this Association regret that the Representatives of the Miners' Association after five years' amicable correspondence, should have thought it necessary to communicate to them so uncourteous and offensive a document as that bearing date 24th October 1876, and relating to the resolution passed respecting the deputies, on October 11th, 1876. And, as this resolution was arrived at after mature deliberation, and from the conviction that both the safety of the mine, and discipline of the pits, are seriously endangered, by having the deputies subject to the restrictions imposed by the Miners' Union, no good can possibly arise from any discussion of the subject at a meeting of the two Associations.

The reply sent by the Executive repudiated all intention to be uncourteous or offensive in language,but at the same time they repeated the charge of bribery, for, said they, "viewed from the most favourable standpoint, your action in the matter can only be characterised as that of holding out a manifestly unfair inducement to the deputies." They asked what the employers would have thought, if, having the power, the Miners' Association had held out inducements to charge men? They reminded the owners that they asked for a reduction off all wages, and the award of six per cent. applied to all underground labour. Considering these facts they could not but look upon the action as a covert attack on the Association.

John Forman

The Executive acting on instruction from Council took a return, which resulted as follows:â€”

Total number of Deputiesâ€”2557.Total number in our Associationâ€”936.Total number in Deputies' Associationâ€”1621.Total number paid old wageâ€”1449.Total number paid reduced wageâ€”1044.

Deputiesâ€”Sliding Scaleâ€”Relief Fundâ€”Emigration

The dispute about the deputies opened the year. A very lengthy correspondence took place on the subject between the Employers' and Miners' Associations. On January 23rd the whole of it was sent to the lodges. They were informed that the Committee had done all they could to avert a conflict on the question. In keeping with a resolution of Council, the owners had been offered arbitration, which they had refused. The resolution referredto contained the alternative of giving the whole of the notices providing arbitration was refused. Now, to carry out the instructions contained in that resolution the Committee forwarded the ballot tickets for the purpose of taking the vote in accordance with the rule. They concluded by saying: "Whatever the result may be arising out of this case the entire onus of blame must rest with the owners themselves." A resolution was placed on the programme for Council on February 3rd by the ex-Committee asking "that the deputies who are still with us be paid the 6 per cent. out of the General Fund of the Association," but it lost. In addition, the subject was laid before the Central Board of the Miners' National Union. They expressed regret and surprise at the action of the employers in paying one portion of the deputies more than the others, and were of the opinion "that there can only be one object in view in this policy, the disruption of the Miners' Union. The Board earnestly appeal to the mine owners to withdraw from the position they have taken up. Should they fail to do this the Board will feel called upon to ask the members of the National Union to yield all the support to the Durham Miners' Association they can under the circumstances." Nothing further was done in the matter during 1877 except an occasional Council resolution. We shall, however, meet the same question in a few years.

Early in the year the Association was entering seriously into a new phase of our industrial relation with the employers and taking another step in the path of amicability by the arrangement of the sliding scale. For some time there had been an inclination in that direction. By the Minutes of the Executive Committee members were informed that negotiations were proceeding with a view to establishing a scale, and at the Council meeting held on December 9th, 1876, the following resolution was on the programme:â€”"Seeing that coals are up, we ask for 25 per cent. advance." The decision was that the question rest over until the sliding scale question is settled.

On February 16th a letter was received from the employers containing the following resolution:â€”

"This Association having anxiously considered the further serious depression in the Durham coal trade and the necessity for endeavouring to avert in some prompt and thorough manner the complete collapse which has set in to the ruin of many owners, and the casting adrift of large bodies of men, feels compelled to ask the Miners' Association to concur in a further reduction in wages and readjustment of hours."

The Executive Committee met the owners on Thursday, February 22nd, when they were informed that the depressed trade and lower prices demanded a reduction of ten per cent. from underground and six per cent. from the bank workmen, "coupled with an increase in the working hours which would, in a great measure, compensate the men for the reduction in their wages." The Committee could neither see the necessity for a reduction nor could they see the compensation in the lengthening of hours. They,however, arranged another meeting for Friday, 9th March, when they would further discuss the sliding scale, and, failing that, the reduction. In the statement explaining these proceedings the Committee placed before the members two scalesâ€”one proposed by them and the other by the owners. It will be interesting and instructive to give these scales.

December 22nd, 1876.

SLIDING SCALE PROPOSED BY THE DURHAM COAL OWNERS

Back to Index Next