diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66887-0.txt | 31776 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66887-0.zip | bin | 660862 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66887-h.zip | bin | 824837 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66887-h/66887-h.htm | 41893 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66887-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 118763 -> 0 bytes |
8 files changed, 17 insertions, 73669 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d461452 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #66887 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/66887) diff --git a/old/66887-0.txt b/old/66887-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 5b27683..0000000 --- a/old/66887-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,31776 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The History of Trade Unionism, by Sidney -Webb - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The History of Trade Unionism - Revised edition, extended to 1920 - -Author: Sidney Webb - Beatrice Potter Webb - -Release Date: December 5, 2021 [eBook #66887] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -Produced by: MWS, SF2001, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at - https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images - generously made available by The Internet Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF TRADE UNIONISM *** - - - - - THE HISTORY OF TRADE UNIONISM - - - - - THE HISTORY OF TRADE UNIONISM: - BY SIDNEY AND BEATRICE WEBB - (REVISED EDITION, EXTENDED TO 1920). - - - LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. - 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON - FOURTH AVENUE & 30TH STREET, NEW YORK - BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS - 1920 - - - - -INTRODUCTION TO THE EDITION OF 1920 - - -The thirty years that have elapsed since 1890, down to which date we -brought the first edition of this book, have been momentous in the -history of British Trade Unionism. The Trade Union Movement, which -then included scarcely 20 per cent of the adult male manual-working -wage-earners, now includes over 60 per cent. Its legal and -constitutional status, which was then indefinite and precarious, has -now been explicitly defined and embodied in precise and absolutely -expressed statutes. Its internal organisation has been, in many cases, -officially adopted as part of the machinery of public administration. -Most important of all, it has equipped itself with an entirely new -political organisation, extending throughout the whole of Great -Britain, inspired by large ideas embodied in a comprehensive programme -of Social Reconstruction, which has already achieved the position -of “His Majesty’s Opposition,” and now makes a bid for that of “His -Majesty’s Government.” So great an advance within a single generation -makes the historical account of Trade Union development down to 1920 -equivalent to a new book. - -We have taken the opportunity to revise, and at some points to amplify, -our description of the origin and early struggles of Trade Unionism -in this country. We have naturally examined the new material that has -been made accessible during the past quarter of a century, in order -to incorporate in our work whatever has thus been added to public -knowledge. But we have not found it necessary to make any but trifling -changes in our original interpretation of the historical development. -The Home Office papers are now available in the Public Record Office -for the troubled period at the beginning of the nineteenth century; -and these, together with the researches of Professor George Unwin, Mr. -and Mrs. Hammond, Professor Graham Wallas, Mr. Mark Hovell, and Mr. -M. Beer, have enabled us both to verify and to amplify our statements -at certain points. For the recent history of Trade Unionism we have -found most useful the collections and knowledge of the Labour Research -Department, established in 1913; and we gratefully acknowledge the -assistance in facts, suggestions, and criticisms that we have had from -Mr. G. D. H. Cole and Mr. R. Page Arnot. We owe thanks, also, to Miss -Ivy Schmidt for unwearied assistance in research. - -The reader must not expect to find, in this historical volume, either -an analysis of Trade Union organisation, policy, and methods, or -any judgement upon the validity of its assumptions, its economic -achievements, or its limitations. On these things we have written at -great length, and very explicitly, in our _Industrial Democracy_, -and in other books described in the pages at the end of this volume, -to which we must refer those desirous of knowing whether the Trade -Unionism of which we now write merely the story is a good or a bad -element in industry and in the State. - - SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB. - - 41 Grosvenor Road, - Westminster, - _January 1920_. - - - - -PREFACE TO THE ORIGINAL EDITION OF 1894 - - -It is not our intention to delay the reader here by a conventional -preface. As every one knows, the preface is never written until the -story is finished; and this story will not be finished in our time, or -for many generations after us. A word or two as to our method of work -and its results is all that we need say before getting to our main -business. - -Though we undertook the study of the Trade Union movement, not to -prove any proposition of our own, but to discover what problems it had -to present to us, our minds were not so blank on the subject that we -had no preconception of the character of these problems. We thought -they would almost certainly be economic, pointing a common economic -moral; and that expectation still seems to us so natural, that if it -had been fulfilled we should have accepted its fulfilment without -comment. But it was not so. Our researches were no sooner fairly in -hand than we began to discover that the effects of Trade Unionism -upon the conditions of labour, and upon industrial organisation and -progress, are so governed by the infinite technical variety of our -productive processes, that they vary from industry to industry and -even from trade to trade; and the economic moral varies with them. -Where we expected to find an economic thread for a treatise, we found -a spider’s web; and from that moment we recognised that what we had -first to write was not a treatise, but a history. And we saw that -even a history would be impossible to follow unless we separated the -general history of the whole movement from the particular histories -of thousands of trade societies, some of which have maintained a -continuous existence from the last century, whilst others have cropped -up, run their brief course, and disappeared. Thus, when we had finished -our labour of investigating the records of practically every important -trade society from one end of the kingdom to the other, and accumulated -piles of extracts, classified under endless trades and subdivisions -of trades, we found that we must exclude from the first volume all -but a small selection from those documents which appeared to us most -significant with regard to the development of the general movement. -Many famous strikes and lock-outs, many interesting trade disputes, -many sensational prosecutions, and some furious outbursts of riot and -crime, together with many drier matters relating to particular trades, -have had either to be altogether omitted from our narrative, or else -accorded a strictly subordinate reference in their relation to the -history of Trade Unionism as a whole. All analysis of the economic -effects of Trade Union action we reserve for a subsequent volume on the -Problems of Trade Unionism, for which we shall draw more fully from the -annals of the separate unions. And in that volume the most exacting -seeker for economic morals will be more than satisfied; for there will -be almost as many economic morals drawn as societies described. - -That history of the general movement, to which we have confined -ourselves here, will be found to be part of the political history -of England. In spite of all the pleas of modern historians for less -history of the actions of governments, and more descriptions of the -manners and customs of the governed, it remains true that history, -however it may relieve and enliven itself with descriptions of the -manners and morals of the people, must, if it is to be history at -all, follow the course of continuous organisations. The history -of a perfectly democratic State would be at once the history of a -government and of a people. The history of Trade Unionism is the -history of a State within our State, and one so jealously democratic -that to know it well is to know the English working man as no reader -of middle-class histories can know him. From the early years of the -eighteenth century down to the present day, Democracy, Freedom of -Association, _Laisser-faire_, Regulation of the Hours and Wages of -Labour, Co-operative Production, Free Trade, Protection, and many other -distinct and often contradictory political ideals, have from time to -time seized the imagination of the organised wage-earners and made -their mark on the course of the Trade Union movement. And, since 1867 -at least, wherever the ideals have left their mark on Trade Unionism, -Trade Unionism has left its mark on politics. We shall be able to show -that some of those overthrows of our party governments which have -caused most surprise in the middle and upper classes, and for which the -most far-fetched reasons have been given by them and their journalists -and historians after the event, carry their explanation on the surface -for any one who knows what the Trade Unionists of the period were -thinking. Such demonstrations, however, will be purely incidental, as -we have written throughout of Trade Unionism for its own sake, and -not for that of the innumerable sidelights which it throws on party -politics. - -In our concluding chapter, which we should perhaps offer as an appendix -rather than as part of the regular plan of the volume, we have -attempted to give a bird’s-eye view of the Trade Union world of to-day, -with its unequal distribution, its strong sectional organisation -and defective political machinery, its new governing class of trade -officials--above all, its present state of transition in methods, aims, -and policy, in the face of the multitude of unsettled constitutional, -economic, and political problems with which it stands confronted. - -A few words upon the work of collecting materials for our work may -prove useful to those who may hereafter come to reap in the same field. -In the absence of any exhaustive treatment of any period of Trade -Union history we have to rely mainly upon our own investigations. -But every student of the subject must acknowledge the value of Dr. -Brentano’s fertile researches into English working-class history, and -of Mr. George Howell’s thoroughly practical exposition of the Trade -Unionism of his own school and his own time. Perhaps the most important -published material on the subject is the _Report on Trade Societies and -Strikes_ issued by the Social Science Association in 1860, a compact -storehouse of carefully sifted facts which compares favourably with the -enormous bulk of scrappy and unverified information collected by the -five historic official inquiries into Trade Unionism between 1824 and -1894. We have, moreover, found a great many miscellaneous facts about -Trade Unions in periodical literature and ephemeral pamphlets in the -various public libraries all over the country. To facilitate the work -of future students we append to this volume a complete list of such -published materials as we have been able to discover. For the early -history of combinations we have had to rely upon the public records, -old newspapers, and miscellaneous contemporary pamphlets. Thus, our -first two chapters are principally based upon the journals of the House -of Commons, the minutes of the Privy Council, the publications of the -Record Office, and the innumerable broadsheet petitions to Parliament -and old tracts relating to Trade which have been preserved in the -British Museum, the Guildhall Library, and the invaluable collection -of economic literature made by Professor H. S. Foxwell, St. John’s -College, Cambridge.[1] Most important of all, for the period prior -to 1835, are the many volumes of manuscript commentaries, newspaper -cuttings, rules, reports, pamphlets, etc., left by Francis Place, -and now in the British Museum. This unique collection, formed by the -busiest politician of his time, is indispensable, not only to the -student of working-class movements, but also to any historian of -English political or social life during the first forty years of the -century.[2] - -But the greater part of our material, especially that relating to -the present century, has come from the Trade Unionists themselves. -The offices of the older unions contain interesting archives, -sometimes reaching back to the eighteenth century--minute-books -in which generations of diligent, if unlettered, secretaries, the -true historians of a great movement, have struggled to record the -doings of their committees, and files of Trade Union periodicals, -ignored even by the British Museum, through which the plans and -aspirations of ardent working-class politicians and administrators -have been expounded month by month to the scattered branches of their -organisations. We were assured at the outset of our investigation that -no outsider would be allowed access to the inner history of some of the -old-fashioned societies. But we have found this prevalent impression -as to the jealous secrecy of the Trade Unions without justification. -The secretaries of old branches or ancient local societies have -rummaged for us their archaic chests with three locks, dating from the -eighteenth century. The surviving leaders of a bygone Trade Unionism -have ransacked their drawers to find for our use the rules and minutes -of their long-forgotten societies. In many a working man’s home in -London and Liverpool, Newcastle and Dublin--above all, in Glasgow and -Manchester--the descendants of the old skilled handicraftsmen have -unearthed “grandfather’s indentures,” or “father’s old card,” or a -tattered set of rules, to help forward the investigation of a stranger -whom they dimly recognised as striving to record the annals of their -class. The whole of the documents in the offices of the great National -and County Unions have been most generously placed at our disposal, -from the printed reports and sets of rules to the private cash accounts -and executive minute-books. In only one case has a General Secretary -refused us access to the old books of his society, and then simply on -the ground that he was himself proposing to write its history, and -regarded us as rivals in the literary field. - -Nor has this generous confidence been confined to the musty records -of the past. In the long sojourns at the various industrial centres -which this examination of local archives has necessitated, every -facility has been afforded to us for studying the actual working of -the Trade Union organisation of to-day. We have attended the sittings -of the Trades Councils in most of the large towns; we have sat through -numerous branch and members’ meetings all over the country; and one of -us has even enjoyed the exceptional privilege of being present at the -private deliberations of the Executive Committees of various national -societies, as well as at the special delegate meetings summoned by -the great federal Unions of Cotton-spinners, Cotton-weavers, and -Coal-miners for the settlement of momentous issues of trade policy, and -at the six weeks’ sessions in 1892 in which sixty chosen delegates of -the Amalgamated Society of Engineers overhauled the trade policy and -internal administration of that world-wide organisation. - -We have naturally not confined ourselves to the workmen’s side of -the case. In almost every industrial centre we have sought out -representative employers in the different industries. From them we -have received many useful hints and criticisms. But, as might have -been expected, the great captains of industry are, for the most part, -absorbed in the commercial side of their business, and are seldom -accurately acquainted with the details of the past, or even of the -present, organisation of their workmen. Of more assistance in our task -have been the secretaries of the various employers’ associations. -Especially in the ship-building ports have these gentlemen placed -at our disposal their experience in collective negotiation with the -different sections of labour, and the private statistics compiled -by their associations. But of all the employing class we have found -the working managers and foremen, who have themselves often been -workmen, the best informed and most suggestive critics of Trade Union -organisation and methods. We have often regretted that precisely this -class is the most difficult of access to the investigator of industrial -problems, and the least often called as witnesses before Royal -Commissions. - -The difficulty of welding into narrative form the innumerable details -of the thousands of distinct organisations, and of constructing out -of their separate chronicles anything like a history of the general -movement, has, we need hardly say, been very great. We are painfully -aware of the shortcomings of our work, both from a literary and from -a historical point of view. We have been encouraged in our task by -the conviction--strengthened as our investigation proceeded--that -the Trade Union records contain material of the utmost value to the -future historian of industrial and political organisation, and that -these records are fast disappearing. Many of the older archives are -in the possession of individual workmen, who are insensible of their -historical value. Among the larger societies it is not uncommon to find -only one complete set of rules, reports, circulars, etc., in existence. -A fire, a removal to new premises, or the death of an old secretary -frequently results in the disappearance of everything not actually in -daily office use. The keen investigator or collector will appreciate -the extremity of the vexation with which we have learnt on arriving at -an ancient Trade Union centre that the “old rubbish” of the office had -been “cleared out” six months before. The local public libraries, and -even the British Museum, seldom contain any of the internal Trade Union -records new or old. We have therefore not only collected every Trade -Union document that we could acquire, but we have made lengthy extracts -from, and abstracts of, the piles of minute-books, reports, rules, -circulars, pamphlets, working-class newspapers, etc., which have been -lent to us. - -This collection of material, and, indeed, the wide scope of the -investigation itself, would have been impossible if we had not had -the good fortune to secure the help of a colleague exceptionally well -qualified for the work. In Mr. F. W. Galton we have found a devoted -assistant, to whose unwearied labours we owe the extensive range of our -material and our statistics. Himself a skilled handicraftsman, and for -some time secretary to his Trade Union, he has brought to the task not -only keen intelligence and unremitting industry, but also a personal -acquaintance with the details of Trade Union life and organisation -which has rendered his co-operation of inestimable value. We have -incorporated in our last chapter a graphic sketch from his pen of the -inner life of a Trade Union. - -We have, moreover, received the most cordial assistance from all -quarters. If we were to acknowledge by name all those to whom our -thanks are due, we should set forth a list of nearly all the Trade -Union officials in the kingdom. Individual acknowledgement is in their -case the less necessary, in that many of them are our valued personal -friends. Only second to this is our indebtedness to many of the great -“captains of industry,” notably to Mr. Hugh Bell, of Middlesboro’, -and Colonel Dyer, of Elswick, and the secretaries of employers’ -associations, whose time has been freely placed at our disposal. To -Professor H. S. Foxwell, Mr. Frederic Harrison, Professor E. S. Beesly, -Mr. Robert Applegarth, and Mr. John Burns, M.P., we are especially -indebted for the loan of many scarce pamphlets and working-class -journals, whilst Mr. John Burnett and Mr. Henry Crompton have been -good enough to go through one or more of our chapters in proof, and to -improve them by numerous suggestions. And there are two dear comrades -and friends to whose repeated revision of every line of our manuscript -the volume owes whatever approach to literary merit it may possess. - -The bibliography has been prepared from our material by Mr. R. A. -Peddie, to whom, as well as to Miss Apple-yard for the laborious task -of verifying nearly all the quotations, our thanks are due. - - SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB. - - 41 Grosvenor Road, - Westminster, - _April 1894_. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] Now in the Goldsmiths’ Library at the University of London. - -[2] Place’s _Letter Books_, together with an unpublished autobiography, -preserved by his family, are now in the custody of Mr. Graham Wallas, -who is preparing a critical biography of this great reformer, which -will throw much new light on all the social and political events of -English history between 1798 and 1840 [published, 1st edition, 1898; -2nd edition, 1918]. - - - - -CONTENTS - - - CHAP. PAGE - - Introduction to the Edition of 1920 v - - Preface to the Original Edition of 1894 vii - - I. The Origins of Trade Unionism 1 - - II. The Struggle for Existence [1799-1825] 64 - - III. The Revolutionary Period [1829-1842] 113 - - IV. The New Spirit and the New Model [1843-1860] 180 - - V. The Junta and their Allies 233 - - VI. Sectional Developments [1863-1885] 299 - - VII. The Old Unionism and the New [1875-1890] 358 - - VIII. The Trade Union World [1890-1894] 422 - - IX. Thirty Years’ Growth [1890-1920] 472 - - X. The Place of Trade Unionism in the State [1890-1920] 594 - - XI. Political Organisation [1900-1920] 677 - - Appendix.--On the assumed connection between the Trade - Unions and the Gilds in Dublin--The Rules of the Grand - National Consolidated Trades Union--Sliding Scales--The - Summons to the First Trade Union Congress--Distribution - of Trade Unionists in the United Kingdom--The Progress in - Membership of particular Trade Unions--Publications on - Trade Unions and Combinations of Workmen--The Relationship - of Trade Unionism to the Government of Industry 721 - - Index 765 - - Other Works by Sidney and Beatrice Webb - - -THE HISTORY OF TRADE UNIONISM - - - - -CHAPTER I - -THE ORIGINS OF TRADE UNIONISM - - -A Trade Union, as we understand the term, is a continuous association -of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or improving the -conditions of their working lives.[3] This form of association has, as -we shall see, existed in England for over two centuries, and cannot be -supposed to have sprung at once fully developed into existence. But -although we shall briefly discuss the institutions which have sometimes -been described as the forerunners of Trade Unionism, our narrative will -commence only from the latter part of the seventeenth century, before -which date we have been unable to discover the existence in the British -Isles of anything falling within our definition. Moreover, although -it is suggested that analogous associations may have existed during -the Middle Ages in various parts of the Continent of Europe, we have -no reason to suppose that such institutions exercised any influence -whatever upon the rise and development of the Trade Union Movement in -this country. We feel ourselves, therefore, warranted, as we are indeed -compelled, to limit our history exclusively to the Trade Unions of the -United Kingdom. - -We have, by our definition, expressly excluded from our history any -account of the innumerable instances in which the manual workers have -formed ephemeral combinations against their social superiors. Strikes -are as old as history itself. The ingenious seeker of historical -parallels might, for instance, find in the revolt, 1490 B.C., of the -Hebrew brickmakers in Egypt against being required to make bricks -without straw, a curious precedent for the strike of the Stalybridge -cotton-spinners, A.D. 1892, against the supply of bad material for -their work. But we cannot seriously regard, as in any way analogous -to the Trade Union Movement of to-day, the innumerable rebellions of -subject races, the slave insurrections, and the semi-servile peasant -revolts of which the annals of history are full. These forms of the -“labour war” fall outside our subject, not only because they in no case -resulted in permanent associations, but because the “strikers” were not -seeking to improve the conditions of a contract of service into which -they voluntarily entered. - -When, however, we pass from the annals of slavery or serfdom to those -of the nominally free citizenship of the mediæval town, we are on -more debatable ground. We make no pretence to a thorough knowledge of -English town-life in the Middle Ages. But it is clear that there were -at times, alongside of the independent master craftsmen, a number of -hired journeymen and labourers, who are known to have occasionally -combined against their rulers and governors. These combinations are -stated sometimes to have lasted for months, and even for years. As -early as 1383 we find the Corporation of the City of London prohibiting -all “congregations, covins, and conspiracies of workmen.” In 1387 -the serving-men of the London cordwainers, in rebellion against the -“overseers of the trade,”[4] are reported to be aiming at making a -permanent fraternity. Nine years later the serving-men of the saddlers, -“called yeomen,” assert that they have had a fraternity of their -own, “time out of mind,” with a livery and appointed governors. The -masters declared, however, that the association was only thirteen years -old, and that its object was to raise wages.[5] In 1417 the tailors’ -“serving men and journeymen” in London have to be forbidden to dwell -apart from their masters as they hold assemblies and have formed a kind -of association.[6] Nor were these fraternities confined to London. In -1538 the Bishop of Ely reports to Cromwell that twenty-one journeymen -shoemakers of Wisbech have assembled on a hill without the town, and -sent three of their number to summon all the master shoemakers to meet -them, in order to insist upon an advance in their wages, threatening -that “there shall none come into the town to serve for that wages -within a twelve month and a day, but we woll have an harme or a legge -of hym, except they woll take an othe as we have doon.”[7] - -These instances derived from the very fragmentary materials as yet -printed, suggest that a more complete examination of the unpublished -archives might possibly disclose a whole series of journeymen -fraternities, and enable us to determine the exact constitution of -these associations. It is, for instance, by no means clear whether the -instances cited were strikes against employers, or revolts against -the authority of the gild. Our impression is that the case of the -Wisbech shoemakers, and possibly some of the others, represent the -embryo stage of a Trade Union. Supposing, therefore, that further -investigation were to prove that such ephemeral combinations by hired -journeymen against their employers did actually pass into durable -associations of like character, we should be constrained to begin our -history with the fourteenth or fifteenth century. But, after detailed -consideration of every published instance of a journeyman’s fraternity -in England, we are fully convinced that there is as yet no evidence -of the existence of any such durable and independent combination of -wage-earners against their employers during the Middle Ages. - -There are certain other cases in which associations during the -fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, which are sometimes assumed to have -been composed of journeymen,[8] maintained a continuous existence. But -in all these cases, so far as we have been able to investigate them, -the “Bachelors’ Company,” presumed to be a journeymen’s fraternity, -formed a subordinate department of the masters’ gild, by the rulers -of which it was governed. It will be obvious that associations in -which the employers dispensed the funds and appointed the officers -can bear no analogy to modern Trade Unions. Moreover, these “yeoman” -organisations or “Bachelors’ Companies” do not appear to have long -survived the sixteenth century. - -The explanation of the tardy growth of stable independent combination -among hired journeymen is, we believe, to be found in the prospects of -economic advancement which the skilled handicraftsman still possessed. -We do not wish to suggest the existence of any Golden Age in which each -skilled workman was his own master, and the wage system was unknown. -The earliest records of English town history imply the presence of -hired journeymen, who were not always contented with their wages. But -the apprenticed journeyman in the skilled handicrafts belonged, until -comparatively modern times, to the same social grade as his employer, -and was indeed usually the son of a master in the same or an analogous -trade. So long as industry was carried on mainly by small masters, -each employing but one or two journeymen, the period of any energetic -man’s service as a hired wage-earner cannot normally have exceeded -a few years, and the industrious apprentice might reasonably hope, -if not always to marry his master’s daughter, at any rate to set up -in business for himself. Any incipient organisation would always be -losing its oldest and most capable members, and would of necessity -be confined, like the Coventry journeymen’s Gild of St. George, to -“the young people,”[9] or like the ephemeral fraternity of journeymen -tailors of 1415-17, to “a race at once youthful and unstable,”[10] from -whose inexperienced ranks it would be hard to draw a supply of good -Trade Union leaders. We are therefore able to understand how it is -that, whilst industrial oppression belongs to all ages, it is not until -the changing conditions of industry had reduced to an infinitesimal -chance the journeyman’s prospect of becoming himself a master, that -we find the passage of ephemeral combinations into permanent trade -societies. This inference is supported by the experience of an -analogous case in the Lancashire of to-day. The “piecers,” who assist -at the “mules,” are employed and paid by the operative cotton-spinners -under whom they work. The “big piecer” is often an adult man, quite -as skilled as the spinner himself, from whom, however, he receives -very inferior wages. But although the cotton operatives display a -remarkable aptitude for Trade Unionism, attempts to form an independent -organisation among the piecers have invariably failed. The energetic -and competent piecer is always looking forward to becoming a spinner, -interested rather in reducing than in raising piecers’ wages. The -leaders of any incipient movement among the piecers have necessarily -fallen away from it on becoming themselves employers of the class -from which they have been promoted. But though the Lancashire piecers -have always failed to form an independent Trade Union, they are not -without their associations, in the constitution of which we may find -some hint of the relation between the gild of the master craftsmen -and the Bachelors’ Company or other subordinate association in which -journeymen may possibly have been included. The spinners have, for -their own purposes, brigaded the piecers into piecers’ associations. -These associations, membership of which is usually compulsory, form a -subordinate part of the spinners’ Trade Union, the officers of which -fix and collect the contributions, draw up the rules, dispense the -funds, and in every way manage the affairs, without in the slightest -degree consulting the piecers themselves. It is not difficult to -understand that the master craftsmen who formed the court of a mediæval -gild might, in a similar way, have found it convenient to brigade the -journeymen or other inferior members of the trade into a subordinate -fraternity, for which they fixed the quarterly dues, appointed the -“wardens” or “wardens’ substitutes,” administered the funds, and in -every way controlled the affairs, without admitting the journeymen to -any voice in the proceedings.[11] - -If further proof were needed that it was the prospect of economic -advancement that hindered the formation of permanent combinations -among the hired journeymen of the Middle Ages, we might adduce -the fact that certain classes of skilled manual workers, who had -no chance of becoming employers, do appear to have succeeded in -establishing long-lived combinations which had to be put down by law. -The masons, for instance, had long had their “yearly congregations -and confederacies made in their general chapiters assembled,” which -were expressly prohibited by Act of Parliament in 1425.[12] And the -tilers of Worcester are ordered by the Corporation in 1467 to “sett -no parliament amonge them.”[13] It appears probable, indeed, that -the masons, wandering over the country from one job to another, were -united, not in any local gild, but in a trade fraternity of national -extent. Such an association may, if further researches throw light upon -its constitution and working, not improbably be found to possess some -points of resemblance to the Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons -of the present day, which was established in 1832. But, unlike the -operative in the modern building trades, the mason of the Middle -Ages served, not a master _entrepreneur_, but the customer himself, -who provided the materials, supervised the work, and engaged, at -specified daily rates, both the skilled mechanics and their labourers -or apprentices.[14] In contrast with the handicraftsmen of the towns, -the masons, tilers, etc. remained, from the completion of their -apprenticeship to the end of their working lives, in one and the same -economic position, a position which appears to have been intermediate -between those of the master craftsman and the journeyman of the other -trades. Like the jobbing carpenter of the country village of to-day, -they were independent producers, each controlling the processes of -his own craft, and dealing directly with the customer. But unlike the -typical master craftsman of the handicraft trades they sold nothing but -labour, and their own labour only, at regulated customary rates, and -were unconcerned, therefore, with the making of profit, whether upon -the purchase and sale of materials or upon the hiring of subordinate -workers.[15] The stability of their combinations was accordingly not -prevented by those influences which, as we have suggested, proved fatal -in England to the corresponding attempts of the hired journeymen of the -handicrafts. - -But if the example of the building trades in the Middle Ages supports -our inference as to the cause of the tardy growth of combination -among the journeymen in other trades, the “yearly congregations and -confederacies” of the masons might themselves demand our attention as -instances of early Trade Unionism. Of the constitution, function, or -ultimate development of these mediæval associations in the building -trades we know unfortunately next to nothing.[16] It is remarkable -that there is, so far as we are aware, no trace of their existence in -Great Britain later than the fifteenth century. During the eighteenth -century there is, as we shall see, no lack of information as to -combinations of workmen in nearly every other skilled trade. The -employers appear to have been perpetually running to Parliament to -complain of the misdeeds of their workmen. But of combinations in the -building trades we have found scarcely a trace until the very end of -that century. If, therefore, adhering strictly to the letter of our -definition, we accepted the masons’ confederacy as a Trade Union, -we should be compelled to regard the building trades as presenting -the unique instance of an industry which had a period of Trade -Unionism in the fifteenth century, then passed for several centuries -into a condition in which Trade Unionism was impossible, and finally -changed once more to a state in which Trade Unions flourished. Our -own impression is however that the “congregations and confederacies” -of the masons are more justly to be considered the embryonic stage -of a gild of master craftsmen than of a Trade Union. There appears -to us to be a subtle distinction between the economic position of -workers who hire themselves out to the individual consumer direct, -and those who, like the typical Trade Unionist of to-day, serve an -employer who stands between them and the actual consumers, and who -hires their labour in order to make out of it such a profit as will -provide him with his interest on capital and “wages of management.” We -suggest that, with the growing elaboration of domestic architecture, -the superior craftsmen tended more and more to become employers, -and any organisations of such craftsmen to pass insensibly into the -ordinary type of masters’ gild.[17] Under such a system of industry the -journeymen would possess the same prospects of economic advancement -that hindered the growth of stable combinations in the ordinary -handicrafts, and in this fact may lie the explanation of the striking -absence of evidence of any Trade Unionism in the building trades right -down to the eighteenth century.[18] When, however, the capitalist -builder or contractor began to supersede the master mason, master -plasterer, etc., and this class of small _entrepreneurs_ had again to -give place to a hierarchy of hired workers, Trade Unions, in the modern -sense, began, as we shall see, to arise. “Just as we found the small -master in the sixteenth century struggling to adapt and appropriate the -traditions of the superseded handicraft organisation, so we shall find -the journeyman at the close of the seventeenth century [in some trades -and at the close of the eighteenth century in others] endeavouring to -build up a new status out of the ruins of the small master.”[19] - -We have dwelt at some length upon these ephemeral associations of -wage-earners and on the journeymen fraternities of the Middle Ages, -because it might plausibly be argued that they were in some sense -the predecessors of the Trade Union. But strangely enough it is not -in these institutions that the origin of Trade Unionism has usually -been sought. For the predecessor of the modern Trade Union, men have -turned, not to the mediæval associations of the wage-earners, but to -those of their employers--that is to say, the Craft Gilds.[20] The -outward resemblance of the Trade Union to the Craft Gild had long -attracted the attention, both of the friends and the enemies of Trade -Unionism; but it was the publication in 1870 of Professor Brentano’s -brilliant study on the “Origin of Trades Unions” that gave form to the -popular idea.[21] Without in the least implying that any connection -could be traced between the mediæval gild and the modern Trade Union, -Dr. Brentano suggested that the one was in so far the successor of the -other, that both institutions had arisen “under the breaking up of an -old system, and among the men suffering from this disorganisation, in -order that they might maintain independence and order.”[22] And when -George Howell prefixed to his history of Trade Unionism a paraphrase -of Dr. Brentano’s account of the gilds, it became commonly accepted -that the Trade Union had, in some undefined way, really originated from -the Craft Gild.[23] We are therefore under the obligation of digressing -to examine the relation between the mediæval gild and the modern Trade -Union. If it could be shown that the Trade Unions were, in any way, the -descendants of the old gilds, it would clearly be the origin of the -latter that we should have to trace. - -The supposed descent in this country of the Trade Unions from the -mediæval Craft Gilds rests, as far as we have been able to discover, -upon no evidence whatsoever. The historical proof is all the other -way. In London, for instance, more than one Trade Union has preserved -an unbroken existence from the eighteenth century. The Craft Gilds -still exist in the City Companies, and at no point in their history -do we find the slightest evidence of the branching off from them of -independent journeymen’s societies. By the eighteenth century the -London journeymen had in nearly all cases lost whatever participation -they may possibly once have possessed in the Companies, which had for -the most part already ceased to have any connection with the trades -of which they bore the names.[24] It is sometimes suggested that the -London Companies have had an exceptional history, and that in towns -in which the gilds underwent a more normal development they may have -given rise to the modern trade society. So far as Great Britain is -concerned we have satisfied ourselves that this suggestion rests on no -better foundation than the other. Neither in Bristol nor in Preston, -neither in Newcastle nor in Glasgow, have we been able to trace the -slightest connection between the slowly dying gilds and the upstarting -Trade Unions. At Sheffield J. M. Ludlow, basing himself on an account -by Frank Hill, once expressly declared[25] that direct affiliation -could be proved. Diligent inquiry into the character and history of the -still flourishing Cutlers’ Company demonstrates that this exclusively -masters’ association at no time originated or engendered any of the -numerous Trade Unions with which Sheffield abounds. There remains the -case of Dublin, where some of the older unions themselves claim descent -from the gilds. Here, too, careful search reveals, not only the absence -of any affiliation or direct descent, but also the impossibility of -any organic connection between the exclusively Protestant gilds which -were not abolished until 1842, and the mainly Roman Catholic Trade -Unions which attained their greatest influence many years before.[26] -We assert, indeed, with some confidence, that in no case did any Trade -Union in the United Kingdom arise, either directly or indirectly, by -descent, from a Craft Gild. - -It is often taken for granted that the Trade Union, whatever may have -been its origin, represents the same elements, and plays the same part -in the industrial system of the nineteenth century, as the Craft Gild -did in that of the Middle Ages. A brief analysis of what is known of -the gilds will be sufficient to show that these organisations were -even in their purest days essentially different, both in structure and -function, from the modern trade society. - -For the purpose of this comparison it will be unnecessary for us to -discuss the rival theories of historians as to the nature and origin of -the Craft Gilds. We may agree, on the one hand, with Dr. Brentano[27] -in maintaining that the free craftsmen associated in order to stop -the deterioration of their condition and encroachments on their -earnings, and to protect themselves against “the abuse of power on the -part of the lords of the town, who tried to reduce the free to the -dependence of the unfree.” On the other hand, we may believe with Dr. -Cunningham[28] that the Craft Gilds were “called into being, not out of -antagonism to existing authorities, but as new institutions, to which -special parts of their own duties were delegated by the burgh officers -or the local Gild Merchant,” as a kind of “police system,” in fact, by -which the community controlled the local industries in the interest -of the consumer. Or again, we may accept the middle view advanced by -Sir William Ashley,[29] that the gilds were self-governing bodies of -craftsmen, initiating their own trade regulations, the magistrates or -town council having a real, if somewhat vague, authority to sanction or -veto these ordinances for the good of the citizens. Each of these three -views is supported by numerous instances, and to determine which theory -represents the rule and which the exception would involve a statistical -knowledge of Craft Gilds for which the material has not yet been -collected. It will be evident that, if Dr. Cunningham’s theory of the -Craft Gild is the correct one, there can be no essential resemblance -between these semi-municipal bodies and the Trade Unions of to-day. -Dr. Brentano, however, produces ample evidence that, in some cases -at any rate, the gilds acted, not with any view to the protection of -the consumer, but, like the Trade Unions, for the furtherance of the -interests of their own members--that is, of one class of producers. -Accepting for the moment the view that the Craft Gild, like the -Trade Union, or the Employers’ Association, belonged to the genus of -“associations of producers,” let us examine briefly how far the gild -was similar to modern combinations of wage-earners. - -Now, the central figure of the gild organisation, in all instances, and -at all periods of its development, was the master craftsman, owning -the instruments of production, and selling the product. Opinions may -differ as to the position of the journeymen in the gild or to the -extent of the prevalence of subordinate or semi-servile labour outside -it. Different views may be entertained as to the reality of that -regard for the interests of the consumer which forms the ostensible -object of many gild ordinances. But throughout the whole range of gild -history the master craftsman, controlling the processes and selling -the products of the labour of his little industrial group, was the -practical administrator of, and the dominant influence in, the gild -system.[30] In short, the typical gild member was not wholly, or even -chiefly, a manual worker. From the first he supplied not only whatever -capital was needed in his industry, but also that knowledge of the -markets for both raw material and product, and that direction and -control which are the special functions of the _entrepreneur_. The -economic functions and political authority of the gild rested, not upon -its assumed inclusion of practically the whole body of manual workers, -but upon the presence within it of the real directors of industry of -the time. In the modern Trade Union, on the contrary, we find, not an -association of _entrepreneurs_, themselves controlling the processes -of their industry, and selling its products, but a combination of -hired wage-workers, serving under the direction of industrial captains -who are outside the organisation. The separation into distinct social -classes of the capitalist and the brainworker on the one hand, and the -manual workers on the other--the substitution, in fact, of a horizontal -for a vertical cleavage of society--vitiates any treatment of the Trade -Union as the analogue of the Craft Gild. - -On the other hand, to regard the typical Craft Gild as the predecessor -of the modern Employers’ Association or capitalist syndicate would, -in our opinion, be as great a mistake as to believe, with George -Howell, that it was the “early prototype” of the Trade Union. Dr. -Brentano himself laid stress on the fact, afterwards brought into -special prominence by Dr. Cunningham, that the Craft Gild was looked -upon as the representative of the interests, not of any one class -alone, but of the three distinct and somewhat antagonistic elements -of modern society, the capitalist _entrepreneur_, the manual worker, -and the consumer at large. We do not need to discuss the soundness of -the mediæval lack of faith in unfettered competition as a guarantee -of the genuineness and good quality of wares. Nor are we concerned -with their assumption of the identity of interest between all classes -of the community. It seemed a matter of course to the statesman, no -less than to the public, that the leading master craftsmen of the -town should be entrusted with the power and the duty of seeing that -neither themselves nor their competitors were permitted to lower the -standard of production. “The Fundamental Ground,” says the petition -of the Carpenters’ Company in 1681, “of Incorporating Handicraft -Trades and Manual Occupations into distinct Companies was to the -end that all Persons using such Trades should be brought into one -Uniform Government and Corrected and Regulated by Expert and Skilful -Governors, under certain Rules and Ordinances appointed to that -purpose.”[31] The leading men of the gild became, in effect, officers -of the municipality, charged with the protection of the public from -adulteration and fraud. When, therefore, we remember that the Craft -Gild was assumed to represent, not only all the grades of producers -in a particular industry, but also the consumers of the product, -and the community at large, the impossibility of finding, in modern -society, any single inheritor of its multifarious functions will -become apparent. The powers and duties of the mediæval gild have, in -fact, been broken up and dispersed. The friendly society and the -Trade Union, the capitalist syndicate and the employers’ association, -the factory inspector and the Poor Law relieving officer, the School -Attendance officer, and the municipal officers who look after -adulteration and inspect our weights and measures--all these persons -and institutions might, with equal justice, be put forward as the -successors of the Craft Gild.[32] - -Although there is an essential difference in the composition of the -two organisations, the popular theory of their resemblance is easily -accounted for. First, there are the picturesque likenesses which Dr. -Brentano discovered--the regulations for admission, the box with its -three locks, the common meal, the titles of the officers, and so forth. -But these are to be found in all kinds of association in England. -The Trade Union organisations share them with the local friendly -societies, or sick clubs, which have existed all over England for the -last two centuries. Whether these features were originally derived -from the Craft Gilds or not, it is practically certain that the early -Trade Unions took them, in the vast majority of cases, not from the -traditions of any fifteenth-century organisation, but from the existing -little friendly societies around them. In some cases the parentage of -these forms and ceremonies might be ascribed with as much justice to -the mystic rites of the Freemasons as to the ordinances of the Craft -Gilds. The fantastic ritual peculiar to the Trade Unionism of 1829-34, -which we shall describe in a subsequent chapter, was, as we shall see, -taken from the ceremonies of the Friendly Society of Oddfellows. But -we are informed that it bears traces of being an illiterate copy of a -masonic ritual. In our own times the “Free Colliers of Scotland,” an -early attempt at a national miners’ union, were organised into “Lodges” -under a “Grand Master,” with much of the terminology and some of the -characteristic forms of Freemasonry. No one would, however, assert -any essential resemblance between the village sick club and the trade -society, still less between Freemasonry and Trade Unionism. The only -common feature between all these is the spirit of association, clothing -itself in more or less similar picturesque forms. - -But other resemblances between the gild and the union brought out -by Dr. Brentano are more to the point. The fundamental purpose of -the Trade Union is the protection of the Standard of Life--that is -to say, the organised resistance to any innovation likely to tend -to the degradation of the wage-earners as a class. That some social -organisation for the protection of the Standard of Life was necessary -was a leading principle of the Craft Gild, as it was, in fact, of the -whole mediæval order. “Our forefathers,” wrote the Emperor Sigismund -in 1434, “have not been fools. The crafts have been devised for this -purpose: that everybody by them should earn his daily bread, and nobody -shall interfere with the craft of another. By this the world gets rid -of its misery, and every one may find his livelihood.”[33] But in this -respect the Trade Union does not so much resemble the Craft Gild, as -reassert what was once the accepted principle of mediæval society, -of which the gild policy was only one manifestation. We do not wish, -in our historical survey of the Trade Union Movement, to enter into -the far-reaching controversy as to the political validity either of -the mediæval theory of the compulsory maintenance of the Standard of -Life, or of such analogous modern expedients as Collective Bargaining -on the one hand, or Factory Legislation on the other. Nor do we wish -to imply that the mediæval theory was at any time so effectively and -so sincerely carried out as really to secure to every manual worker a -comfortable maintenance. We are concerned only with the historical fact -that, as we shall see, the artisans of the seventeenth and eighteenth -centuries sought to perpetuate those legal or customary regulations of -their trade which, as they believed, protected their own interests. -When these regulations fell into disuse the workers combined to secure -their enforcement. When legal redress was denied, the operatives, in -many instances, took the matter into their own hands, and endeavoured -to maintain, by Trade Union regulations, what had once been prescribed -by law. In this respect, and practically in this respect only, do we -find any trace of the gild in the Trade Union. - -Let us now turn from the hypothetical origin of Trade Unionism to the -recorded facts. We have failed to discover in the manuscript records of -companies or municipal corporations, in the innumerable trade pamphlets -and broadsheets of the time, or in the Journals of the House of -Commons, any evidence of the existence, prior to the latter half of the -seventeenth century,[34] or indeed much before the very close of that -century, of continuous associations of wage-earners for maintaining -or improving the conditions of their working lives. And when we -remember that during the latter decades of the seventeenth century -the employers of labour, and especially the industrial “companies” or -corporations, memorialised the House of Commons on every conceivable -grievance which affected their particular trade, the absence of all -complaints of workmen’s combinations suggests to us that few, if any, -such combinations existed.[35] We do, however, discover in the latter -half of the seventeenth century various traces of sporadic combinations -and associations, some of which appear to have maintained in obscurity -a continuous existence. In the early years of the eighteenth century -we find isolated complaints of combinations “lately entered into” -by the skilled workers in certain trades. As the century progresses -we watch the gradual multiplication of these complaints, met by -counter-accusations presented by organised bodies of workmen. From the -middle of the century the Journals of the House of Commons abound in -petitions and counter-petitions revealing the existence of journeymen’s -associations in most of the skilled trades. And finally, we may infer -the wide extension of the movement from the steady multiplication of -the Acts against combinations in particular industries, and their -culmination in the comprehensive statute of 1799 forbidding all -combinations whatsoever. - -If we examine the evidence of the rise of combinations in particular -trades, we see the Trade Union springing, not from any particular -institution, but from every opportunity for the meeting together -of wage-earners of the same occupation. Adam Smith remarked that -“people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment -and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the -public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”[36] And there is -actual evidence of the rise of one of the oldest of the existing Trade -Unions out of a gathering of the journeymen “to take a social pint of -porter together.”[37] More often it is a tumultuous strike, out of -which grows a permanent organisation. Elsewhere, as we shall see, the -workers meet to petition the House of Commons, and reassemble from -time to time to carry on their agitation for the enactment of some new -regulation, or the enforcement of an existing law. In other instances -we shall find the journeymen of a particular trade frequenting -certain public-houses, at which they hear of situations vacant, and -the “house of call” becomes thus the nucleus of an organisation. Or -we watch the journeymen in a particular trade declaring that “it has -been an ancient custom in the kingdom of Great Britain for divers -Artists to meet together and unite themselves in societies to -promote Amity and true Christian Charity,” and establishing a sick -and funeral club, which invariably proceeds to discuss the rates of -wages offered by the employers, and insensibly passes into a Trade -Union with friendly benefits.[38] And if the trade is one in which -the journeymen frequently travel in search of work, we note the slow -elaboration of systematic arrangements for the relief of these “tramps” -by their fellow-workers in each town through which they pass, and -the inevitable passage of this far-extending tramping society into a -national Trade Union.[39] - -All these, however, are but opportunities for the meeting of journeymen -of the same trade. They do not explain the establishment of continuous -organisations of the wage-earners in the seventeenth and eighteenth -rather than in the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries. The essential -cause of the growth of durable associations of wage-earners must -lie in something peculiar to the later centuries. This fundamental -condition of Trade Unionism we discover in the economic revolution -through which certain industries were passing. In all cases in which -Trade Unions arose, the great bulk of the workers had ceased to be -independent producers, themselves controlling the processes, and -owning the materials and the product of their labour, and had passed -into the condition of lifelong wage-earners, possessing neither the -instruments of production nor the commodity in its finished state. -“From the moment that to establish a given business more capital is -required than a journeyman can easily accumulate within a few years, -gild mastership--the mastership of the masterpiece--becomes little more -than a name.... Skill alone is valueless, and is soon compelled to hire -itself out to capital.... Now begins the opposition of interest between -employers and employed, now the latter begin to group themselves -together; now rises the trade society.”[40] Or, to express this -Industrial Revolution in more abstract terms, we may say, in the words -of Dr. Ingram, that “the whole modern organisation of labour in its -advanced forms rests on a fundamental fact which has spontaneously and -increasingly developed itself--namely, the definite separation between -the functions of the capitalist and the workman, or, in other words, -between the direction of industrial operations and their execution in -detail.”[41] - -It is often assumed that the divorce of the manual worker from the -ownership of the means of production resulted from the introduction -of machinery, the use of power, and the factory system. Had this been -the case we should not, upon our hypothesis, have expected to find -Trade Unions at an earlier date than factories, or in industries -untransformed by machinery. The fact that the earliest durable -combinations of wage-earners in England precede the factory system -by a whole century, and occur in trades carried on exclusively by -hand labour, reminds us that the creation of a class of lifelong -wage-servants came about in more than one way. - -We may note, to begin with, the very old institution of the printers’ -“chapel,” with its “father” and “clerk,” an informal association among -the compositors of a particular establishment for the discussion and -regulation, not only of their own workshop conditions, but also of -their relations with the employer, who must, in early days, have been a -man of superior education, with an outlook much wider than that of his -journeymen. - -The “chapel” may possibly be nearly as old as the introduction of -printing into this country.[42] We have no evidence as to the date -at which the “chapels” of different printing offices entered into -communication with each other in London, so as to form a Trade -Union. But already in 1666 we have _The Case and Proposals of -the Free Journeymen Printers in and about London_, in which they -complain of the multiplication of apprentices and the prevalence of -“turnovers”--grievances which vexed every compositors’ Trade Union -throughout the nineteenth century.[43] Whether the “Free Journeymen -Printers” managed to continue in existence as a Trade Union is -uncertain. We have found no actual evidence of any other combination -among compositors than the “chapel” earlier than the eighteenth -century. - -One of the earliest proven cases of continuous association -among journeymen is that of the hatters (or feltmakers), whose -combination--now the Journeymen Hatters’ Trade Union of Great Britain -and Ireland--may perhaps claim to trace its ancestry from 1667, the -very year in which the Feltmakers’ Company, consisting of their -employers, obtained a charter from Charles II. Within a few months -the journeymen in the various London workshops--each of which had -apparently a workshop organisation somewhat resembling the printers’ -“chapel”--had combined to present a petition to the Court of Aldermen -against the Master, Wardens and Assistants of the Company. The Court -of Aldermen decided that, in order “that the journeymen may not by -combination or otherwise excessively at their pleasure raise their -wages,” a piecework list is to be annually settled and presented -for enactment by the Court of Aldermen. The journeymen seem to -have co-operated with the employers in presenting this list, and -in preventing the employment of non-freemen. The rates fixed did -not, however, always satisfy the journeymen, especially when the -employers were successful in getting them lowered; and in 1696 we -read of a deputation appearing before the Court to declare that they -had resolved among themselves not to accept any less wages than they -had formerly received, and to ask for a revision of the order. They -had, according to the masters’ statement, not confined themselves to -peaceful resolutions, but had made an example of a journeyman who had -remained at work at the reduced rates. “They stirred up the apprentices -to seize upon him as he was working, to tie him in a wheelbarrow, -and in a tumultuous and riotous manner to drive him through all the -considerable places in London and Southwark.” It was alleged that the -men were organised in “clubs,” which “raised several sums of money -for the abetting and supporting such of them who should desert their -masters’ service.” In 1697 the employers introduced the “character -note” or “leaving certificate,” the Company enacting that no master -should employ a journeyman who did not bring with him a certificate -from his previous employer. Successive prosecutions of journeymen took -place for refusing to work at the lawful rates, but the workmen seem -to have had good legal advice, and to have defended themselves with -skill. On one occasion they pleaded guilty, and promised amendment -and the abandonment of their combination, whereupon the prosecution -was withdrawn. On another occasion they got the case removed by writ -of _certiorari_ from the Lord Mayor’s session to the Assizes, where -Lord Chief Justice Holt referred the dispute to arbitration. The -award of June 1699 was a virtual victory for the journeymen, after a -three years’ struggle, as it gave them an increase of rates, with a -stoppage of all legal proceedings.[44] That the London Trade Clubs -of the journeymen hatters, or at any rate their several workshop -organisations, maintained a continuous existence we need not doubt; -though we do not hear of them again until 1771, when they seem to have -established a national federation of the local trade clubs existing -in more than a dozen provincial towns with those of Southwark and -the West End of London, very largely for the purpose of maintaining -and enforcing the statutory limitation of apprentices. In 1775 this -federation appears to have been strong enough, not only to obtain -increased rates of wages, but also the exclusive employment of -“clubmen.” There were “congresses” of the hatters in 1772, 1775, -and 1777, held in London for the adoption of “bye-laws” for the -whole trade; but we believe that these “congresses” were attended by -delegates from the workshops in and near London only. It is clear -that similar organisations existed in the other towns in which the -trade was carried on. The members who were unemployed “tramped” from -town to town, and regulations for their relief were framed. A weekly -contribution of 2d. appears to have been paid by each member. The -employers successfully petitioned Parliament in 1777 for a repeal -of the old limitation of apprentices and a renewed prohibition of -combination.[45] - -More definite evidence is afforded by the development of the tailoring -trade. In tailoring for rich customers the master craftsmen appear at -the very beginning of the eighteenth century to have been recruited -from the comparatively small number of journeymen who acquired the -specially skilled part of the business--namely, the cutting-out.[46] -“The tailor,” says an eighteenth-century manual for the young -tradesman, “ought to have a quick eye to steal the cut of a sleeve, -the pattern of a flap, or the shape of a good trimming at a glance, -... in the passing of a chariot, or in the space between the door and -a coach.” There grew up accordingly a class of mere sewers, “not one -in ten” knowing “how to cut out a pair of breeches: they are employed -only to sew the seam, to cast the buttonholes, and prepare the work -for the finisher.... Generally as poor as rats, the House of Call runs -away with all their earnings, and keeps them constantly in debt and -want.”[47] - -This differentiation was promoted by the increasing need of capital -for successfully beginning business in the better quarters of the -metropolis. Already in 1681 the “shop-keeping tailor” was deplored as -a new and objectionable feature, “for many remember when there were -no new garments sold in London (in shops) as now there are.”[48] The -“accustomed tailor,” or working craftsman, making up the customer’s -own cloth, objected to “taylers being sales-men,” paying high rents -for shops in fashionable neighbourhoods, giving long credit to their -aristocratic clients, and each employing, in his own workshops, dozens -or even scores of journeymen, who were recruited from the houses of -call in times of pressure, and ruthlessly turned adrift when the season -was over. And although it remained possible in the reign of King -William the Third, as it still is in that of King George the Fifth, to -start business in a back street as an independent master tailor with -no more capital or skill than the average journeyman could command, -yet the making of the fine clothes worn by the Court and the gentry -demanded, then as now, a capital and a skill which put this extensive -and lucrative trade altogether out of the reach of the thousands of -journeymen whom it employed. Thus we find that at the very beginning -of the eighteenth century the typical journeyman tailor in London and -Westminster had become a lifelong wage-earner. It is not surprising, -therefore, that one of the earliest instances of permanent Trade -Unionism that we have been able to discover occurs in this trade. The -master tailors in 1720 complain to Parliament that “the Journeymen -Taylors in and about the Cities of London and Westminster, to the -number of seven thousand and upwards, have lately entered into a -combination to raise their wages and leave off working an hour sooner -than they used to do; and for the better carrying on their design -have subscribed their respective names in books prepared for that -purpose, at the several houses of call or resort (being publick-houses -in and about London and Westminster) which they use; and collect -several considerable sums of money to defend any prosecutions against -them.”[49] Parliament listened to the masters’ complaint, and passed -the Act 7, Geo. I. st. 1, c. 13, restraining both the giving and the -taking of wages in excess of a stated maximum, all combinations being -prohibited. From that time forth the journeymen tailors of London -and Westminster have remained in effective though sometimes informal -combination, the organisation centring round the fifteen or twenty -“houses of call,” being the public-houses to which it was customary for -the workmen to resort, and at which the employers sought any additional -men whom they wished to engage. In 1744 the Privy Council was set in -motion against their refusal to obey the Act of 1720.[50] In 1750-51 -they invoked the assistance of the Middlesex Justices, and obtained -an order requiring the masters to pay certain rates. In 1767 further -legislation was, in spite of their eloquent protests, obtained against -them.[51] In 1810 a master declared before a Select Committee that -their combination had existed for over a century.[52] - -An equally early instance of permanent trade combination is the -woollen manufacture of the West of England. Here the rise of a class -of lifelong wage-earners took a form altogether different from that -in the London tailoring trade, but it produced the same result of -combinations among the workers. The “wealthy clothiers” of Somerset, -Gloucestershire, and Devon, who during the sixteenth century had -“mightily increased in fame and riches, their houses frequented like -kings’ courts,”[53] provided and owned the material of the industry -throughout the whole manufacturing process, but employed a separate -class of operatives at each stage. Buying the wool at one of the market -towns, the capitalist clothier gave this to one set of hand-workers to -be carded and spun into yarn in the village households. The yarn was -passed on to another set--the handloom weavers--to be made into cloth -in their cottages. The cloth was then “fulled” at the capitalist’s own -mill (usually a water-mill) and again given out to be “dressed” by a -new set of hand-workers, after which it was ready to be packed in the -warehouse, and dispatched to Bristol or London for shipment or sale. -In this case, as in that of the tailors, the operatives still retained -the ownership of the tools of their particular processes, but it was -practically impossible for them to acquire either the capital or the -commercial knowledge necessary for the success of so highly organised -an industry, and we accordingly find them entering into extensive -combinations from the closing years of the seventeenth century. Already -in 1675 the journeymen clothworkers of London combined to petition the -Court of the Clothworkers’ Company against the engagement of workmen -from the country. In 1682 we hear of them taking advantage of an -extensive shipping order to refuse, in concert, to work under 12s. -per week. But it is not clear whether any lasting association then -resulted.[54] In the West of England the ephemeral revolts of the early -part of the seventeenth century seem to have developed into lasting -combinations by the end of that century. We hear of them at Tiverton -as early as 1700.[55] In 1717 the Journals of the House of Commons -contain evidence of the existence of a widespread combination of the -woollen-workers in Devonshire and Somerset. The Mayor and Corporation -of Bradninch complain “that for some years past the woolcombers and -weavers in those parts have been confederating how to incorporate -themselves into a club: and have to the number of some thousands in -this county, in a very riotous and tumultuous manner, exacted tribute -from many.”[56] The House of Commons apparently thought the evil -could be met by Royal Authority and requested the King to issue a -Proclamation. Accordingly on February 4, 1718, a Royal Proclamation was -issued against these “lawless clubs and societies which had illegally -presumed to use a common seal, and to act as Bodies Corporate, by -making and unlawfully conspiring to execute certain By-laws or Orders, -whereby they pretend to determine who had a right to the Trade, what -and how many Apprentices and Journeymen each man should keep at once, -together with the prices of all their manufactures, and the manner -and materials of which they should be wrought.”[57] This kingly -fulmination, which was read at the Royal Exchange, failed to effect its -purpose, for the Journals of the House of Commons for 1723 and 1725 -contain frequent complaints of the continuance of the combinations,[58] -which are constantly heard of throughout the whole of the eighteenth -century, dying away only on the supersession of the male by the -female weaver at the beginning of the nineteenth century, not to be -effectively revived until the beginning of the twentieth. - -This early development of trade combinations in the West of England -stands in striking contrast with their absence in the same industry -where pursued, as in Yorkshire, on the so-called “Domestic System.” -The Yorkshire weaver was a small master craftsman of the old type, -himself buying and owning the raw material, and once or twice a week -selling his cloth in the markets of Leeds or Wakefield, to which, we -are told by Defoe in 1724, “few clothiers bring more than one piece.” -“Almost at every house,” he writes of the country near Halifax, “there -was a Tenter, and almost on every Tenter a piece of cloth, or kersey, -or shalloon, ... at every considerable house was a manufactory; ... -then, as every clothier must keep a horse, perhaps two, to fetch and -carry for the use of his manufacture, viz., to fetch home his wool and -his provisions from the market, to carry his yarn to the spinners, -his manufacture to the fulling mill, and when finished, to the market -to be sold, and the like; so every manufacturer generally keeps a cow -or two or more, for his family, and this employs the two or three or -four pieces of enclosed land about his house, for they scarce sow corn -enough for their cocks and hens.”[59] Not until the Yorkshire cloth -dealers began, about 1794, to establish factories on a large scale -do we find any Trade Unions, and then journeymen and small masters -struggled with one accord to resist the new form of capitalist industry -which was beginning to deprive them of their control over the product -of their labour. - -The worsted industry appears everywhere to have been carried on rather -like the woollen manufactures of the West of England than the same -industry in Yorkshire. The woolcomber frequently owned the inexpensive -hand-combs and pots with which he worked. But the woolcombers, like -the weavers of the West of England, formed but one of several classes -of workers for whose employment both capital and commercial knowledge -was indispensable. We hear, already in 1674, of an attempt by the -Leicester woolcombers to “form a company,”[60] though with what success -we know not. In 1741 it was remarked that the woolcombers had “for a -number of years past erected themselves into a sort of corporation -(though without a charter); their first pretence was to take care -of their poor brethren that should fall sick, or be out of work; -and this was done by meeting once or twice a week, and each of them -contributing 2d. or 3d. towards the box to make a bank, and when they -became a little formidable they gave laws to their masters, as also to -themselves--viz., That no man should comb wool under 2s. per dozen; -that no master should employ any comber that was not of their club: -if he did they agreed one and all not to work for him; and if he had -employed twenty they all of them turned out, and oftentimes were not -satisfied with that, but would abuse the honest man that would labour, -and in a riotous manner beat him, break his comb-pots, and destroy his -working tools; they further support one another in so much that they -are become one society throughout the kingdom. And that they may keep -up their price to encourage idleness rather than labour, if any one of -their club is out of work, they give him a ticket and money to seek for -work at the next town where a box club is, where he is also subsisted, -suffered to live a certain time with them, and then used as before; by -which means he can travel the kingdom round, be caressed at each club, -and not spend a farthing of his own or strike one stroke of work. This -hath been imitated by the weavers also, though not carried through the -kingdom, but confined to the places where they work.”[61] The surviving -members of the Old Amicable Society of Woolstaplers retain a tradition -of local trade clubs dating from the very beginning of the eighteenth -century, and of their forming a federal union in 1785. Old members -of the United Journeymen Curriers’ Society have seen circulars and -tramping cards, showing that a similar tramping federation existed in -their trade from the middle of the century.[62] - -In other cases the expensive nature of the raw material or the tools -aided the creation of a separate class. The Spitalfields silk-weavers, -whom we find forming a permanent organisation in 1773, could never have -owned the costly silks they wove.[63] The gold-beaters, whose union -dates at any rate from 1777, were similarly debarred from owning the -material. - -Another remarkable instance of combination prior to the introduction of -mechanical power and the factory system is that of the “stockingers,” -the hosiery workers, or framework knitters, described by Dr. Brentano. -From the very beginning of the use of the stocking-frame, in the -early part of the seventeenth century, servants appear to have been -set to work upon frames owned by capitalists, though the bulk of the -trade was in the hands of men who worked upon their own frames as -independent producers. The competition of these embryo factories was -severely felt by the domestic framework knitter, and on the final -breakdown, in 1753, of the legal limitation of apprentices, it became -disastrous. There grew up a “ruinous practice of parishes giving -premiums to manufacturers for employing their poor,” and this flooding -of the labour market with subsidised child labour reduced the typical -framework knitter to a state of destitution. Though he continued to -work in his cottage, he rapidly lost the ownership of his frame, and a -system arose under which the frames were hired at a rent, either from -a small capitalist frame-owner, or from the manufacturer by whom the -work was given out. The operative was thus deprived, not only of the -ownership of the product, but also of the instruments of his labour. -Hence, although from the very beginning of the eighteenth century -there were ephemeral combinations among the framework knitters, in -which masters and men often joined, it was not until 1780, when the -renting of frames had become general, that a durable Trade Union of -wage-earners arose.[64] - -The development of the industrial organisation of the cutlery -trades affords another example of this evolution. At the date of -the establishment in Sheffield of the Cutlers’ Company (1624) the -typical craftsman was himself the owner of his “wheel” and other -instruments, and a strict limitation of apprentices was maintained. By -1791, when the masters obtained from Parliament a formal ratification -of the prevalent relaxation in the customary restrictions as to -apprentices, we find this system largely replaced by something very -like the present order of things, in which the typical Sheffield -operative works with material given out by the manufacturer, upon -wheels rented either from the latter or from a landlord supplying -power. It is no mere coincidence that in the year 1790 the Sheffield -employers found themselves obliged to take concerted action against -the “scissor-grinders and other workmen who have entered into unlawful -combinations to raise the price of labour.”[65] - -The shipwrights of Liverpool, and probably those of other shipbuilding -ports, were combined in trade benefit clubs early in the eighteenth -century. At Liverpool, where this society had very successfully -maintained the customary limitation of apprentices, the members were -all freemen of the municipal corporation, and as such entitled to the -Parliamentary franchise. As a result the shipwrights’ organisation -became intensely political, by which was meant chiefly the negotiation -of the sale of its members’ votes. At the election of 1790, when Whigs -and Tories compromised in order to avoid the expense of a contest, it -was the Shipwrights’ Society, then at the zenith of its power, which -insisted on forcing a contest by nominating its own candidate, and, in -the end, actually put him at the head of the poll. The society, which -had a contribution in 1824 of fifteen pence per month, and had built -almshouses for its old members, is reputed to have been at one time -so powerful that any employer who refused to obey its rules found his -business absolutely brought to a standstill.[66] - -But the cardinal example of the conception of Trade Unionism with -the divorce of the worker from the instruments of production is seen -in the rapid rise of trade combinations on the introduction of the -factory system. We have already noticed that Trade Unions in Yorkshire -began with the erection of factories and the use of power. When, in -1794, the clothiers of the West Riding failed to prevent the Leeds -merchants from establishing large factories, “wherein it is intended -to employ a great number of persons now working at their own homes,” -the journeymen took the matter into their own hands, and founded “the -Clothiers’ Community,” or “Brief Institution,” professedly to gather -“briefs” or levies for the relief of the sick, and to carry on a -Parliamentary agitation for hampering the factory owners by a legal -limitation of apprentices. “It appears,” reports the Parliamentary -Committee of 1806, “that there has existed for some time an institution -or society among the woollen manufacturers, consisting chiefly of -clothworkers. In each of the principal manufacturing towns there -appears to be a society, composed of deputies chosen from the several -shops of workmen, from each of which town societies one or more -deputies are chosen to form what is called the central committee, -which meets, as occasion requires, at some place suitable to the local -convenience of all parties. The powers of the central committee appear -to pervade the whole institution; and any determination or measure -which it may adopt may be communicated with ease throughout the whole -body of manufacturers. Every workman, on his becoming a member of the -society, receives a certain card or ticket, on which is an emblematical -engraving--the same, the Committee are assured, both in the North -and the West of England--that by producing his ticket he may at once -show he belongs to the society. The same rules and regulations appear -to be in force throughout the whole district, and there is the utmost -reason to believe that no clothworker would be suffered to carry on -his trade, otherwise than in solitude, who should refuse to submit -to the obligations and rules of the society.”[67] The transformation -of cotton-spinning into a factory industry, which may be said to -have taken place round about the year 1780, was equally accompanied -by the growth of Trade Unionism. The so-called benefit clubs of the -Oldham operatives, which we know to have existed from 1792, and those -of Stockport, of which we hear in 1796, were the forerunners of that -network of spinners’ societies throughout the northern counties and -Scotland which rose into notoriety in the great strikes of the next -thirty years.[68] - -It is easy to understand how the massing together in factories of -regiments of men all engaged in the same trade facilitated and -promoted the formation of journeymen’s trade societies. But with the -cotton-spinners, as with the tailors, the rise of permanent trade -combinations is to be ascribed, in a final analysis, to the definite -separation between the functions of the capitalist _entrepreneur_ and -the manual worker--between, that is to say, the direction of industrial -operations and their execution. It has, indeed, become a commonplace of -modern Trade Unionism that only in those industries in which the worker -has ceased to be concerned in the profits of buying and selling--that -inseparable characteristic of the ownership and management of the -means of production--can effective and stable trade organisations be -established. - -The positive proofs of this historical dependence of Trade Unionism -upon the divorce of the worker from the ownership of the means of -production are complemented by the absence of any permanent trade -combinations in industries in which the divorce had not taken place. -The degradation of the Standard of Life of the skilled manual worker on -the break-up of the mediæval system occurred in all sorts of trades, -whether the operative retained his ownership of the means of production -or not, but Trade Unionism followed only where the change took the form -of a divorce between capital and labour. The Corporation of Pinmakers -of London are found petitioning Parliament towards the end of the -seventeenth century or beginning of the eighteenth, as follows: - -“This company consists for the most part of poor and indigent people, -who have neither credit nor mony to purchase wyre of the merchant -at the best hand, but are forced for want thereof to buy only small -parcels of the second or third buyer as they have occasion to use it, -and to sell off the pins they make of the same from week to week, -as soon as they are made, for ready money to feed themselves, their -wives and children, whom they are constrained to imploy to go up and -down every Saturday night from shop to shop to offer their pins to -sale, otherwise cannot have money to buy bread. And these are daily so -exceedingly multiplyed and encreased by reason of the unlimited number -of apprentices that some few covetous-minded members of the company -(who have considerable stocks) do constantly imploy and keep.... -The persons that buy the pins from the maker to sell again to other -retailing shopkeepers, taking advantage of this necessity of the poor -workmen (who are always forced to sell for ready mony, or otherwise -cannot subsist), have by degrees so beaten down the price of pins that -the workman is not able to live of his work, ... and betake themselves -to be porters, tankard bearers, and other day labourers, ... and many -of their children do daily become parish charges.”[69] And the glovers -complain at the same period that “they are generally so poor that they -are supplied with leather upon credit, not being able to pay for that -or their work-folk’s wages till they have sold the gloves.”[70] - -Now, although these pinmakers and glovers, and other trades in like -condition, fully recognised the need for some protection of their -Standard of Life, we do not find any trace of Trade Unionism among -them. Selling as they did, not their labour alone, but also its -product, their only resource was legislative protection of the price of -their wares.[71] In short, in those industries in which the cleavage -between capitalist and artisan, manager and manual labourer, was not -yet complete, the old gild policy of commercial monopoly was resorted -to as the only expedient for protecting the Standard of Life of the -producer. - -We do not contend that the divorce supplies, in itself, a complete -explanation of the origin of Trade Unions. At all times in the -history of English industry there have existed large classes of -workers as much debarred from becoming the directors of their own -industry as the eighteenth-century tailor or woolcomber, or as the -modern cotton-spinner or miner. Besides the semi-servile workers on -the land or in the mines, it is certain that there were in the towns -a considerable class of unskilled labourers, excluded, through lack -of apprenticeship, from any participation in the gild.[72] By the -eighteenth century, at any rate, the numbers of this class must -have been largely swollen, by the increased demand for common labour -involved in the growth of the transport trade, the extensive building -operations, etc. But it is not among the farm servants, miners, or -general labourers, ill-paid and ill-treated as these often were, -that the early Trade Unions arose. We do not even hear of ephemeral -combinations among them, and only very occasionally of transient -strikes.[73] The formation of independent associations to resist the -will of employers requires the possession of a certain degree of -personal independence and strength of character. Thus we find the -earliest Trade Unions arising among journeymen whose skill and Standard -of Life had been for centuries encouraged and protected by legal or -customary regulations as to apprenticeship, and by the limitation -of their numbers which the high premiums and other conditions must -have involved. It is often assumed that Trade Unionism arose as a -protest against intolerable industrial oppression. This was not so. -The first half of the eighteenth century was certainly not a period of -exceptional distress. For fifty years from 1710 there was an almost -constant succession of good harvests, the price of wheat remaining -unusually low. The tailors of London and Westminster united, at the -very beginning of the eighteenth century, not to resist any reduction -of their customary earnings, but to wring from their employers better -wages and shorter hours of labour. The few survivors of the hand -woolcombers still cherish the tradition of the eighteenth century, -when they styled themselves “gentlemen woolcombers,” refused to -drink with other operatives, and were strong enough, as we have seen, -to give “laws to their masters.”[74] The very superior millwrights, -whose exclusive trade clubs preceded any general organisation of the -engineering trade, had for “their everyday garb” a “long frock coat and -tall hat.”[75] And the curriers, hatters, woolstaplers, shipwrights, -brush-makers, basketmakers, and calico-printers, who furnish prominent -instances of eighteenth-century Trade Unionism, all earned relatively -high wages, and long maintained a very effectual resistance to the -encroachments of their employers. - -It appears to us from these facts that Trade Unionism would have been -a feature of English industry, even without the steam-engine and the -factory system. Whether the association of superior workmen which arose -in the early part of the century would, in such an event, ever have -developed into a Trade Union Movement is another matter. The typical -“trade club” of the town artisan of this time was an isolated “ring” -of highly skilled journeymen, who were even more decisively marked -off from the mass of the manual workers than from the small class of -capitalist employers. The customary enforcement of the apprenticeship -prescribed by the Elizabethan statutes, and the high premiums often -exacted from parents not belonging to the trade, long maintained a -virtual monopoly of the better-paid handicrafts in the hands of an -almost hereditary caste of “tradesmen” in whose ranks the employers -themselves had for the most part served their apprenticeship. Enjoying, -as they did, this legal or customary protection, they found their -trade clubs of use mainly for the provision of friendly benefits, and -for “higgling” with their masters for better terms. We find little -trace among such trade clubs of that sense of solidarity between the -manual workers of different trades which afterwards became so marked -a feature of the Trade Union Movement. Their occasional disputes with -their employers resembled rather family differences than conflicts -between distinct social classes. They exhibit more tendency to “stand -in” with their masters against the community, or to back them against -rivals or interlopers, than to join their fellow-workers of other -trades in an attack upon the capitalist class. In short, we have -industrial society still divided vertically trade by trade, instead of -horizontally between employers and wage-earners. This latter cleavage -it is which has transformed the Trade Unionism of petty groups of -skilled workmen into the modern Trade Union Movement.[76] - -The pioneers of the Trade Union Movement were not the trade clubs -of the town artisans, but the extensive combinations of the West of -England woollen-workers and the Midland framework knitters. It was -these associations that initiated what afterwards became the common -purpose of nearly all eighteenth-century combinations--the appeal to -the Government and the House of Commons to save the wage-earners from -the new policy of buying labour, like the raw material of manufacture, -in the cheapest market. The rapidly changing processes and widening -markets of English industry seemed to demand the sweeping away of -all restrictions on the supply and employment of labour, a process -which involved the levelling of all classes of wage-earners to their -“natural wages.” The first to feel the encroachment on their customary -earnings were the woollen-workers employed by the capitalist clothiers -of the Western counties. As the century advances we find trade after -trade taking up the agitation against the new conditions, and such -old-established clubs as the hatters and the woolcombers joining the -general movement as soon as their own industries are menaced. To the -skilled craftsman in the towns the new policy was brought home by the -repeal of the regulations which protected his trade against an influx -of pauper labour. His defence was to ask for the enforcement of the -law relating to apprenticeship.[77] This would not have helped the -operative in the staple textile industries. To him the new order took -the form of constantly declining piecework rates. What he demanded, -therefore, was the fixing of the “convenient proportion of wages” -contemplated by Elizabethan legislation. But, whether craftsmen or -factory operatives, the wage-earners turned, for the maintenance of -their Standard of Life, to that protection by the law upon which they -had been taught to rely. So long as each section of workers believed in -the intention of the governing class to protect their trade from the -results of unrestricted competition no community of interest arose. It -was a change of industrial policy on the part of the Government that -brought all trades into line, and for the first time produced what can -properly be called a Trade Union Movement. In order, therefore, to make -this movement fully intelligible, we must now retrace our steps, and -follow the political history of industry in the eighteenth century. - -The dominant industrial policy of the sixteenth century was the -establishment of some regulating authority to perform, for the trade -of the time, the services formerly rendered by the Craft Gilds. -When, for instance, in the middle of the century the weavers found -their customary earnings dwindling, they managed so far to combine -as to make their voice heard at Westminster. In 1555 we find them -complaining “that the rich and wealthy clothiers do many ways oppress -them” by putting unapprenticed men to work on the capitalists’ own -looms, by letting out looms at rents, and “some also by giving much -less wages and hire for the weaving and workmanship of clothes than -in times past they did.”[78] To the Parliament of these days it -seemed right and natural that the oppressed wage-earners should turn -to the legislature to protect them against the cutting down of their -earnings by the competing capitalists. The statutes of 1552 and 1555 -forbid the use of the gig-mill, restrict the number of looms that one -person may own to two in towns and one in the country, and absolutely -prohibit the letting-out of looms for hire or rent. In 1563, indeed, -Parliament expressly charged itself with securing to all wage-earners -a “convenient” livelihood. The old laws fixing a maximum wage could -not, in face of the enormous rise of prices, be put in force “without -the great grief and burden of the poor labourer and hired man.” -Circumstances were changing too fast for any rigid rule. But by the -celebrated “Statute of Apprentices” the statesmen of the time contrived -arrangements which would, as they hoped, “yield unto the hired person, -both in the time of scarcity and in the time of plenty, a convenient -proportion of wages.” Every year the justices of each locality were -to meet, “and calling unto them such discreet and grave persons ... -as they shall think meet, and conferring together respecting the -plenty or scarcity of the time,” were to fix the wages of practically -every kind of labour,[79] their decisions being enforceable by heavy -penalties. Stringent regulations as to the necessity of apprenticeship, -the length of its term, and the number of apprentices to be taken by -each employer, received the confirmation of law. The typical ordinances -of the mediæval gild were, in fact, enacted in minute detail in a -comprehensive general statute applying to the greater part of the -industry of the period. - -We need not discuss the very debatable question whether this celebrated -law was or was not advantageous to the labouring folk of the time, -or whether and to what extent its provisions were actually put in -force.[80] But codifying and enacting as it did the fundamental -principles of the mediæval social order, we can scarcely be surprised -that its adoption by Parliament confirmed the working man in the once -universal belief in the essential justice and good policy securing by -appropriate legislation “the getting of a competent livelihood” by -all those concerned in industry.[81] Exactly the same view prevailed -at the beginning of the eighteenth century. We again find the newly -established associations of the operatives appealing to the King, -to the House of Commons, or to Quarter Sessions against the beating -down of their wages by their employers. For the first half of the -century the governing classes continued to act on the assumption that -the industrious mechanic had a right to the customary earnings of -his trade. Thus in 1726 the weavers of Wilts and Somerset combine to -petition the King against the harshness and fraud of their employers -the clothiers, with the result that a Committee of the Privy Council -investigates their grievances, and draws up “Articles of Agreement” -for the settlement of the matters in dispute,[82] admonishing the -weavers “for the future” not to attempt to help themselves by unlawful -combinations, but always “to lay their grievances in a regular way -before His Majesty, who would be always ready to grant them relief -suitable to the justice of their case.”[83] More often the operatives -appealed to the House of Commons. In 1719 the “broad and narrow -weavers” of Stroud and places round, petitioned Parliament to put down -the tyrannical capitalist clothiers by enforcing the “Act touching -Weavers” of 1555.[84] In 1728 the Gloucestershire operatives appealed -to the local justices of the peace, and induced them, in spite of -protests from the master clothiers, and apparently for the first time, -to fix a liberal scale of wages for the weavers of the country.[85] -Twenty years later the operatives obtained from Parliament a special -prohibition of truck.[86] Finally, in 1756 they persuaded the House of -Commons to pass an Act[87] providing for the fixing of piecework prices -by the justices, in order that the practice of cutting down rates and -underselling might be stopped. “A Table or Scheme for Rates of Wages” -was accordingly settled at Quarter Sessions, November 6, 1756, with -which the operatives were fairly contented.[88] - -The next few years saw a revolutionary change in the industrial -policy of the legislature which must have utterly bewildered the -operatives. Within a generation the House of Commons exchanged its -policy of mediæval protection for one of “Administrative Nihilism.” The -Woollen Cloth Weavers’ Act of 1756 had not been one year in force when -Parliament was assailed by numerous petitions and counter petitions. -The employers declared that the rates fixed by the justices were, in -face of the growing competition of Yorkshire, absolutely impracticable. -The operatives, on the other hand, asked that the Act might be -strengthened in their favour. The clothiers asserted the advantages of -freedom of contract and unrestrained competition. The weavers received -the support of the landowners and gentry in claiming the maintenance by -law of their customary earnings. The perplexed House of Commons wavered -between the two. At first a Bill was ordered to be drawn strengthening -the existing law; but ultimately the clothiers were held to have proved -their case.[89] The Act of 1756 was, in 1757, unconditionally repealed; -and Parliament was now heading straight for _laisser-faire_. - -The struggle over this Woollen Cloth Weavers’ Act of 1756 marks the -passage from the old ideas to the new. When, in 1776, the weavers, -spinners, scribblers, and other woollen operatives of Somerset -petitioned against the evil that was being done to their accustomed -livelihood by the introduction of the spinning-jenny into Shepton -Mallet, the House of Commons, which had two centuries before absolutely -prohibited the gig-mill, refused even to allow the petition to be -received.[90] - -The change of policy had already affected another trade. The London -Framework Knitters’ Company, which had been incorporated in 1663 for -the express purpose of regulating the trade, found itself during -the first half of the eighteenth century in continual conflict with -recalcitrant masters who set its bye-laws at defiance. This long -struggle, in which the journeymen took vigorous action in support -of the Company, was brought to an end in 1753 by an exhaustive -Parliamentary inquiry. The bye-laws of the Company, upon the -enforcement of which the journeymen had rested all their hopes, were -solemnly declared to be “injurious and vexatious to the manufacturers,” -whilst the Company’s authority was pronounced to be “hurtful to the -trade.”[91] The total abandonment of all legal regulation of the trade -led, after numerous transitory revolts, to the establishment in 1778 -of “The Stocking Makers’ Association for the Mutual Protection in the -Midland Counties of England,” having for its objects the limitation of -apprentices, and the enactment of a fixed rate of wages. Dr. Brentano -has summarised the various attempts made by the operatives during the -next two years to secure the protection of the legislature.[92] Through -the influence of their Union a sympathetic member was returned for the -borough of Nottingham. Investigation by a committee brought to light -a degree of “sweating” scarcely paralleled even by the worst modern -instances. A Bill for the fixing of wages had actually passed its -second reading when the employers, whipping up all their friends in -the House, defeated it on the third reading--a rebuff to the workmen -which led to serious riots at Nottingham, and thrust the unfortunate -framework knitters back into despairing poverty.[93] - -By this time the town craftsmen were also beginning to be menaced -by the revolutionary proposals of their employers. The hatters, for -example, whose early combination we have already mentioned, had -hitherto been protected by the strict limitation of the number of -apprentices prescribed by the Acts of 1566 and 1603, and enforced by -the Feltmakers’ Company. We gather from the employers’ complaints that -the journeymen’s organisation, which by this time extended to most of -the provincial towns in which hats were made, was aiming at a strict -enforcement of the law limiting the number of apprentices which each -master might take. This caused the leading master hatters to promote, -in 1777, a Bill to remove the limitation. Against them was marshalled -the whole strength of the journeymen’s organisation. Petitions poured -in from London, Burton, Bristol, Chester, Liverpool, Hexham, Derby, and -other places, the “piecemaster hat or feltmakers and finishers” usually -joining with the journeymen against the demand of the capitalist -employers. The men asserted that, even with the limitation, “except -at brisk times many hundreds are obliged to go travelling up and down -the kingdom in search of employ.” But the House was impressed with the -evidence and arguments of the large employers, and their Bill passed -into law.[94] - -The action of the House of Commons on occasions like these was not -as yet influenced by any conscious theory of freedom of contract. -What happened was that, as each trade in turn felt the effect of -the new capitalist competition, the journeymen, and often also the -smaller employers, would petition for redress, usually demanding the -prohibition of the new machines, the enforcement of a seven years’ -apprenticeship, or the maintenance of the old limitation of the -number of boys to be taught by each employer. The House would as -a rule appoint a Committee to investigate the complaint, with the -full intention of redressing the alleged grievance. But the large -employers would produce before that Committee an overwhelming array -of evidence proving that without the new machinery the growing export -trade must be arrested; that the new processes could be learnt in a -few months instead of seven years; and that the restriction of the old -master craftsmen to two or three apprentices apiece was out of the -question with the new buyers of labour on a large scale. Confronted -with such a case as this for the masters even the most sympathetic -committee seldom found it possible to endorse the proposals of the -artisans. In fact, these proposals were impossible. The artisans had a -grievance--perhaps the worst that any class can have--the degradation -of their standard of livelihood by circumstances which enormously -increased the productivity of their labour. But they mistook the -remedy; and Parliament, though it saw the mistake, could devise nothing -better. Common sense forced the Government to take the easy and -obvious step of abolishing the mediæval regulations which industry had -outgrown. But the problem of protecting the workers’ Standard of Life -under the new conditions was neither easy nor obvious, and it remained -unsolved until the nineteenth century discovered the expedients of -Collective Bargaining and Factory Legislation, developing, in the -twentieth century, into the fixing by law of a Minimum Wage. In the -meantime the workers were left to shift for themselves, the attitude -of Parliament towards them being for the first years one of pure -perplexity, quite untouched by the doctrine of freedom of contract. - -That the House of Commons remained innocent of any general theory -against legislative interference long after it had begun the work of -sweeping away the mediæval regulations is proved by the famous case of -the Spitalfields silk-weavers, in which the old policy of industrial -regulation was reverted to. In 1765 the Spitalfields weavers protested -that they were without employment, owing to the importation of foreign -silk. Assembling in crowds, they marched in processions to Westminster, -headed by bands and banners, and demanded the prohibition of the import -of the foreign product. Riots occurred sufficiently serious to induce -Parliament to pass an Act in the terms desired;[95] but this experiment -in Protection failed to maintain wages, and the riots were renewed -in 1769. Finally Sir John Fielding, the well-known London police -magistrate, suggested to the London silkweavers that they should -secure their earnings by an Act.[96] Under the pressure of another -outbreak of rioting in 1773, Parliament adopted this proposal, and -empowered the justices to fix the rates of wages and to enforce their -maintenance. The effect of this enactment upon the men’s combination -is significant. “A great man” had told the weavers, as one of them -relates, that the governing class “made laws, and we, the people, -must make legs to them.”[97] The ephemeral combination to obtain the -Act became accordingly a permanent union to enforce it. From this -time forth we hear no more of strikes or riots among the Spitalfields -weavers. Instead, we see arising a permanent machinery, designated the -“Union,” for the representation, before the justices, of both masters -and men, upon whose evidence the complicated lists of piecework rates -are periodically settled. Clearly the Parliaments which passed the -Spitalfields Acts of 1765 and 1773 had no conception of the political -philosophy of Adam Smith, whose _Wealth of Nations_, afterwards to be -accepted as the English gospel of freedom of contract and “natural -liberty,” was published in 1776. At the same time, so exceptional had -such acts become, that when Adam Smith’s masterpiece came into the -hands of the statesmen of the time, it must have seemed not so much a -novel view of industrial economics as the explicit generalisation of -practical conclusions to which experience had already repeatedly driven -them. - -Towards the end of the century the governing classes, who had found -in the new industrial policy a source of enormous pecuniary profit, -eagerly seized on the new economic theory as an intellectual and -moral justification of that policy. The abandonment of the operatives -by the law, previously resorted to under pressure of circumstances, -and, as we gather, not without some remorse, was now carried out on -principle, with unflinching determination. When the handloom-weavers, -earning little more than a third of the livelihood they had gained -ten years before, and unable to realise that the factory system would -be deliberately allowed to ruin them, made themselves heard in the -House of Commons in 1808, a Committee reported against their proposal -to fix a minimum rate of wages on the ground that it was “wholly -inadmissible in principle, incapable of being reduced to practice by -any means which can possibly be devised, and, if practicable, would be -productive of the most fatal consequences”; and “that the proposition -relative to the limiting the number of apprentices is also entirely -inadmissible, and would, if adopted by the House, be attended with the -greatest injustice to the manufacturer as well as to the labourer.”[98] -Here we have _laisser-faire_ fully established in Parliament as an -authoritative industrial doctrine of political economy, able to -overcome the great bulk of the evidence given before this Committee, -which was decidedly in favour of the minimum wage. The House of Commons -had no lack of opportunities for educating itself on the question. The -special misery caused by bad harvests and the prolonged war between -1793 and 1815[99] brought a rush of appeals, especially from the newly -established associations of cotton operatives. In the early years of -the present century petition after petition poured in from Lancashire -and Glasgow, showing that the rates for weaving had steadily declined, -and reiterating the old demands for a legally fixed scale of piecework -rates and the limitation of apprentices. In 1795, and again in 1800, -and once more in 1808, Bills fixing a minimum rate were introduced into -the House of Commons, sometimes meeting with considerable favour. The -report of the Committee of 1808, which took voluminous evidence on the -subject, has already been quoted. Petitions from the calico-printers -for a legal limitation of the number of apprentices, although warmly -supported by the Select Committee to which they were referred, met with -the same fate. Sheridan, indeed, was not convinced, and brought in a -Bill proposing, among other things, to limit the number of apprentices. -But Sir Robert Peel (the elder), whose own factories swarmed with boys, -opposed it in the name of industrial freedom, and carried the House of -Commons with him.[100] - -Meanwhile the despairing operatives, baffled in their attempts to -procure fresh legislation, turned for aid to the existing law. -Unrepealed statutes still enabled the justices in some trades to fix -the rate of wages, limited in others the number of apprentices; in -others, again, prohibited certain kinds of machinery, and forbade -any but apprenticed men to exercise the trade. So completely had -these statutes fallen into disuse that their very existence was in -many instances unknown to the artisans. The West of England weavers, -however, combined with those of Yorkshire in 1802 to employ an -attorney, who took proceedings against employers for infringing the old -laws. The result was that Parliament hastily passed an Act suspending -these statutes, in order to put a stop to the prosecutions.[101] “At -a numerous meeting of the cordwainers of the City of New Sarum in -1784,” says an old circular that we have seen, “it was unanimously -resolved ... that a subscription be entered into for putting the law -in force against infringements on the Trade,” but apparently without -result.[102] The Edinburgh compositors were more successful; on -being refused an advance of wages, to correspond with the rise in the -cost of living, they presented, February 28, 1804, a memorial to the -Court of Session, and obtained the celebrated “Interlocutor” of 1805, -which fixed a scale of piecework prices for the Edinburgh printing -trade.[103] But the chief event of this campaign for the enforcement -of the old laws began in Glasgow. The cotton-weavers of that city, -after four or five years of Parliamentary agitation for additional -legislation, resorted to the law empowering the justices to fix the -rates of wages. After an unsuccessful attempt to fix a standard rate by -agreement with a committee of employers, the men’s association which -now extended throughout the whole of the cotton-weaving districts in -the United Kingdom commenced legal proceedings at the Lanarkshire -Quarter Sessions. The employers in 1812 disputed the competence of -the magistrates, and appealed to the Court of Sessions at Edinburgh. -The Court held that the magistrates were competent to fix a scale of -wages, and a table of piecework rates was accordingly drawn up. The -employers immediately withdrew from the proceedings; but the operatives -were nevertheless compelled, at great expense, to produce witnesses -to testify to every one of the numerous rates proposed. After one -hundred and thirty witnesses had been heard, the magistrates at length -declared the rates to be reasonable, but made no actual order enforcing -them. The employers, with few exceptions, refused to accept the table, -which it had cost the operatives £3000 to obtain. The result was the -most extensive strike the trade has ever known. From Carlisle to -Aberdeen every loom stopped, forty thousand weavers ceasing work almost -simultaneously. After three weeks’ strike the employers were preparing -to meet the operatives, when the whole Strike Committee was suddenly -arrested by the police, and held to bail under the common law for the -crime of combination, of which the authorities, in that revolutionary -period, were very jealous on purely political grounds. The five -leaders were sentenced to terms of imprisonment varying from four to -eighteen months; and this blow broke up the combination, defeated the -strike, and put an end to the struggles of the operatives against the -progressive degradation of their wages.[104] - -The London artisans, though they were not put down by prosecution and -imprisonment, met with no greater success than their Glasgow brethren. -Between 1810 and 1812 a number of trade societies combined to engage -the services of a solicitor, who prosecuted masters for employing -“illegal men,” that is to say, men who had not by apprenticeship -gained a right to follow the trade. The original “case” which the -journeymen curriers submitted to counsel in 1810 (fee two guineas), -with a view to putting in force the Statute of Apprentices, was in -our possession, together with the somewhat hesitating opinion of the -legal adviser.[105] In a few cases proceedings were even taken against -employers for having set up in trades to which they had not themselves -served their time. Convictions were obtained in some instances; but no -costs were allowed to the prosecutors, who were, on the other hand, -condemned to pay heavy costs when they failed. Lord Ellenborough, -moreover, held on appeal that new trades, such as those of engineer -and lockmaker, were not included within the Elizabethan Act. In 1811 -certain journeymen millers of Kent petitioned the justices to fix a -rate of wages under the Elizabethan Act. When the justices refused -to hear the petition a writ of mandamus was applied for. Lord -Ellenborough granted the writ to compel them to hear the petition, but -said they were to exercise their own discretion as to whether they -would fix any rate. The justices, on this hint, declined to fix the -wages.[106] It soon became apparent that legal proceedings under these -obsolete statutes were, in face of the adverse bias of the courts, -as futile as they were costly. There was nothing for it then but -either to abandon the line of attack or to petition Parliament to make -effective the still unrepealed laws. This they accordingly did, with -the unexpected result that the “pernicious” law empowering justices to -fix wages was in 1813 peremptorily repealed.[107] - -The law thus swept away was but one section of the great Elizabethan -statute, and its repeal left the other clauses untouched. A Select -Committee had already, in 1811, reported that “no interference of the -legislature with the freedom of trade, or with the perfect liberty -of every individual to dispose of his time and of his labour in the -way and on the terms which he may judge most conducive to his own -interest, can take place without violating general principles of the -first importance to the prosperity and happiness of the community; -without establishing the most pernicious precedent, or even without -aggravating, after a very short time, the pressure of the general -distress, and imposing obstacles against that distress being ever -removed.” The repeal of the wages clauses of the statute made this -emphatic declaration of the new doctrine law as far as the fixing of -wages was concerned; but there remained the apprenticeship clauses. -Petitions for the enforcement of these, and their extension to the new -trades, kept pouring in. They were finally referred to a large and -influential committee which included Canning, Huskisson, Sir Robert -Peel, and Sir James Graham among its members. The witnesses examined -were strongly in favour of the retention of the laws, with amendments -bringing them up to date. The chairman (George Rose) was apparently -converted to the view of the operatives by the evidence. The committee, -which had undoubtedly been appointed to formulate the complete -abolition of the apprenticeship clauses, found itself unable to fulfil -its virtual mandate. Not venturing, in the teeth of the manufacturers -and economists, to recommend the House to comply with the operatives’ -demands, it got out of the difficulty by making no recommendation at -all. Hundreds of petitions in favour of the laws continued to pour in -from all parts of the country, 300,000 signatures being for retention -against 2000 for repeal, masters often joining in the journeymen’s -prayer. A public meeting of the “Master Manufacturers and Tradesmen -of the Cities of London and Westminster,” at the Freemasons’ Tavern, -passed resolutions strongly supporting the amendment and enforcement -of the existing law. On the other hand, a committee on which the -master engineers Maudsley and Galloway were prominent members, argued -forcibly in favour of freedom and against “the monstrous and alarming -but misguided association.” In 1814 Mr. Serjeant Onslow, who had not -served on the committee of the previous session, introduced a Bill to -repeal the whole apprenticeship law. The “Masters and Journeymen of -Westminster” were heard by counsel against this measure, but the House -had made up its mind in favour of the manufacturers, and by the Act -of 54 Geo. III. c. 96 swept away the apprenticeship clauses of the -statute, and with them practically the last remnant of that legislative -protection of the Standard of Life which survived from the Middle -Ages.[108] The triumphant manufacturers presented Serjeant Onslow with -several pieces of plate for his championship of commercial liberty.[109] - -So thoroughly had the new doctrine by this time driven out the very -recollection of the old ideals from the mind of the governing class -that it was now the operatives who were regarded as innovators, and -we are hardly surprised to find another committee gravely declaring -that “the right of every man to employ the capital he inherits, or -has acquired, according to his own discretion, without molestation -or obstruction, so long as he does not infringe on the rights or -property of others, is one of those privileges which the free and -happy constitution of this country has long accustomed every Briton -to consider as his birthright.”[110] But it must be added that the -governing class was by no means impartial in the application of its -new doctrine. Mediæval regulation acted not only in restriction of -free competition in the labour market to the pecuniary loss of the -employers, but also in restriction of free contract to the loss -of the employees, who could only obtain the best terms for their -labour by collective instead of individual bargaining. Consequently -the operatives, if they had clearly understood the situation, would -have been as anxious to abolish the laws against combination as to -maintain those fixing wages and limiting apprenticeship; just as the -capitalists, better informed, were no less resolute in maintaining the -anti-combination laws than in repealing the others. We shall presently -see how slow the workers were to realise this, in spite of the fact -that the laws against combinations of workmen were maintained in force, -and even increased in severity. Strikes, and any organised resistance -to the employers’ demands, were put down with a high hand. The first -twenty years of the nineteenth century witnessed a legal persecution -of Trade Unionists as rebels and revolutionists. This persecution, -thwarting the healthy growth of the Unions, and driving their members -into violence and sedition, but finally leading to the repeal of the -Combination Laws and the birth of the modern Trade Union Movement, will -be the subject of the next chapter. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[3] In the first edition we said “of their employment.” This has been -objected to as implying that Trade Unions have always contemplated -a perpetual continuance of the capitalist or wage-system. No such -implication was intended. Trade Unions have, at various dates during -the past century at any rate, frequently had aspirations towards a -revolutionary change in social and economic relations. - -[4] Riley’s _Memorials of London and London Life in the Thirteenth, -Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Centuries_ (1888), p. 495 (partly cited in -_Trade Unions_, by William Trant, 1884). - -[5] _Ibid._ pp. 542-3. - -[6] _Ibid._ p. 609; Clode’s _Early History of the Merchant Taylors’ -Company_, vol. i. p. 63. - -[7] _Calendars of State Papers: Letters and Papers, Foreign and -Domestic, Henry VIII._ vol. xiii. part i., 1538, No. 1454, p. 537. -Compare the ephemeral combinations cited by Fagniez, _Études sur -l’industrie et la classe industrielle à Paris_ (Paris, 1877), pp. 76, -82, etc. - -[8] It has been assumed that, in the company of “Bachelors” or “Yeomen -Tailors” connected with the Merchant Taylors’ Company of London -between 1446 and 1661, we have “for the first time revealed to us the -existence, and something of the constitution, of a journeyman’s society -which succeeded in maintaining itself for a prolonged period.” More -careful examination of the materials from which this vivid picture of -this supposed journeyman’s society has been drawn leads us to believe -that it was not composed of journeymen at all, but of masters. This -might, in the first place, have been inferred from the fact that in -the ranks of the supposed journeymen were to be found opulent leaders -like Richard Hilles, the friend of Cranmer and Bullinger, who “became -a Bachelor in Budge of the Yeoman Company” in 1535 (Clode, _Early -History of the Merchant Taylors’ Company_, vol. ii. p. 64), and Sir -Leonard Halliday, afterwards Lord Mayor, who was in the Bachelors’ -Company from 1572 to 1594, when “he was elected a member of the -higher hierarchy of the Corporation” (_ibid._ p. 237). The Bachelors’ -Company, indeed, far from being composed of needy wage-earners, bore -the greater part of the expense of the pageant in connection with the -mayoralty, and managed the whole proceedings. The Bachelors “in Foynes” -and those “in Budge” are all named as marching in the procession in -“gownes to be welted with velvet, and there jackyttes, cassockes, and -doublettes to be either of satten damaske, taffataye” (_ibid._ pp. -262-6). And when, in 1609, the Company was assessed to contribute to -the Plantation of Ulster, the Bachelors contributed nearly as much as -the merchants (£155, 10s. from ten members as compared with £187, 10s. -from nine members (_ibid._ vol. i. pp. 327-9)). Whether the Bachelors’ -Company ever included any large proportion of hired journeymen appears -extremely doubtful, though its object was clearly the regulation of -the trade. The members, according to the Ordinance of 1613, paid a -contribution of 2s. 2d. a quarter “for the poor of the fraternity.” -This may be contrasted with the quarterage of 8d. a year or 2d. per -quarter, levied, according to order of August 1578, on every servant or -journeyman free of the City. The funds of the two companies were kept -distinct, but frequent donations were made from one to the other, and -not only from the inferior to the superior (_ibid._ vol. i. pp. 67-9). -That the Bachelors’ Company was by no means confined to journeymen -is clear. Sir Leonard Halliday, for instance, became a freeman in -April 1564 on completing his apprenticeship, and at once set up in -business for himself, obtaining a charitable loan for the purpose. -Yet, although he prospered in business, “in 1572 we find him assessed -as in the Bachelors’ Company,” and he was not elected to the superior -company until 1594 (_ibid._ vol. ii. p. 237). And in the Ordinance of -1507, “for all those persons that shall be abled by the maister and -Wardeins to holde hous or shop open,” it is provided that the person -desiring to set up shop shall not only pay a licence fee, but also “for -his incomyng to the bachelers’ Company and to be broder with theym -iij^s iii^d” (Clode, _Memorials of the Merchant Taylors’ Company_, p. -209). Nor do the instances of its action imply that it had at heart -the interest of the wage-earners, as distinguished from that of the -employers. The hostility to foreigners, the desire to secure government -clothing contracts, and the preference for a limitation of apprentices -to two for each employer are all consistent with the theory that -the Bachelors’ Company was, like its superior, composed of masters, -probably less opulent than the governing clique, and perhaps occupied -in tailoring rather than in the business of a clothier or merchant. It -is not until 1675 and 1682 that can be traced in the MS. records of -the Clothworkers’ Company the existence of distinctively journeymen’s -combinations (_Industrial Organisation in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth -Centuries_, by George Unwin, 1904, p. 199). The other instances of -identification of “Bachelors’ Companies” or “Yeomen” organisation with -journeymen’s societies are no more convincing than that of the Merchant -Taylors. That the “valets,” serving-men, or journeymen in many trades -possessed some kind of “almsbox,” or charitable funds of their own -is indeed clear, but that this was ever used in trade disputes, or -was independent of the masters’ control, must at present be regarded -as highly improbable. The strongest instance of independence is -that of the Oxford cordwainers (_Selections from the Records of the -City of Oxford_, by William H. Turner, Oxford, 1880). See, on the -whole subject, the chapter on “Mediæval Journeymen’s Clubs,” in Sir -William Ashley’s _Surveys: Historic and Economic_, 1900; _Industrial -Organisation in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries_, by Professor -George Unwin, 1904; and an article on “The Origin of Trade Unionism,” -by Mr. W. A. S. Hewins, in the _Economic Review_, April 1895 (vol. v.). - -[9] Dugdale’s _Antiquities of Warwickshire_ (1656), p. 125. - -[10] Riley’s _Memorials_, p. 653; Clode, _Early History of Merchant -Taylors’ Company_, vol. i. p. 63. - -[11] Compare Fagniez, _Études sur l’industrie et la classe industrielle -à Paris_ (Paris, 1877), p. 123. - -[12] 3 Henry VI. c. 1; see also 34 Edward III. c. 9. - -[13] “Ordinances of Worcester,” Art. lvii. in Toulmin Smith’s _English -Gilds_, p. 399. - -[14] Compare the analogous instances given by Fagniez, _Études sur -l’industrie et la classe industrielle à Paris_, p. 203 (Paris, 1877). - -[15] Dr. Brentano has noticed (p. 81) that the great majority of -the legal regulations of wages in the Middle Ages relate (if not to -agriculture) to the building trades; and it may be that these were, -like modern cab-fare regulations, intended more for the protection of -the customer than for that of the capitalist. - -[16] See “Notes on the Organisation of the Mason’s Craft in England,” -by Dr. William Cunningham (_British Academy Proceedings_). - -[17] Such a master craftsmen’s society we see in the Masons’ “Lodge of -Atchison’s Haven,” which, on December 27, 1735, passed the following -resolution: “The Company of Atchison’s Haven being mett together, have -found Andrew Kinghorn guilty of a most atrocious crime against the -whole Trade of Masonry, and he not submitting himself to the Company -for taking his work so cheap that no man could have his bread of it. -Therefore in not submitting himself he has excluded himself from the -said Company; and therefore the Company doth hereby enact that no man, -neither fellow craft nor enter’d prentice after this shall work as -journeyman under the said Andrew Kinghorn, under the penalty of being -cut off as well as he. Likewise if any man shall follow the example of -the said Andrew Kinghorn in taking work at eight pounds Scots per rood -the walls being twenty feet high, and rebates at eighteen pennies Scots -per foot, that they shall be cut off in the same manner” (_Sketch of -the Incorporation of Masons_, by James Cruikshank, Glasgow, 1879, pp. -131, 132). - -[18] Thorold Rogers points out that the Merton College bell-tower was -built in 1448-50 by direct employment at wages. The new quadrangle, -early in the seventeenth century, was put out to contract with a master -mason and a master carpenter respectively, but the college still -supplied all the material (_History of Agriculture and Prices_, vol. i. -pp. 258-60; iii. pp. 720-37; v. pp. 478, 503, 629). - -[19] _Industrial Organisation in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth -Centuries_, by George Unwin, 1904, p. 201. In this connection may -be mentioned the London watermen, who have always dealt directly -with their customers, and who possess a tradition of having been -continuously organised since 1350. Power to regulate the trade of -watermen was, in 1555, conferred by Act of Parliament upon the -then incorporated Thames Watermen and Lightermen’s Company, the -administration of which appears to have been, from the first, -entirely in the hands of the master lightermen. The watermen, who -had no masters, were compelled to take out the freedom of this -Company, and the existing Trade Union, the Amalgamated Society of -Watermen and Lightermen, was established in 1872 for the express -purpose of obtaining some representation of the working watermen -and the journeymen lightermen on the Court of the Company. Previous -associations of working watermen for trade purposes seem to have been -in existence in 1789 (a Rotherhithe Society of Watermen) and in 1799 -(Friendly Society of Watermen usually plying at the Hermitage Stairs, -in the parish of St. John, Wapping); and Mayhew describes, in 1850, -local “turnway societies,” regulating the sharing of custom, and a -Watermen’s Protective Society, to resist non-freemen (_London Labour -and the London Poor_, 1851). - -[20] Schanz, however, in his _Zur Geschichte der deutschen -Gesellenverbände_ (Leipzig, 1877), suggests that the associations of -journeymen which flourished in Germany side by side with the Craft -Gilds prior to the Thirty Years’ War (1618) were, in fact, virtually -Trade Unions. Compare Schmoller’s _Strassburger Tucher-und Weberzunft_ -(Strassburg, 1879). Professor G. Des Marez, the learned archivist -of Brussels, supplies evidence of the persistence of journeymen’s -organisations in Belgium, resembling those of Germany, down to the -beginning of the sixteenth century; and of the rise of new ones towards -the end of the seventeenth century, without trace of continuity (in -_Le Compagnonnage des chapeliers bruxellois_, Brussels, 1909.) See -Professor Unwin’s article in _English Historical Review_ (October -1910); and compare _Les Compagnonnages des arts et métiers à Dijon aux -xvii^e et xviii^e siècles_, by H. House, 1909, and _Enquêtes sur les -associations professionnelles d’artisans et ouvriers en Belgique_, by -E. Vandervelde, 1891. - -[21] Dr. Brentano’s essay was originally prefixed to Toulmin Smith’s -_English Gilds_, published by the Early English Text Society in 1870. -It was republished separately as _The History and Development of Gilds -and the Origin of Trades Unions_ (135 pp., 1870), and it is to this -edition that we refer. Dr. Brentano’s larger work, _Die Arbeitergilden -der Gegenwart_ (Leipzig, 2 vols., 1871-72), includes this essay, and -also his article in the _North British Review_ for October 1870 on -“The Growth of a Trades Union.” It is only fair to say that in this, -the ablest study of English Trade Union history down to that time, Dr. -Brentano lent no support to the popular idea of any actual descent -of the Trade Unions from the gilds. The _Cobden Club Essays_ (1872) -contain a good article on Trade Unions, by Joseph Gostick, in which it -is argued that these associations were, in England, unknown before the -eighteenth century, and had no connection with the gilds. - -[22] Page 102. - -[23] The first hundred pages of George Howell’s _Conflicts of Capital -and Labour_ (first edition, 1877; second edition, 1890) are a close -paraphrase of Dr. Brentano’s essay, practically the whole of which -appears, often in the same words, as Howell’s own. But already in 1871 -Dr. Brentano, in his _Arbeitergilden der Gegenwart_ (vol. i. ch. iii. -p. 83), expressly connected the Trade Unions, like Schanz, not with the -gilds, but with the Journeymen Fraternities, which he suggests may have -“awaked under changed circumstances to new strength and life, and to a -new policy.” We gather that Sir William Ashley inclines to this view. -“My own impression,” he says, “is that we shall by and by find that, -like the usages of the German journeymen in the eighteenth century -that centred into Herbergen, the trade clubs of eighteenth century -England were broken-down survivals from an earlier period, undergoing, -with the advent of the married journeyman and other causes, the slow -transformation from which they emerged in the nineteenth century as the -nuclei of the modern Trade Union.” Sir William Ashley does not assert -that any continuity of organisation can be proved. “What is suggested -is only that the habit of acting together in certain ways, which we -find to characterise the journeymen of the eighteenth century, had been -formed in a much earlier period” (_Surveys: Historic and Economic_, by -Sir William Ashley, 1900). - -[24] So long as the Companies continued to exercise any jurisdiction -over their trades, we find them (as in the cases of the London -Framework-knitters and the Dublin Silkweavers) supported by any -workmen’s combinations that existed. In exceptional instances, such -as the London Brushmakers, Basketmakers, and Watermen, we find this -alliance for the exclusion of “illegal men” continuing into the -nineteenth century, and (as regards the Watermen) down to the present -time. - -[25] _Macmillan’s Magazine_ (February 1861), relying on the Social -Science _Report on Trade Societies and Strikes_ (1860), p. 521. - -[26] See Appendix _On the Assumed Connection between the Trade Unions -and the Gilds in Dublin_. - -[27] _Gilds and Trade Unions_ (1870), p. 54. - -[28] _History of Industry and Commerce_, vol. i. p. 310. Dr. Gross, in -his _Gild Merchant_, apparently takes a similar view. - -[29] See his _Introduction to Economic History and Theory_, vol. i. -(1891); vol. ii. (1893); see also his _Surveys: Historic and Economic_ -(1900). - -[30] Dr. Brentano himself makes this clear. “We must not forget that -these gilds were not unions of labourers in the present sense of the -word, but of persons who, with the help of some stock, carried on their -craft on their own account. The gild contests were, consequently, not -contests for acquiring political equality for labour and property, -but for the recognition of political equality of trade stock and real -property in the towns” (_Gilds and Trade Unions_, p. 73). - -[31] Jupp’s _History of the Carpenters’ Company_, p. 313, second -edition, 1848. In certain cases we see the workmen seeking -incorporation as a gild or company, in order that they might themselves -lawfully regulate their trades. Thus, in 1670 the wage-earning -woodsawyers of the City of London, who were employed by the members of -the Carpenters’, Joiners’ and Shipwrights’ Companies, formally applied -to the Corporation to be made a Company. Their employers strongly -objected, alleging that they had already by combination raised their -wages during the past quarter of a century from 5s. to nearly 10s. -per load; that they were only day labourers who worked on material -provided by their employers, and consequently not entitled to rank as -masters; and that if their combination were recognised by incorporation -they would be able to bring the whole building trade to a standstill, -as experience had already demonstrated even without incorporation. -Moreover, their main object, it was alleged, was to exclude from -employment “all that sort of labourers who daily resort to the City -of London and parts adjacent, and by that means keep the wages and -prices of these sorts of labourers at an equal and indifferent rate; -and then success would be an evil precedent, all other labourers, the -masons, bricklayers, plasterers, etc., having the same reason to allege -for incorporation” (_Ibid._ p. 307). The London coal-porters in 1699 -unsuccessfully petitioned the House of Commons that a Bill might be -passed to establish them as “a Fellowship in such government and rules -as shall be thought meet” (House of Commons Journals, vol. xiii. p. -69). Professor Unwin suggests that it was “by its failure along these -traditional lines” that “the wage-earning class was driven into secret -combinations, from the obscurity of which the Trade Union did not -emerge till the 19th century” (_Industrial Organisation in the 16th and -17th Centuries_, 1904). - -[32] “The Trade Union of to-day is often spoken of as the lineal -descendant of the ancient Craft Gilds. There is, however, no direct -or indirect connection between the ancient and modern forms of trade -combination. Beyond the fact that they each had for their objects -the establishment of certain trade regulations, and the provision of -certain similar benefits, they had nothing in common.” “Trade Unions -as a Means of Improving the Conditions of Labour,” by John Burnett; -published in _The Claims of Labour_ (Edinburgh, 1886). - -“To attempt to find an immediate connection between the Gild and -the Trade Union is like attempting to derive the English House of -Commons from the Saxon Witanagemot. In the one case as in the other -the two institutions were separated by centuries of development, and -the earlier one was dead before the later one was born” (_Industrial -Organisation in the 16th and 17th Centuries_, by Professor George -Unwin, 1904, p. 8). - -[33] Goldasti’s _Constitutiones Imperiales_, tom. iv. p. 189, quoted by -Dr. Brentano, p. 60. - -[34] A pamphlet of 1669 contains what appears at first sight to be a -mention of Trade Unionism. “The general conspiracy amongst artificers -and labourers is so apparent that within these twenty-five years the -wages of joiners, bricklayers, carpenters, etc., are increased, I mean -within 40 miles of London (against all reason and good government), -from eighteen and twenty pence a day, to 2/6 and 3/-, and mere -labourers from 10 and 12 pence a day unto 16 and 20 pence, and this -not since the dreadful fire of London only, but some time before. A -journeyman shoemaker has now in London (and proportionately in the -country) 14 pence for making that pair of shoes, which within these -12 years he made for 10 pence.... Nor has the increase of wages -amongst us been occasioned by quickness of trade and want of hands (as -some do suppose) which are indeed justifiable reasons, but through -an exacting humour and evil disposition in our people (like our -Gravesend watermen, who by some temporary and mean pretences of the -late Dutch war, have raised their ferry double to what it was, and -finding the sweet thereof, keep it up still), that so they may live -the better above their station, and work so much the fewer days by -how much the more they exact in their wages” (_Usury at Six Per Cent. -Examined_, by Thomas Manley, London, 1669). But we cannot infer from -this unique and ambiguous passage anything more than the possibility -of ephemeral combinations. It is significant that Defoe, with all his -detailed description of English industry in 1724, does not mention any -combinations of workmen. - -[35] In an able pamphlet dated 1681, entitled _The Trade of England -Revived_, it is stated that “we cannot make our English cloth so -cheap as they do in other countries, because of the strange idleness -and stubbornness of our poor,” who insist on excessive wages. But -the author attributes this state of things, not to the existence of -combinations, of which he seems never to have heard, but to the Poor -Law and the prevalence of almsgiving. - -[36] _Wealth of Nations_, bk. i. ch. x. p. 59 of McCulloch’s edition, -1863. In an operative’s description, dated 1809, of the gatherings -of the Paisley weavers, we see the Trade Union in the making. “The -Paisley operatives are of a free, communicative disposition. They -are fond to inform one another in anything respecting trade, and in -order to receive information in a collective capacity they have, for -a long course of years, associated in a friendly manner in societies -denominated clubs.... When met the first hour is devoted to reading -the daily newspapers out aloud.... At nine o’clock the chairman calls -silence; then the report of trade is heard. The chairman reports first -what he knows or what he has heard of such a manufacturing house or -houses, as wishing to engage operatives for such fabric or fabrics; -likewise the price, the number of the yarn, etc. Then each reports -as he is seated; so in the period of an hour not only the state of -the trade is known, but any difference that has taken place between -manufacturers and operatives” (_An Answer to Mr. Carlile’s Sketches of -Paisley_, by William Taylor, Paisley, 1809, pp. 15-17). - -[37] See Dunning’s account of the origin of the Consolidated Society -of Bookbinders in 1779-80, in the Social Science Association’s _Report -on Trade Societies_, 1860, p. 93; also _Workers on their Industries_, -edited by F. W. Galton, 1895; _Women in the Printing Trades_, edited by -J. R. MacDonald, 1904, p. 30. - -[38] _Articles of Agreement made and confirmed by a Society of Taylors, -begun March 25, 1760_ (London, 1812). In 1790 Francis Place joined the -Breeches Makers’ Benefit Society “for the support of the members when -sick and their burial when dead”--its real object being to support -the members “in a strike for wages” (_Life of Francis Place_, by -Professor Graham Wallas, new edition, 1918). Local friendly societies -giving sick pay and providing for funeral expenses had sprung up all -over England during the eighteenth century. Towards its close their -number seems to have rapidly increased until, in some parts at any -rate, every village ale-house became a centre for one or more of -these humble and spontaneous organisations. The rules of upwards of -a hundred of these societies, dating between 1750 and 1820, and all -centred round Newcastle-on-Tyne, are preserved in the British Museum. -At Nottingham, in 1794, fifty-six of these clubs joined in the annual -procession (_Nottingham Journal_, June 14, 1794). So long as they were -composed indiscriminately of men of all trades, it is probable that -no distinctively Trade Union action could arise from their meetings. -But in some cases, for various reasons, such as high contributions, -migratory habits, or the danger of the calling, the sick and burial -club was confined to men of a particular trade. This kind of friendly -society frequently became a Trade Union. Some societies of this type -can trace their existence for nearly a century and a half. The Glasgow -coopers, for instance, have had a local trade friendly society, -confined to journeymen coopers, ever since 1752. The London Sailmakers -Burial Society dates from 1740. The Newcastle shoemakers established a -similar society as early as 1719 (_Observations upon the Report from -the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the laws respecting -Friendly Societies_, by the Rev. J. T. Becher, Prebendary of Southwell, -1826). On the occurrence of any dispute with the employers their funds, -as this contemporary observer in another pamphlet deplores, “have also -too frequently been converted into engines of abuse by paying weekly -sums to artisans out of work, and have thereby encouraged combinations -among workmen not less injurious to the misguided members than to -the Public Weal” (_Observations on the Rise and Progress of Friendly -Societies_, 1824, p. 55). Similar friendly societies among workmen of -particular trades appear to have existed in the Netherlands in the -seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, where they perhaps bridged the -gap between the mediæval fraternities and the modern Trade Unions (see -review in the _English Historical Review_, October 1918, of P. J. -Blok’s _Geschiedenes einer Hollandischen Stad_). - -[39] Schanz (_Gesellenverbände_, p. 25) follows Brentano (p. 94) in -attributing the formation of journeymen’s fraternities in the Middle -Ages mainly to a desire to provide for the wandering craftsmen. -The connection between the “Herbergen” or “Schenken,” designed to -find lodging and employment, with the journeymen’s associations was -certainly close. (See Dr. Bruno Schoenlank’s article in 1894, quoted in -Sir William Ashley’s _Surveys: Historic and Economic_, 1900.) It may be -suggested that the contrast between the absence or scanty existence of -such fraternities in England and their spread in Germany is, perhaps, -to be ascribed in some measure to the fact that English journeymen seem -never to have adopted the German custom of “Wanderjahre,” or regular -habit of spending, on completing their apprenticeship, a few years in -travelling about the country to complete their training. When the local -privileges of the old gilds had fallen somewhat into abeyance, the -restrictions of the successive Settlement Acts must in England, to some -extent, have checked the mobility of labour. But, from the beginning of -the eighteenth century at any rate, we find it customary for journeymen -of certain trades--it is to be noticed that these are relatively new -trades in England--to “tramp” from town to town in search of work, -and the description, subsequently quoted, of the organisations of the -woolcombers and worsted weavers in 1741, shows that the relief of these -travelling journeymen was a prominent object of the early unions. -The hatters in the middle of the eighteenth century had a regular -arrangement for such relief. The compositors at the very beginning -of the nineteenth century had already covered the country with a -network of local clubs, the chief function of which appears to have -been the facilitation of this wandering in search of work. And the -calico-printers had a systematic way of issuing a ticket which entitled -the tramp to collect from each journeyman, in any “print-field” that he -visited, at first a voluntary contribution, and latterly a fixed relief -of a halfpenny per head in England, and a penny per head in Scotland -(_Minutes of evidence taken before the Committee to whom the petition -of the several journeymen Calico-printers and others working in that -trade, etc., was referred_, July 4, 1804, and the _Report_ from that -Committee, July 17, 1806). - -[40] J. M. Ludlow, in article in _Macmillan’s Magazine_, February 1861. - -[41] _Work and the Workman_, by Dr. J. K. Ingram (Address to the Trades -Union Congress at Dublin, 1880). - -[42] Benjamin Franklin mentions the “chapel” and its regulations in -1725. A copy, dated 1734, of the _Rules and Orders to be observed by -the Members of this Chapel: by Compositors, by Pressmen, by Both_, is -preserved in the Place MSS. 27799--88. - -[43] This petition (in the British Museum) is printed in Brentano’s -_Gilds and Trade Unions_, p. 97. Benjamin Franklin, who worked in -London printing offices in 1725, makes no mention of Trade Unionism. -The Stationers’ Company continued, so far as the City of London was -concerned, to regulate apprenticeship; and we see it, in 1775, taking -steps to prevent employers having an undue number. Regulations agreed -to by the employers and the compositors, as to the rates of pay for -different kinds of work, can be traced back to 1785, at least. A copy -of the rules of “The Phœnix, or Society of Compositors” meeting at “The -Hole in the Wall” tavern, Fleet Street, shows that this organisation -was “instituted March 12th, 1792.” In 1798 five members of the -“Pressmen’s Friendly Society” were indicted for conspiracy in meeting -for the purpose of restricting the number of apprentices (they sought -to limit them to three for seven presses). Although the secretary to -the “Society of Master Printers” had requested these men to attend -the meeting, in order to get settled the pending dispute, they were -convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment (_Conflicts of -Capital and Labour_, by George Howell, 1890, p. 92). - -[44] For this interesting case we are indebted to Professor George -Unwin’s researches in the records of the Feltmakers’ Company, whose -“Court Book” contains the record. See _Industrial Organisation in the -16th and 17th Centuries_, by George Unwin, 1904; “A Seventeenth-Century -Trade Union,” by the same, in _Economic Journal_, 1910, pp. 394-403; -the chapter “Mediæval Journeymen’s Clubs” in Sir William Ashley’s -_Surveys, Historic and Economic_, 1900. - -[45] House of Commons Journals, vol. xxxvi.; 8 Eliz. c. 11; 1 James -I. c. 14; and 17 George III. c. 55; Place MSS. 27799--68; Committee -on Artisans and Machinery, 1824; _Industrial Democracy_, p. 11; -“A Seventeenth Century Trade Union,” by Professor George Unwin, -in _Economic Journal_, 1910, pp. 394-403; _Conflicts of Capital -and Labour_, by G. Howell, 1890, p. 83. The organisation evidently -continued in existence, at least in its local form; but the existing -national “Journeymen Hatters’ Trade Union of Great Britain and Ireland” -claims to date only from 1798. In 1806 the Macclesfield hatters were -indicted for conspiracy in striking for higher wages, and sentenced to -twelve months’ imprisonment. Particulars of this organisation will be -found in _The Trial of W. Davenport ... Hatters of Macclesfield for a -Conspiracy against their Masters_ ... by Thomas Mulineaux, 1806. - -[46] For the whole history of this industry, see _The Tailoring Trade_, -by F. W. Galton, 1896. - -[47] _The London Tradesman_, by Campbell, 1747, p. 192. - -[48] _The Trade of England Revived_, 1681, p. 36. - -[49] House of Commons Journals, vol. xix. pp. 416, 424, 481; _The -Case of the Master Taylors residing within the Cities of London and -Westminster, in relation to the great abuses committed by their -journeymen_; _An Abstract of the Master Taylors’ Bill before the -Honourable House of Commons, with the Journeymen’s Observation on -each clause of the said Bill_; _The Case of the Journeymen Taylors -residing in the Cities of London and Westminster_ (all 1720). These and -other documents relating to combinations in this trade have now been -published in a useful volume (_The Tailoring Trade_, by F. W. Galton, -1896), with an elaborate bibliography. - -[50] _London_, by David Hughson (1821), pp. 392-3; House of Commons -Journals, vol. xxiv. Place MSS. 27799, pp. 4, 5. _The Case of the -Journeymen Taylors in and about the Cities of London and Westminster_ -(January 7, 1745). - -[51] _Gentlemen’s Magazine_, 1750, 1768. - -[52] Place MSS. 27799--10; see _The Life of Francis Place, 1771-1854_, -by Professor Graham Wallas, 1898; second edition, 1918. There is -evidence of very similar organisation in other towns. At Birmingham, -for instance, there was a systematically organised strike in 1777 -against a reduction of wages, which lasted for some months (Langford’s -_Century of Birmingham Life_, pp. 225, etc.; _The Tailoring Trade_, by -F. W. Galton, 1896). - -[53] _A Declaration of the Estate of Clothing now used within this -Realme of England_, by John May, Deputy Alnager (1613, 51 pp., in B.M. -712, g. 16), a volume which contains many interesting pamphlets on the -woollen manufacture between 1613 and 1753. Already in 1622, a year of -depression of trade, we hear of numerous riots and tumults among the -weavers of the West of England, notably those of certain Devonshire -towns, who paraded the streets demanding work or food (_Quarter -Sessions from Elizabeth to Anne_, by A. H. A. Hamilton, 1878, pp. -95-6). But there is as yet no evidence of durable combinations at so -early a date. - -[54] MS. Minutes, Court Book of the Clothworkers’ Company, December 10, -1675; August 16, 1682; _Industrial Organisation of the Sixteenth and -Seventeenth Centuries_, by George Unwin, 1904, p. 199. - -[55] _History of Tiverton_, by Martin Dunsford (Exeter, 1790). - -[56] House of Commons Journals, vol. xviii. p. 715, February 5, 1717. -Tiverton and Exeter petition to the same effect. - -[57] Hughson’s _London_, p. 337. The proclamation was reprinted in -_Notes and Queries_, September 21, 1867, from a copy preserved by the -Sun Fire Office. - -[58] See the petitions from Exeter and Dartmouth, February 24, 1723, -vol. xx. pp. 268-9; and those from Taunton, Tiverton, Exeter, and -Bristol, March 3 and 7, 1725, vol. xx. pp. 598, 602, 648. In 1729 the -Bristol weavers, “while the corporation was at church,” riotously -attacked the house of an obnoxious employer, and had to be repulsed by -the troops (_History of Bristol_, p. 261, by J. Evans; Bristol, 1824). -In 1738 they forced the clothiers to sign a bond that they would “for -ever forward” give fifteen pence a yard for weaving, under penalty of -£1000 (_Gentlemen’s Magazine_, 1738, p. 658; see also “An Essay on -Riots, their Causes and Cure,” published in the _Gloucester Journal_, -and reprinted in the _Gentlemen’s Magazine_, 1739, pp. 7-10). In 1756 -there was an extensive and serious uprising (see _A State of the Case -and Narrative of Facts relating to the late Commotion and Rising of the -Weavers in the County of Gloucester_, in the Gough Collection, Bodleian -Library). - -[59] Defoe’s _Tour_, vol. iii. pp. 97-101, 116 (1724). John Bright -mentions his father’s apprenticeship, about 1789, to “a most worthy -man who had a few acres of ground, a very small farm, and three or -four looms in his house” (speech reported in _Beehive_, February 2, -1867). For a less optimistic account of the Yorkshire clothiers, who -were, even in the seventeenth century, often mere wage-earners, see -Cartwright’s _Chapters of Yorkshire History_. - -[60] _History of Leicester_, by James Thompson, 1849, pp. 431-2. - -[61] _A Short Essay upon Trade in General_, by “A Lover of his -Country,” 1741, quoted in James’ _History of the Worsted Manufacture in -England_, p. 232. - -[62] See, in corroboration, _Leicester Herald_, August 24, 1793; -_Morning Chronicle_, October 13, 1824; Place MSS., 27801--246, 247. - -[63] The Dublin silk-weavers, owing perhaps to their having been -largely Huguenot refugees in a Roman Catholic town, appear to have -been associated from the early part of the eighteenth century; see, -for instance, _The Case of the Silk and Worsted Weavers in a Letter -to a Member of Parliament_ (Dublin, 1749, 8 pp.). Compare _A Short -Historical Account of the Silk Manufacture in England_, by Samuel -Sholl, 1811, and _Industrial Dublin since 1698 and the Silk Industry in -Dublin_, by J. J. Webb, 1913. - -[64] The condition of the framework knitters may be gathered from -the elaborate Parliamentary Inquiry, the proceedings of which fill -fifteen pages of the Journals of the House of Commons, vol. xxvi., -April 19, 1753. See also vols. xxxvi. and xxxvii., and the Report from -the Committee on Framework Knitters’ Petitions, 1812; and _Conflicts -of Capital and Labour_, by G. Howell, 1890. Felkin’s _History of the -Machine-wrought Hosiery and Lace Manufactures_, 1867, contains an -exhaustive account of the trade, founded on Gravener Henson’s _History -of the Framework Knitters_, 1831, now a scarce work, of which only one -volume was published. - -[65] _Sheffield Iris_, August 7 and September 9, 1790. The -Scissorsmiths’ Friendly Society, cited by Dr. Brentano, was established -in April 1791. Other trade friendly societies in Sheffield appear to -date from a much earlier period. - -[66] Sir J. A. Picton’s _Memorials of Liverpool_, 1875; _A Digest of -the Evidence before the Committee on Artizans and Machinery_, by George -White, 1824, p. 233; _Conflicts of Labour and Capital_, by G. Howell, -1890, pp. 82-3. - -[67] _Report of Committee on the Woollen Manufacture_, 1806, p. 16; see -also _Conflicts of Labour and Capital_, by G. Howell, 1890. - -[68] See Chapter III. - -[69] In volume entitled _Tracts Relating to Trade_, in British Museum, -816, m. 13. Tankard-bearers were water carriers. - -[70] _Reasons against the designed leather impositions on gloves_, B.M. -816, m. 13. - -[71] We shall have occasion later to refer to the absence of effective -Trade Unionism in those trades which are still carried on by small -working masters. - -[72] The assumption frequently made that the Craft Gilds, at their best -period, included practically the whole working population, appears -to us unfounded. The gild system at no time extended to any but the -skilled handicraftsmen, alongside of whom must always have worked a -large number of unapprenticed labourers, who received less than half -the wages of the craftsmen. We venture to suggest that it is doubtful -whether the Craft Gilds at any time numbered as large a proportion of -the working population as the Trade Unions of the present day. See -_Industrial Democracy_, p. 480. - -[73] “Tumults,” or strikes, among the coal-miners are occasionally -mentioned during the eighteenth century, but no lasting combinations. -See, for those in Somerset, Carmarthenshire, etc., in 1757, -_Gentlemen’s Magazine_, 1757, pp. 90, 185, 285, etc. In 1765 there -was a prolonged strike against the “yearly bond” by the Durham miners -(_Calendar of Home Office Papers_, 1765; Sykes’ _Local Records_, vol. -i, p. 254). The Keelmen, who loaded coals on the Tyne, “mutinied” -in 1654 and 1671 “for the increase of wages”; and there were fierce -strikes in 1710, 1744, 1750, 1771, and 1794. We have, however, no -particulars as to their associations, which were probably ephemeral -(Sykes’ _Local Records_; Richardson’s _Local Historian’s Table Book_; -_Gentlemen’s Magazine_, 1750). - -[74] Many instances of insolence and aggression by the woolcombers are -on record; the employers’ advertisements in the _Nottingham Journal_, -August 31, 1795, and the _Leicester Herald_ of June 1792, are only two -out of many similar recitals. - -[75] _Jubilee Souvenir History of the Amalgamated Society of -Engineers_, 1901, p. 12. - -[76] That such clubs were common in the handicraft trades in London as -early as 1720 appears from the following extract from _The Case of the -Master Taylors residing within the Cities of London and Westminster_, -a petition which led to the Act of 1720: “This combination of the -Journeymen Taylors ... is of very ill example to Journeymen in all -other trades; as is sufficiently seen in the Journeymen Curriers, -Smiths, Farriers, Sailmakers, Coachmakers, and artificers of divers -other arts and mysteries, who have actually entered into Confederacies -of the like nature; and the Journeymen Carpenters, Bricklayers, and -Joyners have taken some steps for that purpose, and only wait to see -the event of others.” And the Journeymen Tailors in their petition of -1745 allude to the large number of “Monthly Clubs” among the London -handicraftsmen. With regard to the curriers at this date, see Place -MSS, 27801--246, 247. - -It may be conveniently noticed here that, although strikes are, as we -have seen, as old as the fourteenth century at least, the word “strike” -was not commonly used in this sense until the latter part of the -eighteenth century. The Oxford Dictionary gives the first instance of -its use as in 1768, when the _Annual Register_ refers to the hatters -having “struck” for a rise in wages. The derivation appears to be from -the sailors’ term of “striking” the mast, thus bringing the movement to -a stop. - -[77] So much is this the case that Dr. Brentano asserts that “Trade -Unions originated with the non-observance of” the Elizabethan Statute -of Apprentices (p. 104), and that their primary object was, in all -cases, the enforcement of the law on the subject. - -[78] Preamble to “An Act touching Weavers” (2 and 3 Philip and Mary, c. -xi.); see Froude’s _History of England_, vol. i. pp. 57-9; and W. C. -Taylor’s _Modern Factory System_, pp. 53-5. - -[79] As expanded by 1 James I. c. 6 and 16 Car. I. c. 4; see R. _v._ -Justices of Kent, 14 East, 395. - -[80] See on these points, Dr. Cunningham’s _History of English Industry -and Commerce_, Mr. Hewins’ _English Trade and Finance chiefly in the -17th Century_, and Thorold Rogers’ _History of Agriculture and Prices_, -vol. v. pp. 625-6, etc. Adam Smith observes that the fixing of wages -had, in 1776, “gone entirely into disuse” (_Wealth of Nations_, bk. i. -ch. x. p. 65), a statement broadly true, although formal determinations -of wages are found in the MS. Minutes of Quarter Sessions for another -half century. - -[81] This forms the constant refrain of the numerous broadsheets or -_Tracts relating to Trade_ of 1688-1750, which are preserved in the -British Museum, the Guildhall Library, and in the Goldsmith Company’s -Library at the University of London. - -[82] Privy Council Minutes of 1726, p. 310 (unpublished); see also -House of Commons Journals, vol. xx. p. 745 (February 20, 1726). - -[83] Privy Council Minutes, February 4, 1726. - -[84] House of Commons Journals, vol. xix. p. 181 (December 5, 1719). - -[85] Petition of “Several weavers of Woollen Broadcloth on behalf -of themselves and several thousands of the Fraternity of Woollen -Broadcloth Weavers” (House of Commons Journals, vol. xxvii. p. 503; see -also pp. 730-2). - -[86] 22 Geo. II. c. 27. - -[87] 29 Geo. II. c. 33. - -[88] _Report of Committee on Petitions of West of England Clothiers_, -House of Commons Journals, vol. xxvii. pp. 730-2. - -[89] For all these proceedings, see House of Commons Journals, vol. -xxvii. - -[90] House of Commons Journals, vol. xxxvi. p. 7 (November 1, 1776). - -[91] House of Commons Journals, April 13 and 19, 1753, vol. xxvi. -pp. 764, 779; Felkin’s _History of the Machine-wrought Hosiery and -Lace Manufacture_, p. 80; Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and -Commerce in Modern Times_, 1903, vol. i. p. 663. - -[92] _Gilds and Trade Unions_, pp. 115-21. - -[93] House of Commons Journals, vols. xxxvi. and xxxvii. - -[94] House of Commons Journals, vol. xxxvi. pp. 192, 240, 268, 287, -1777; Act 17 Geo. III. c. 55, repealing 8 Eliz. c. 11, and 1 Jac. 1. - -[95] 5 Geo. III. c. 48; see _Annual Register_, 1765, p. 41; Cunningham, -_Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times_, 1903, pp. -519, 796. - -[96] Act 13 Geo. III. c. 68; see _A Short Historical Account of the -Silk Manufacture in England_, by Samuel Sholl, 1811. - -[97] _Ibid._ p. 4. - -[98] _Reports on Petitions of Cotton Weavers, 1809 and 1811._ - -[99] “The period between 1795 and 1815 was characterised by dearths -which on several occasions became well-nigh famines” (Thorold Rogers, -_History of Agriculture and Prices_, vol. i. p. 692). - -[100] _Minutes of Evidence and Report of the Committee on the Petition -of the Journeymen Calico-printers_, July 4, 1804, July 17, 1806. See -also Sheridan’s speech reported in Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, -vol. ix. pp. 534-8. - -[101] 43 Geo. III. c. 136, continued in successive years until the -definite repeal, in 1809, of most of the laws regulating the woollen -manufacture by 49 Geo. III. c. 109; see Cunningham, 1903, vol. ii. p. -659. - -[102] It was reprinted in the 121st Quarterly Report of the Amalgamated -Society of Boot and Shoemakers. The proceedings were taken by the -Friendly Society of Cordwainers of England, “instituted the 15th of -November 1784.” Particulars of the London Bootmakers’ Society, which -was in correspondence with seventy or eighty provincial societies, are -given in _A Digest of the Evidence before the Committee on Artizans and -Machinery_, by George White, 1824, p. 97. - -[103] Professor Foxwell kindly placed at our disposal a unique series -of pamphlets relating to these proceedings, which are now in the -Goldsmiths Company’s Library at the University of London, including -the _Memorials_ of the journeymen and the employers, the _Report in -the Process_ by Robert Bell, and the _Scale of Prices_ as settled by -the Court. A full account of the proceedings is given in the _Scottish -Typographical Circular_, June 1858. - -[104] See, for these proceedings, the two _Reports of the Committee on -the Petitions of the Cotton Weavers_, April 12, 1808, and March 29, -1809; and Richmond’s evidence before the Committee on Artisans and -Machinery, 1824, Second Report, pp. 59-64. - -[105] It is now in the British Library of Political Science at the -London School of Economics. - -[106] R. _v._ Justices of Kent, 14 East, 395; see F. D. Longe’s -_Inquiry into the Law of Strikes_, 1860, pp. 10, 11. - -[107] 53 Geo. III. c. 40 (1813). - -[108] The Spitalfields Acts, relating to the silkweavers, were, -however, not repealed until 1824; and the last sections of 5 Eliz. c. 4 -were not formally repealed until 1875. - -[109] White’s _Digest of all the laws at present in existence -respecting Masters and Workpeople_, 1824, p. 59. Place wrote to -Wakefield, January 2, 1814: “The affair of Serjeant Onslow partly -originated with me, but I had no suspicion it would be taken up and -pushed as vigorously as it has been and is likely to be” (_Life of -Francis Place_, by Prof. Graham Wallas, p. 159). - -The proceedings in this matter can be best traced in the House of -Commons Journals for 1813 and 1814, vols. lxviii. and lxix.; and in -Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, vols. xxv. and xxvii. The master’s -case is given in a pamphlet, _The Origin, Object, and Operation of -the Apprentice Laws_, 1814, 26 pp., preserved in the _Pamphleteer_, -vol. iii. _The Resolutions of the Master Manufacturers and Tradesmen -of the Cities of London and Westminster on the Statute 5 Eliz. c. -4_, 1814, 4 pp., gives the contrary view (B.M. 1882, d. 2). The -contemporary argument for freedom is expressed in _An Estimate of the -Comparative Strength of Great Britain_, by G. Chalmers, 1810; see -_Cunningham_, 1903, vol. ii. p. 660. The Nottingham Library possesses -a unique copy of the _Articles and General Regulations of a Society -for obtaining Parliamentary Relief, and the Encouragement of Mechanics -in the Improvement of Mechanism_, printed at Nottingham in 1813. This -appears to have been a federation of framework knitters’ societies, and -possibly others, for Parliamentary action, as well as trade protection; -and its establishment in 1813 was perhaps connected with the movement -for the revival of the Apprenticeship Laws. - -[110] _Report of the Committee on the State of the Woollen Manufacture -in England_, July 4, 1806, p. 12. - - - - -CHAPTER II - -THE STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE - -[1799-1825] - - -The traditional history of the Trade Union Movement represents the -period prior to 1824 as one of unmitigated persecution and continuous -repression. Every Union that can nowadays claim an existence of -over a century possesses a romantic legend of its early years. The -midnight meeting of patriots in the corner of a field, the buried box -of records, the secret oath, the terms of imprisonment of the leading -officials--all these are in the sagas of the older Unions, and form -material out of which, in an age untroubled by historical criticism, a -semi-mythical origin might easily have been created. That the legend is -not without a basis of fact, we shall see in tracing the actual effect -upon the Trade Union Movement of the legal prohibitions of combinations -of wage-earners which prevailed throughout the United Kingdom up -to 1824. But we shall find that some combinations of journeymen -were at all times recognised by the law, that many others were only -spasmodically interfered with, and that the utmost rigour of the -Combination Laws was not felt until the far-reaching change of policy -marked by the severe Acts of 1799-1800, which applied to all industries -whatsoever. This will lead us naturally to the story of the repeal of -the whole series of Combination Laws in 1824-5, the most impressive -event in the early history of the movement. - -There is a clear distinction--at any rate, as regards England--between -the various statutes which forbade combination prior to the end of the -eighteenth century, and the general Combination Acts of 1799-1800. In -the numerous earlier Acts recited and repealed in 1824 the prohibition -of combination was in all cases incidental to the regulation of the -industry. It was assumed to be the business of Parliament and the law -courts to regulate the conditions of labour; and combinations could, -no more than individuals, be permitted to interfere in disputes for -which a legal remedy was provided. The object primarily aimed at by -the statutes was not the prohibition of combinations, but the fixing -of wages, the prevention of embezzlement or damage, the enforcement of -the contract of service or the proper arrangements for apprenticeship. -And although combinations to interfere with these statutory aims were -obviously illegal, and were usually expressly prohibited, it was an -incidental result that combinations formed to promote the objects of -the legislation, however objectionable they might be to employers, were -apparently not regarded as unlawful.[111] - -Thus one of the earliest types of combination among journeymen--the -society to enforce the law--seems always to have been tacitly accepted -as permissible. Although it is probable that such associations came -technically within the definitions of combination and conspiracy, -whether under the common law or the early statutes, we know of -no case in which they were indicted as illegal. We have already -described, for instance, how, in 1726, the woollen weavers of -Wiltshire and Somersetshire openly combined to present a petition to -the King in Council against their masters, the broad clothiers. The -Privy Council, far from deeming the action of the weavers illegal, -considered and dealt with their complaint. And when the employers -persisted in disobeying the law, we have seen how, in 1756, the -Fraternity of Woollen Clothweavers petitioned the House of Commons -to make more effectual the power of the justices to fix wages, and -obtained a new Act of Parliament in accordance with their desires. -The almost perpetual combinations of the framework knitters between -1710 and 1800 were never made the subject of legal proceedings. The -combinations of the London silkweavers obtained a virtual sanction -by the Spitalfields Acts, under which the delegates of the workmen’s -organisations regularly appeared before the justices, who fixed and -revised the piecework prices. Even in 1808, after the stringency of -the law against combinations had been greatly increased, the Glasgow -and Lancashire cotton-weavers were permitted openly to combine for the -purpose of seeking a legal fixing of wages, with the results already -described. Nor was it only the combination to obtain a legally fixed -rate of wages that was left unmolested by the law. Combinations to -put in force the sections of the Statute of Apprentices (5 Eliz. c. -4), or other prohibitions of the employment of “illegal workmen,” -occurred at intervals down to 1813. In 1749 a club of journeymen -painters of the City of London proceeded against a master painter -for employing a non-freeman; and the proceedings led, in 1750, to -a conference of thirty journeymen and thirty masters with the City -Corporation, at which the regulations were altered.[112] No one seems -to have questioned the legality of the 1811-13 outburst of combinations -to prosecute masters who had not served an apprenticeship, or who -were employing unapprenticed workmen. One reason, doubtless, for the -immunity of combinations to enforce the law was that they included -employers and sympathisers of all ranks. For instance, the combinations -in 1811-13 to enforce the apprenticeship laws comprised both masters -and journeymen, who were equally aggrieved by the competition of the -new capitalist and his “hirelings.”[113] The Yorkshire Clothiers’ -Community, or “Brief Institution,” to which reference has already been -made, included, in some of its ramifications, the “domestic” master -manufacturers, who fought side by side with the journeymen against the -new factory system. - -On the other hand, combinations of journeymen to regulate for -themselves their wages and conditions of employment stood, from -the first, on a different footing. The common law doctrine of the -illegality of proceedings “in restraint of trade,” as subsequently -interpreted by the judges, of itself made illegal all combinations -whatsoever of journeymen to regulate the conditions of their work. -Moreover, with the regulation by law of wages and the conditions of -employment, any combination to resist the order of the justices on -these matters was obviously of the nature of rebellion, and was, in -fact, put down like any individual disobedience of the law. Nor was -express statute law against combinations wanting. The statute of 1305, -entitled, “Who be Conspirators and who be Champertors” (33 Edw. I. -st. 2), was in 1818 held to apply to a combination to raise wages -among cotton-spinners, whose leaders were sentenced to two years’ -imprisonment under this Act. The “Bill of Conspiracies of Victuallers -and Craftsmen” of 1549 (2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 15), though aimed primarily -at combinations to keep up the prices charged to consumers, clearly -includes within its prohibitions any combinations of journeymen -craftsmen to keep up wages or reduce hours. - -It is some proof of the novelty of the workmen’s combinations in the -early part of the eighteenth century, that neither the employers nor -the authorities thought at first of resorting to the very sufficient -powers of the existing law against them. When, in 1720, the master -tailors of London found themselves confronted with an organised -body of journeymen claiming to make a collective bargain, seriously -“in restraint of trade,” they turned, not to the law courts, but to -Parliament for protection, and obtained, as we have seen, the Act “for -regulating the Journeymen Tailors within the bills of mortality” (7 -Geo. I. st. 1, c. 13, amended by 8 Geo. III. c. 17).[114] Similarly, -when the clothiers of the West of England began between 1717 and -1725 to be inconvenienced by the “riotous and tumultuous clubs and -societies” of woolcombers and weavers, who made bye-laws and maintained -a Standard Rate,[115] they did not put in force the existing law, but -successfully petitioned Parliament for the Act “to prevent unlawful -combinations of workmen employed in the Woollen Manufactures” (12 Geo. -I. c. 34). Indeed, prior to the general Acts of 1799 and 1800 against -all combinations of journeymen, Parliament was, from the beginning -of the eighteenth century, perpetually enacting statutes forbidding -combinations in particular trades.[116] - -In the English statutes this prohibition of combination was, as we have -seen, only a secondary feature, incidental to the main purpose of the -law. The case is different with regard to the early Irish Acts, the -terms of which point to a much sharper cleavage between masters and -men, due, perhaps, to difference of religion and race. The very first -statute against combinations which was passed by the Irish Parliament, -the Act of 1729 (3 Geo. II. c. 14), contained no provisions protecting -the wage-earner, and prohibited combinations in all trades whatsoever. -The Act of 1743 (17 Geo. II. c. 8), called forth by the failure of -the previous prohibition, equally confined itself to drastic penal -measures, including the punishment of the keepers of the public-houses -which were used for meetings. But in later years the English practice -seems to have been followed; for the laws of 1758 (31 Geo. II. c. -17), 1763 (3 Geo. III. 34, sec. 23), 1771 (11 and 12 Geo. III. c. 18, -sec. 40, and c. 33), and 1779 (19 and 20 Geo. III. c. 19, c. 24, and -c. 36) provide for the fixing of wages, and contain other regulations -of industry, amongst which the prohibition of combinations comes as a -matter of course. - -By the end of the century, at any rate, the common law, both in England -and in Ireland, had been brought to the aid of the special statutes, -and the judges were ruling that any conspiracy to do an act which -they considered unlawful in a combination, even if not criminal in an -individual, was against the common law. Soon the legislature followed -suit. In 1799 the Act 39 Geo. III. c. 81 expressly penalised all -combinations whatsoever. - -The grounds for this drastic measure appear to have been found in the -marked increase of Trade Unionism among workers of various kinds. The -operatives’ combinations were regarded as being in the nature of mutiny -against their employers and masters; destructive of the “discipline” -necessary to the expansion of trade; and interfering with the right of -the employer to “do what he liked with his own.” The immediate occasion -was a petition from London engineering employers, complaining of an -alarming strike of the millwrights. This led to a Bill suppressing -combination in the engineering trade, which was passed by the House of -Commons, in spite of the protests of Sir Francis Burdett and Benjamin -Hobhouse. The measure was, however, dropped in the House of Lords in -favour of a more comprehensive Bill, applicable to all trades, which -Whitbread had suggested. This was introduced on June 17, 1799, by -William Pitt himself, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who referred -to the alarming growth of combination, not merely in the Metropolis but -also in the north of England. Subsequent stages of the Bill were moved -by George Rose, another member of the Administration; and the measure -was hurried through all its stages in both Houses with great rapidity, -receiving the Royal Assent only twenty-four days after its introduction -into the House of Commons. There was therefore little opportunity for -any effective demonstration against its provisions, but the Journeymen -Calico-printers’ Society of London petitioned against the measure, and -instructed counsel to put forward their objections. They represented -that, although the Bill professed merely “to prevent unlawful -combinations,” it created “new crimes of so indefinite a nature that no -one journeyman or workman will be safe in holding any conversation with -another on the subject of his trade or employment.” Only a few other -petitions were presented, and, though Benjamin Hobhouse opposed it in -the Commons and Lord Holland in the Lords, the Bill passed unaltered -into law.[117] - -But the struggle was not yet over. The employers were not satisfied -with the 1799 Act; and _The Times_ announced in January 1800 that “one -of the first Acts of the Imperial Parliament [of the United Kingdom] -will be for the prevention of conspiracies among journeymen tradesmen -to raise their wages. All benefit clubs and societies are to be -immediately suppressed.”[118] On the other hand, the trade clubs in -all parts of the country poured in petitions of protest; and the Whig -and Tory members for Liverpool, General Tarleton and Colonel Gascoyne, -among whose constituents were the strongly combined shipwrights, who -were freemen and Parliamentary electors, united to bring in an amending -Bill. This was supported in a series of brilliant speeches by Sheridan, -whose attempts to reduce to a minimum the mischief of the 1799 Act were -strenuously resisted by Pitt and the Law Officers of the Crown. The -petitions were considered by a Committee, which recommended certain -amendments. Two justices were substituted for one as the tribunal; -no justice engaged in the same trade as the defendant could act; -the qualifying words “wilfully and maliciously” were introduced in -the description of the offences. A clause protecting trade friendly -societies was proposed but eventually rejected. A particularly odious -feature of the 1799 Act, under which defendants were required to give -evidence against themselves under severe penalties for refusal, was -left unaltered. A series of interesting clauses providing for the -reference of wage disputes to arbitration--copied from the contemporary -Act relating to the cotton trade[119]--aroused great opposition, as -tending “to fix wages” and as involving the recognition of the Trade -Union representative, but they were finally adopted; without, so far as -we are aware, ever being put in force.[120] - -The general Combination Act of 1800 was not merely the codification -of existing laws, or their extension from particular trades to the -whole field of industry. It represented a new and momentous departure. -Hitherto the central or local authority had acted as a court of appeal -on all questions affecting the work and wages of the citizen. If the -master and journeyman failed to agree as to what constituted a fair -day’s wage for a fair day’s work, the higgling of the market was -peremptorily superseded by the authoritative determination, presumably -on grounds of social expediency, of the standard of remuneration. -Probably the actual fixing of wages by justices of the peace fell very -rapidly into disuse as regards the majority of industries, although -formal orders are found in the minutes of Quarter Sessions during -the first quarter of the nineteenth century, and deep traces of the -practice long survived in the customary rates of hiring. Towards the -end of the eighteenth century, at any rate, free bargaining between the -capitalist and his workmen became practically the sole method of fixing -wages. Then it was that the gross injustice of prohibiting combinations -of journeymen became apparent. “A single master,” said Lord Jeffrey, -“was at liberty at any time to turn off the whole of his workmen at -once--100 or 1000 in number--if they would not accept of the wages he -chose to offer. But it was made an offence for the whole of the workmen -to leave that master at once if he refused to give the wages they -chose to require.”[121] What was even more oppressive in practice was -the employers’ use of the threat of prosecution to prevent even the -beginnings of resistance among the workmen to any reduction of wages or -worsening of conditions. - -It is true that the law forbade combinations of employers as well as -combinations of journeymen. Even if it had been impartially carried -out, there would still have remained the inequality due to the fact -that, in the new system of industry, a single employer was himself -equivalent to a very numerous combination. But the hand of justice -was not impartial. The “tacit, but constant” combination of employers -to depress wages, to which Adam Smith refers, could not be reached by -the law. Nor was there any disposition on the part of the magistrates -or the judges to find the masters guilty, even in cases of flagrant or -avowed combination. No one prosecuted the master cutlers who, in 1814, -openly formed the Sheffield Mercantile and Manufacturing Union, having -for its main rule that no merchant or manufacturer should pay higher -prices for any article of Sheffield make than were current in the -preceding year, with a penalty of £100 for each contravention of this -illegal agreement.[122] During the whole epoch of repression, whilst -thousands of journeymen suffered for the crime of combination, there -is no case on record in which an employer was punished for the same -offence. - -To the ordinary politician a combination of employers and a combination -of workmen seemed in no way comparable. The former was, at most, an -industrial misdemeanour: the latter was in all cases a political crime. -Under the shadow of the French Revolution, the English governing -classes regarded all associations of the common people with the utmost -alarm. In this general terror lest insubordination should develop into -rebellion were merged both the capitalist’s objection to high wages and -the politician’s dislike of Democratic institutions. The Combination -Laws, as Francis Place tells us, “were considered as absolutely -necessary to prevent ruinous extortions of workmen, which, if not -thus restrained, would destroy the whole of the Trade, Manufactures, -Commerce, and Agriculture of the nation.... This led to the conclusion -that the workmen were the most unprincipled of mankind. Hence the -continued ill-will, suspicion, and in almost every possible way the -bad conduct of workmen and their employers towards one another. So -thoroughly was this false notion entertained that whenever men were -prosecuted to conviction for having combined to regulate their wages -or the hours of working, however heavy the sentence passed on them was, -and however rigorously it was inflicted, not the slightest feeling of -compassion was manifested by anybody for the unfortunate sufferers. -Justice was entirely out of the question: they could seldom obtain a -hearing before a magistrate, never without impatience or insult; and -never could they calculate on even an approximation to a rational -conclusion.... Could an accurate account be given of proceedings, of -hearings before magistrates, trials at sessions and in the Court of -King’s Bench, the gross injustice, the foul invective, and terrible -punishments inflicted would not, after a few years have passed away, be -credited on any but the best evidence.”[123] - -It must not, however, be supposed that every combination was made the -subject of prosecution, or that the Trade Union leader of the period -passed his whole life in gaol. Owing to the extremely inefficient -organisation of the English police, and the absence of any public -prosecutor, a combination was usually let alone until some employer -was sufficiently inconvenienced by its operations to be willing -himself to set the law in motion. In many cases we find employers -apparently accepting or conniving at their men’s combinations.[124] -The master printers in London not only recognised the very ancient -institution of the “chapel,” but evidently found it convenient, at -any rate from 1785 onwards, to receive and consider proposals from -the journeymen as an organised body. In 1804 we even hear of a joint -committee consisting of an equal number of masters and journeymen, -authorised by their respective bodies to frame regulations for the -future payment of labour, and resulting in the elaborate “scale” of -1805, signed by both masters and men.[125] The London coopers had -a recognised organisation in 1813, in which year a list of prices -was agreed upon by representatives of the masters and men. This -list was revised in 1816 and 1819, without any one thinking of a -prosecution.[126] The Trade Union was openly reformed in 1821 as the -Philanthropic Society of Coopers. The London brushmakers in 1805 had “A -List of Prices agreed upon between the Masters and Journeymen,” which -is still extant. The framework knitters, and also the tailors of the -various villages in Nottinghamshire, were, from 1794 to 1810, in the -habit of freely meeting together, both masters and men, “to consider -of matters relative to the trade,” the conferences being convened by -public advertisement.[127] The minute books of the local Trade Union -of the carpenters of Preston for the years 1807 to 1824 chronicle an -apparently unconcealed and unmolested existence, in correspondence -with other carpenters’ societies throughout Lancashire. The accounts -contain no items for the expense of defending their officers against -prosecutions, whereas there are several payments for advertisements -and public meetings, and, be it added, a very large expenditure in -beer. And there is a lively tradition among the aged block printers -of Glasgow that, in their fathers’ time, when their very active Trade -Union exacted a fee of seven guineas from each new apprentice, this -money was always straightway drunk by the men of the print-field, the -employer taking his seat at the head of the table, and no work being -done by any one until the fund was exhausted. The calico-printers’ -organisation appears, at the early part of the nineteenth century, to -have been one of the strongest and most complete of the Unions. In -an impressive pamphlet of 1815 the men are thus appealed to by the -employers: “We have by turns conceded what we ought all manfully to -have resisted, and you, elated with success, have been led on from -one extravagant demand to another, till the burden is become too -intolerable to be borne. You fix the number of our apprentices, and -oftentimes even the number of our journeymen. You dismiss certain -proportions of our hands, and will not allow others to come in their -stead. You stop all Surface Machines, and go the length even to destroy -the rollers before our face. You restrict the Cylinder Machine, and -even dictate the kind of pattern it is to print. You refuse, on urgent -occasions, to work by candlelight, and even compel our apprentices -to do the same. You dismiss our overlookers when they don’t suit -you; and force obnoxious servants into our employ. Lastly, you set -all subordination and good order at defiance, and instead of showing -deference and respect to your employers, treat them with personal -insult and contempt.”[128] Notwithstanding all this, no systematic -attempt appears to have been made to put down the calico-printers’ -combination, and only one or two isolated prosecutions can be traced. -In Dublin, too, the cabinetmakers in the early part of the present -century were combined in a strong union called the Samaritan Society, -exclusively for trade purposes; “but though illegal, the employers -do not seem to have looked upon it with any great aversion; and when -on one occasion the chief constable had the men attending a meeting -arrested, the employers came forward to bail them. Indeed, they -professed that their object, though primarily to defend their own -interests against the masters, was also to defend the interests of -the masters against unprincipled journeymen. Many of the masters on -receiving the bill of a journeyman were in the habit of sending it -to the trades’ society committee to be taxed, after which the word -Committee was stamped upon it. One case was mentioned, when between -two and three pounds were knocked off a bill of about eight pounds -by the trade committee.”[129] And both in London and Edinburgh the -journeymen openly published, without fear of prosecution, elaborate -printed lists of piecework prices, compiled sometimes by a committee -of the men’s Trade Union, sometimes by a joint committee of employers -and employed.[130] “The London Cabinetmakers’ Union Book of Prices,” -of which editions were published in 1811 and 1824, was a costly -and elaborate work, with many plates, published “by a Committee of -Masters and Journeymen ... to prevent those litigations which have too -frequently existed in the trade.” Various supplements and “index keys” -to this work were published; and other similar lists exist. So lax was -the administration of the law that George White, the energetic clerk to -Hume’s Committee, asserted that the Act of 1800 had “been in general a -dead letter upon those artisans upon whom it was intended to have an -effect--namely, the shoemakers, printers, papermakers, shipbuilders, -tailors, etc., who have had their regular societies and houses of call, -as though no such Act was in existence; and in fact it would be almost -impossible for many of those trades to be carried on without such -societies, who are in general sick and travelling relief societies; and -the roads and parishes would be much pestered with these travelling -trades, who travel from want of employment, were it not for their -societies who relieve what they call tramps.”[131] - -But although clubs of journeymen might be allowed to take, like the -London bookbinders, “a social pint of porter together,” and even, in -times of industrial peace, to provide for their tramps and perform all -the functions of a Trade Union, the employers had always the power of -meeting any demands by a prosecution. Even those trades in which we -have discovered evidence of the unmolested existence of combinations -furnish examples of the rigorous application of the law. In 1819 we -read of numerous prosecutions of cabinetmakers, hatters, ironfounders, -and other journeymen, nominally for leaving their work unfinished, -but really for the crime of combination.[132] In 1798 five journeymen -printers were indicted at the Old Bailey for conspiracy. The employers -had sent for the men’s leaders to discuss their proposals, when, as -it was complained, “the five defendants came, clothed as delegates, -representing themselves as the head of a Parliament as we may call it.” -The men were in fact members of a trade friendly society of pressmen -“held at the Crown, near St. Dunstan’s Church, Fleet Street,” which, as -the prosecuting counsel declared, “from its appearance certainly bore -no reproachable mark upon it. It was called a friendly society, but -by means of some wicked men among them this society degenerated into -a most abominable meeting for the purpose of a conspiracy; those of -the trade who did not join their society were summoned, and even the -apprentices, and were told unless they conformed to the practices of -these journeymen, when they came out of their times they should not be -employed.” Notwithstanding the fact that the employers had themselves -recognised and negotiated with the society, the Recorder sentenced all -the defendants to two years’ imprisonment.[133] - -Twelve years later it was the brutality of another prosecution of -the compositors that impressed Francis Place with the necessity of -an alteration in the law. “The cruel persecutions,” he writes, “of -the Journeymen Printers employed in _The Times_ newspaper in 1810 -were carried to an almost incredible extent. The judge who tried and -sentenced some of them was the Common Sergeant of London, Sir John -Sylvester, commonly known by the cognomen of ‘Bloody Black Jack.’... No -judge took more pains than did this judge on the unfortunate printers, -to make it appear that their offence was one of great enormity, to -beat down and alarm the really respectable men who had fallen into his -clutches, and on whom he inflicted scandalously severe sentences.”[134] -Nor did prosecution always depend on the caprice of an employer. In -December 1817 the Bolton constables, accidentally getting to know -that ten delegates of the calico-printers from the various districts -of the kingdom were to meet on New Year’s Day, arranged to arrest the -whole body and seize all their papers. The ten delegates suffered -three months’ imprisonment, although no dispute with their employers -was in progress.[135] But the main use of the law to the employers -was to checkmate strikes, and ward off demands for better conditions -of labour. Already, in 1786, the law of conspiracy had been strained -to convict, and punish with two years’ imprisonment, the five London -bookbinders who were leading a strike to reduce hours from twelve to -eleven.[136] When, at the Aberdeen Master Tailors’ Gild, in 1797, “it -was represented to the trade that their journeymen had entered into -an illegal combination for the purpose of raising their wages,” the -masters unanimously “agreed not to give any additional wages to their -servants,” and backed up this resolution of their own combination -by getting twelve journeymen prosecuted and fined for the crime of -combining.[137] In 1799 the success of the London shoemakers in -picketing obnoxious employers led to the prosecution of two of them, -which was made the means of inducing the men to consent to dissolve -their society, then seven years old, and return to work at once.[138] -Two other shoemakers of York were convicted in the same year for the -crime of “combining to raise the price of their labour in making -shoes, and refusing to make shoes under a certain price,” and counsel -said that “in every great town in the North combinations of this sort -existed.”[139] The coach-makers’ strike of 1819 was similarly stopped, -and the “Benevolent Society of Coachmakers” broken up by the conviction -of the general secretary and twenty other members, who were, upon -this condition, released on their own recognisances.[140] In 1819 -some calico-engravers in the service of a Manchester firm protested -against the undue multiplication of apprentices by their employers, -and enforced their protest by declining to work. For this “conspiracy” -they were fined and imprisoned.[141] And though the master cutlers -were allowed, with impunity, to subscribe to the Sheffield Mercantile -and Manufacturing Union, which fixed the rates of wages, and brought -pressure to bear on recalcitrant employers, the numerous trade clubs of -the operatives were not left unmolested. In 1816 seven scissor-grinders -were sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for belonging to what -they called the “Misfortune Club,” which paid out-of-work benefit, and -sought to maintain the customary rates.[142] - -But it was in the new textile industries that the weight of the -Combination Laws was chiefly felt. White and Henson describe the Act of -1800 as being in these trades “a tremendous millstone round the neck of -the local artisan, which has depressed and debased him to the earth: -every act which he has attempted, every measure that he has devised to -keep up or raise his wages, he has been told was illegal: the whole -force of the civil power and influence of the district has been exerted -against him because he was acting illegally: the magistrates, acting, -as they believed, in unison with the views of the legislature, to -check and keep down wages and combination, regarded, in almost every -instance, every attempt on the part of the artisan to ameliorate his -situation or support his station in society as a species of sedition -and resistance of the Government: every committee or active man among -them was regarded as a turbulent, dangerous instigator, whom it was -necessary to watch and crush if possible.”[143] To cite one only of -the instances, it was given in evidence before Hume’s Committee that -in 1818 certain Bolton millowners suggested to the operative weavers -that they should concert together to leave the employment of those who -paid below the current rate. Acting on this hint a meeting of forty -delegates took place, at which it was resolved to ask for the advance -agreed to by the good employers. A fortnight later the president -and the two secretaries were arrested, convicted of conspiracy, -and imprisoned for one and two years respectively, although their -employers gave evidence on the prisoners’ behalf to the effect that -they had themselves requested the men to attend the meeting, and had -approved the resolutions passed.[144] In the following year fifteen -cotton-spinners of Manchester, who had met “to receive contributions to -bury their dead,” under “Articles” sanctioned by Quarter Sessions in -1795, were seized in the committee-room by the police, and committed to -trial for conspiracy, bail being refused. After three or four months’ -imprisonment they were brought to trial, the whole local bar--seven in -number--being briefed against them. Collections were made in London and -elsewhere (including the town of Lynn in Norfolk) for their defence. -The enrolment of their club as a friendly society availed little. It -was urged in court that “all societies, whether benefit societies or -otherwise, were only cloaks for the people of England to conspire -against the State,” and most of the defendants were sentenced to -varying terms of imprisonment.[145] - -But the Scottish Weavers’ Strike of 1812, described in the preceding -chapter, is the most striking case of all. In the previous year certain -cotton-spinners had been convicted of combination and imprisoned, -the judge observing that there was a clear remedy in law, as the -magistrates had full power and authority to fix rates of wages or -settle disputes. In 1812 many of the employers refused to accept the -rates which the justices had declared as fair for weaving; and all -the weavers at the forty thousand looms between Aberdeen and Carlisle -struck to enforce the justices’ rates. The employers had already -made overtures through the sheriff of the county for a satisfactory -settlement when the Government arrested the central committee of -five, who were directing the proceedings. These men were sentenced -to periods of imprisonment varying from four to eighteen months; the -strike failed, and the association broke up.[146] The student of the -newspapers between 1800 and 1824 will find abundant record of judicial -barbarities, of which the cases cited above may be taken as samples. -No statistics exist as to the frequency of the prosecutions or the -severity of the sentences; but it is easy to understand, from such -reports as are available, the sullen resentment which the working class -suffered under these laws. Their repeal was a necessary preliminary -to the growth among the most oppressed sections of the workers of any -real power of protecting themselves, by Trade Union effort, against the -degradation of their Standard of Life. - -The failure of the Combination Laws to suppress the somewhat -dictatorial Trade Unionism of the skilled handicraftsmen, and their -efficacy in preventing the growth of permanent Unions among other -sections of the workers, is explained by class distinctions, now -passed away or greatly modified, which prevailed at the beginning of -the present century. To-day, when we speak of “the aristocracy of -labour” we include under that heading the organised miners and factory -operatives of the North on the same superior footing as the skilled -handicraftsman. In 1800 they were at opposite extremes of the social -scale in the wage-earning class, the weaver and the miner being then -further removed from the handicraftsman than the docker or general -labourer is from the Lancashire cotton-spinner or Northumberland -hewer of to-day. The skilled artisans formed, at any rate in London, -an intermediate class between the shopkeeper and the great mass of -unorganised labourers or operatives in the new machine industries. -The substantial fees demanded all through the eighteenth century for -apprenticeship to the “crafts” had secured to the members and their -eldest sons a virtual monopoly.[147] Even after the repeal of the laws -requiring a formal apprenticeship some time had to elapse before the -supply of this class of handicraftsmen overtook the growing demand. -Thus we gather from the surviving records that these trades have -never been more completely organised in London than between 1800 and -1820.[148] We find the London hatters, coopers, curriers, compositors, -millwrights, and shipwrights maintaining earnings which, upon their -own showing, amounted to the comparatively large sum of thirty to -fifty shillings per week. At the same period the Lancashire weaver -or the Leicester hosier, in full competition with steam-power and -its accompaniment of female and child labour, could, even when fully -employed, earn barely ten shillings. We see this difference in the -Standard of Life reflected in the characters of the combinations formed -by the two classes. - -In the skilled handicrafts, long accustomed to corporate government, -we find, even under repressive laws, no unlawful oaths, seditious -emblems, or other common paraphernalia of secret societies. The -London Brushmakers, whose Union apparently dates from the early -part of the eighteenth century, expressly insisted “that no person -shall be admitted a member who is not well affected to his present -Majesty and the Protestant Succession, and in good health and of a -respectable character.” But this loyalty was not inconsistent with -their subscribing to the funds of the 1831 agitation for the Reform -Bill.[149] The prevailing tone of the superior workmen down to 1848 -was, in fact, strongly Radical; and their leaders took a prominent part -in all the working-class politics of the time. From their ranks came -such organisers as Place, Lovett, and Gast.[150] But wherever we have -been able to gain any idea of their proceedings, their trade clubs were -free from anything that could now be conceived as political sedition. -It was these clubs of handicraftsmen that formed the backbone of the -various “central committees” which dealt with the main topics of Trade -Unionism during the next thirty years. They it was who furnished such -assistance as was given by working men to the movement for the repeal -of the Combination Laws. And their influence gave a certain dignity and -stability to the Trade Union Movement, without which, under hostile -governments, it could never have emerged from the petulant rebellions -of hunger-strikes and machine-breaking. - -The principal effect of the Combination Laws on these well-organised -handicrafts in London, Liverpool, Dublin, and perhaps other towns, -was to make the internal discipline more rigid and the treatment of -non-unionists more arbitrary. Place describes how “in these societies -there are some few individuals who possess the confidence of their -fellows, and when any matter relating to the trade has been talked -over, either at the club or in a separate room, or in a workshop or a -yard, and the matter has become notorious, these men are expected to -direct what shall be done, and they do direct--simply by a hint. On -this the men act; and one and all support those who may be thrown out -of work or otherwise inconvenienced. If matters were to be discussed -as gentlemen seem to suppose they must be, no resolution would ever be -come to. The influence of the men alluded to would soon cease if the -law were repealed. It is the law and the law alone which causes the -confidence of the men to be given to their leaders. Those who direct -are not known to the body, and not one man in twenty, perhaps, knows -the person of any one who directs. It is a rule among them to ask no -questions, and another rule among them who know most, either to give no -answer if questioned, or an answer to mislead.”[151] - -In the new machine industries, on the other hand, the repeated -reductions of wages, the rapid alterations of processes, and the -substitution of women and children for adult male workers, had -gradually reduced the workers to a condition of miserable poverty. -The reports of Parliamentary committees, from 1800 onward, contain a -dreary record of the steady degradation of the Standard of Life in the -textile industries. “The sufferings of persons employed in the cotton -manufacture,” Place writes of this period, “were beyond credibility: -they were drawn into combinations, betrayed, prosecuted, convicted, -sentenced, and monstrously severe punishments inflicted on them: they -were reduced to and kept in the most wretched state of existence.”[152] -Their employers, instead of being, as in the older handicrafts, little -more than master workmen, recognising the customary Standard of Life -of their journeymen, were often capitalist _entrepreneurs_, devoting -their whole energies to the commercial side of the business, and -leaving their managers to buy labour in the market at the cheapest -possible rate. This labour was recruited from all localities and many -different occupations. It was brigaded and controlled by despotic -laws, enforced by numerous fines and disciplinary deductions. Cases of -gross tyranny and heartless cruelty are not wanting. Without a common -standard, a common tradition, or mutual confidence, the workers in -the new mills were helpless against their masters. Their ephemeral -combinations and frequent strikes were, as a rule, only passionate -struggles to maintain a bare subsistence wage. In place of the steady -organised resistance to encroachments maintained by the handicraftsmen, -we watch, in the machine industries, the alternation of outbursts of -machine-breaking and outrages, with intervals of abject submission and -reckless competition with each other for employment. In the conduct -of such organisation as there was, repressive laws had, with the -operatives as with the London artisans, the effect of throwing great -power into the hands of a few men. These leaders were implicitly obeyed -in times of industrial conflict, but the repeated defeats which they -were unable to avert prevented that growth of confidence which is -indispensable for permanent organisation.[153] Both leaders and rank -and file, too, were largely implicated in political seditions, and were -the victims of spies and Ministerial emissaries of all sorts. All these -circumstances led to the prevalence among them of fearful oaths, mystic -initiation rites, and other manifestations of a sensationalism which -was sometimes puerile and sometimes criminal. - -The most notorious of these “seditions,” about which little is really -known, was the “Luddite” upheaval of 1811-12, when riotous mobs of -manual workers, acting under some sort of organisation, went about -destroying textile machinery and sometimes wrecking factories. To what -extent this had any direct connection with the Trade Union Movement -seems to us, pending more penetrating investigation of the unpublished -evidence, somewhat uncertain. That the operatives very generally -sympathised with the most violent protest against the displacement -of hand labour by machinery, and the extreme distress which it was -causing, is clear. The Luddite movement apparently began among the -Framework-knitters, who had long been organised in local clubs, with -some rudimentary federal bond; and the whole direction of the Luddites -was often ascribed, as by the Mayor of Leicester in 1812, to “the -Committee of Framework-knitters, who have as complete an organisation -of the whole body as you could have of a regiment.”[154] But money -was collected from men of other trades, notably bricklayers, masons, -spinners, weavers, and colliers, as well as from the soldiers in some -of the regiments stationed at provincial centres; and such evidence -as we have found points rather to a widespread secret oath-bound -conspiracy, not of the men of any one trade, but of wage-earners of all -kinds. We find an informer stating (June 22, 1812), with what truth -we know not, “that the Union extends from London to Nottingham, and -from thence to Manchester and Carlisle. Small towns lying between the -principal places are not yet organised, such as Garstang and Burton. -Only some of the trades have taken the first oath. He says there is a -second oath taken by suspicious persons.”[155] On the other hand, it -looks as if the various local Trade Clubs were made use of, in some -cases informally, as agents or branches of the conspiracy. - -General Maitland, writing from Buxton (June 22, 1812) to the Home -Secretary, says that, in his opinion, “the whole of this business ... -originated in those constant efforts made by these associations for -many years past to keep up the price of the manufacturers’ wages; that -finding their efforts for this unavailing, both from the circumstances -of the trade and the high price of provisions, they in a moment of -irritation, for which it is but just to say they had considerable -ground from the real state of distress in which they were placed ... -began to think of effecting that by force which they had ever been -trying to do by other means; and that in this state the oath was -introduced.... I believe the whole to be, certainly a most mischievous, -but undefined and indistinct attempt to be in a state of preparation to -do that by force which they had not succeeded in carrying into effect -as they usually did by other means.” The whole episode has been too -much ignored, even by social historians; and “Byron’s famous speech and -Charlotte Brontë’s more famous novel give to most people their idea -of the misery of the time, and of its cause, the displacement of hand -labour by machinery.”[156] - -The coal-miners were in many respects even worse off than the hosiery -workers and the cotton weavers. In Scotland they had been but lately -freed from actual serfdom, the final act of emancipation not having -been passed until 1799. In Monmouthshire and South Wales the oppression -of the “tommy shops” of the small employers was extreme. In the North -of England the “yearly bond,” the truck system, and the arbitrary -fines kept the underground workers in complete subjection. The result -is seen in the turbulence of their frequent “sticks” or strikes, during -which troops were often required to quell their violence. The great -strike of 1810 was carried on by an oath-bound confederacy recruited -by the practice of “brothering,” “so named because the members of the -union bound themselves by a most solemn oath to obey the orders of the -brotherhood, under the penalty of being stabbed through the heart or of -having their bowels ripped up.”[157] - -Notwithstanding these differences between various classes of workers, -the growing sense of solidarity among the whole body of wage-earners -rises into special prominence during this period of tyranny and -repression. The trades in which it was usual for men to tramp from -place to place in search of employment had long possessed, as we have -seen, some kind of loose federal organisation extending throughout -the country. In spite of the law of 1797 forbidding the existence -of “corresponding societies,” the various federal organisations of -Curriers, Hatters, Calico-printers, Woolcombers, Woolstaplers, and -other handicraftsmen kept up constant correspondence on trade matters, -and raised money for common trade purposes. In some cases there existed -an elaborate national organisation, with geographical districts -and annual delegate meetings; like that of the Calico-printers who -were arrested by the Bolton constables in 1818. The rules of the -Papermakers,[158] which certainly date from 1803, provide for the -division of England into five districts, with detailed arrangements -for representation and collective action. This national organisation -was, notwithstanding repressive laws, occasionally very effective. We -need cite only one instance, furnished by the Liverpool Ropemakers in -1823. When a certain firm attempted to put labourers to the work, the -local society of ropespinners informed it that this was “contrary to -the regulations of the trade,” and withdrew all their members. The -employers, failing to get men in Liverpool, sent to Hull and Newcastle, -but found that the Ropespinners’ Society had already apprised the local -trade clubs at those towns. The firm then imported “blacklegs” from -Glasgow, who were met on arrival by the local unionists, inveigled -to a “trade club-house,” and alternately threatened and cajoled out -of their engagements. Finally the head of the firm went to London to -purchase yarn; but the London workmen, finding that the yarn was for -a “struck shop,” refused to complete the order. The last resource of -the employers was an indictment at the Sessions for combination, but a -Liverpool jury, in the teeth of the evidence and the judge’s summing -up, gave a verdict of acquittal.[159] - -This solidarity was not confined to the members of a particular -trade. The masters are always complaining that one trade supports -another, and old account books of Trade Unions for this period abound -with entries of sums contributed in aid of disputes in other trades, -either in the same town or elsewhere. Thus the small society of London -Goldbeaters, during the three years 1810-12, lent or gave substantial -sums, amounting in all to £200, to fourteen other trades.[160] The Home -Secretary was informed in 1823 that a combination of cotton-spinners -at Bolton, whose books had been seized, had received donations, -not only from twenty-eight cotton-spinners’ committees in as many -Lancashire towns, but also from fourteen other trades, from coal-miners -to butchers.[161] A picturesque illustration of this brotherly help -in need occurs in the account of an appeal to the Pontefract Quarter -Sessions by certain Sheffield cutlers against their conviction for -combination: “The appellants were in court, but hour after hour passed, -and no counsel moved the case. The reason was a want of funds for the -purpose. At last, whilst in court, a remittance from the clubs in -Manchester, to the amount of one hundred pounds, arrived, and then the -counsel was fee’d, and the case, which, but for the arrival of the -money from this town, must have dropped in that stage, was proceeded -with.”[162] And although the day of Trades Councils had not yet come, -it was a common thing for the various trade societies of a particular -town to unite in sending witnesses to Parliamentary Committees, -preparing petitions to the House of Commons and paying counsel to -support their case, engaging solicitors to prosecute offending -employers, and collecting subscriptions for strikes.[163] This tendency -to form joint committees of local trades was, as we shall see, greatly -strengthened in the agitation against the Combination Laws from -1823-25. With the final abandonment of all legislative protection of -the Standard of Life, and the complete divorce of the worker from the -instruments of production, the wage-earners in the various industrial -centres became indeed ever more conscious of the widening of the old -separate trade disputes into “the class war” which has characterised -the past century. - -It is difficult to-day to realise the naïve surprise with which -the employers of that time regarded the practical development of -working-class solidarity. The master witnesses before Parliamentary -Committees, and the judges in sentencing workmen for combination, -are constantly found reciting instances of mutual help to prove the -existence of a widespread “conspiracy” against the dominant classes. -That the London Tailors should send money to the Glasgow Weavers, or -the Goldbeaters to the Ropespinners, seemed to the middle and upper -classes little short of a crime. - -The movement for a repeal of the Combination Laws began in a period of -industrial dislocation and severe political repression. The economic -results of the long war, culminating in the comparatively low prices -of the peace for most manufactured products, though not for wheat, -led in 1816 to an almost universal reduction of wages throughout the -country. In open defiance of the law the masters, in many instances, -deliberately combined in agreements to pay lower rates. This agreement -was not confined to the employers in a particular trade, who may have -been confronted by organised bodies of journeymen, but extended, in -some cases, to all employers of labour in a particular locality. The -landowners and farmers of Tiverton, for instance, at a “numerous and -respectable meeting at the Town Hall” in 1816, resolved “that, in -consequence of the low price of provisions,” not more than certain -specified wages should be given to smiths, carpenters, masons, -thatchers, or masons’ labourers.[164] The Compositors, Coopers, -Shoemakers, Carpenters, and many other trades record serious reductions -of wages at this period. In these cases the masters justified their -action on the ground that, owing to the fall of prices, the Standard -of Life of the journeymen would not be depressed. But in the great -staple industries there ensued a cutting competition between employers -to secure orders in a falling market, their method being to undersell -each other by beating down wages below subsistence level--an operation -often aided by the practice, then common, of supplementing insufficient -earnings out of the Poor Rate. This produced such ruinous results that -local protests were soon made. At Leicester the authorities decided -to maintain the men’s “Statement Price” by agreeing to wholly support -out of a voluntary fund those who could not get work at the full -rates. This was bitterly resented by the neighbouring employers, who -seriously contemplated indicting the lord-lieutenant, mayor, alder-men, -clergy, and other subscribers for criminal conspiracy to keep up -wages.[165] And in 1820 a public meeting of the ratepayers of Sheffield -protested against the “evil of parish pay to supplement earnings,” and -recommended employers to revert to the uniform price list which the -men had gained in 1810.[166] Finally we have the employers themselves -publicly denouncing the ruinous extent to which the cutting of wages -had been carried. A declaration dated June 16, 1819, and signed by -fourteen Lancashire manufacturers, regrets that they have been -compelled by the action of a few competitors to lower wages to the -present rates, and strongly condemns any further reduction; whilst -twenty-five of the most eminent calico-printing firms append an -emphatic approval of the protest, and state “that the system of paying -such extremely low wages for manufacturing labour is injurious to the -trade at large.”[167] At Coventry the ribbon manufacturers combined -with the Weavers’ Provident Union to maintain a general adherence to -the agreed list of prices, and in 1819 subscribed together no less -than £16,000 to cover the cost of proceedings with this object. This -combination formed the subject of an indictment at Warwick Assizes, -which put an end to the association, the remaining funds being handed -over to the local “Streets Commissioners” for paving the city. These -protests and struggles of the better employers were in vain. Rates -were reduced and strikes occurred all over the country, and were met, -not by redress or sympathy, but by an outburst of prosecutions and -sentences of more than the usual ferocity. The common law and ancient -statutes were ruthlessly used to supplement the Combination Acts, -often by strained constructions. The Scotch judges in particular, as -an eminent Scotch jurist declared to the Parliamentary Committee in -1824, applied the criminal procedure of Scotland to cases of simple -combination, from 1813-19, in a way that he, on becoming Lord Advocate, -refused to countenance.[168] The workers, on attempting some spasmodic -preparations for organised political agitation, were further coerced, -in 1819, by the infamous “Six Acts,” which at one blow suppressed -practically all public meetings, enabled the magistrate to search -for arms, subjected all working-class publications to the crushing -stamp duty, and rendered more stringent the law relating to seditious -libels. The whole system of repression which had characterised the -statesmanship of the Regency culminated at this period in a tyranny -not exceeded by any of the monarchs of the “Holy Alliance.” The effect -of this tyranny was actually to shield the Combination Laws by turning -the more energetic and enlightened working-class leaders away from -all specific reforms to a thorough revolution of the whole system of -Parliamentary representation. Hence there was no popular movement -whatever for the repeal of the Combination Laws. If we were writing -the history of the English working class instead of that of the Trade -Union Movement, we should find in William Cobbett or “Orator” Hunt, in -Samuel Bamford or William Lovett, a truer representative of the current -aspirations of the English artisan at this time than in the man who -now came unexpectedly on the scene to devise and carry into effect the -Trade Union Emancipation of 1824. - -Francis Place was a master tailor who had created a successful business -in a shop at Charing Cross. Before setting up for himself he had worked -as a journeyman breeches-maker, and had organised combinations in his -own and other trades. After 1818 he left the conduct of the business to -his son, and devoted his keenly practical intellect and extraordinary -persistency first to the repeal of the Combination Laws, and next to -the Reform Movement. In social theory he was a pupil of Bentham and -James Mill, and his ideal may be summed up as political Democracy -with industrial liberty, or, as we should now say, thoroughgoing -Radical Individualism. No one who has closely studied his life and -work will doubt that, within the narrow sphere to which his unswerving -practicality confined him, he was the most remarkable politician of -his age. His chief merit lay in his thorough understanding of the -art of getting things done. In agitation, permeation, wire-pulling, -Parliamentary lobbying, the drafting of resolutions, petitions, and -bills--in short, of all those artifices by which a popular movement is -first created and then made effective on the Parliamentary system--he -was an inventor and tactician of the first order. Above all, he -possessed in perfection the rare quality of permitting other people to -carry off the credit of his work, and thus secured for his proposals -willing promoters and supporters, some of the leading Parliamentary -figures of the time owing all their knowledge on his questions to -the briefs with which he supplied them. The invaluable collection of -manuscript records left by him, now in the British Museum, prove that -modesty had nothing to do with his contemptuous readiness to leave the -trophies of victory to his pawns provided his end was attained. He was -thoroughly appreciative of the fact that in every progressive movement -his shop at Charing Cross was the real centre of power when the -Parliamentary stage of a progressive movement was reached. It remained, -from 1807 down to about 1834, the recognised meeting-place of all the -agitators of the time.[169] - -It was in watching the effect of the Combination Laws in his own -trade that Place became converted to their repeal. The special laws -of 1720 and 1767, fixing the wages of journeymen tailors, as well -as the general law of 1800 against all combinations, had failed to -regulate wages, to prevent strikes, or to hinder those masters who -wished in times of pressure to engage skilled men, from offering the -bribe of high piecework rates, or even time wages in excess of the -legal limit. Place gave evidence as a master tailor before the Select -Committee of the House of Commons which inquired into the subject in -1810; and it was chiefly his weighty testimony in favour of freedom of -contract that averted the fresh legal restrictions which a combination -of employers was then openly promoting.[170] This experience of the -practical freedom of employers to combine intensified Place’s sense -of the injustice of denying a like freedom to the journeymen, whilst -the brutal prosecution of the compositors of the _Times_ in the same -year brought home to his mind the severity of the law. Four years -later (1814), as he himself tells us, he “began to work seriously to -procure a repeal of the laws against combinations of workmen, but -for a long time made no visible progress.” The employers were firmly -convinced that combinations of wage-earners would succeed in securing -a great rise of wages, to the serious detriment of profits. Far from -contemplating a repeal of the Act of 1800, they were in 1814 and 1816 -pestering the Home Secretary for legislation of greater stringency -as the only safeguard for their “freedom of enterprise.”[171] The -politicians were equally certain that Trade Union action would -raise prices, and thus undermine the foreign trade upon which the -prosperity and international influence of England depended. The -working men themselves afforded in the first instance no assistance. -Those who had suffered legal prosecution were hopeless of redress -from an unreformed Parliament, and offered no support. One trade, -the Spitalfields silk-weavers, supported the Government because they -enjoyed what they deemed to be the advantage of legal protection from -the lowering of wages by competition.[172] Others were suspicious of -the intervention of one who was himself an employer, and who had not -yet gained recognition as a friend to labour. But Place was undismayed -by hostility and indifference. Knowing that with an English public -the strength of his cause would lie, not in any abstract reasoning -or appeal to natural rights, but in an enumeration of actual cases -of injustice, he made a point of obtaining the particulars of every -trade dispute. He intervened, as he says, in every strike, sometimes -as a mediator, sometimes as an ally of the journeymen. He opened up a -voluminous correspondence with Trade Unions throughout the kingdom, -and wrote innumerable letters to the newspapers. In 1818 he secured a -useful medium in the _Gorgon_,[173] a little working-class political -newspaper, started by one Wade, a woolcomber, and subsidised by Bentham -and Place himself. This gained him his two most important disciples, -eventually the chief instruments of his work, J. R. McCulloch and -Joseph Hume. McCulloch, afterwards to gain fame as an economist, was -at that time the editor of the _Scotsman_, perhaps the most important -of the provincial newspapers. A powerful article based on Place’s -facts which he contributed to the _Edinburgh Review_ in 1823 secured -many converts; and his constant advocacy gave Place’s idea a weight -and notoriety which it had hitherto lacked. Joseph Hume was an even -more important ally. His acknowledged position in the House of Commons -as one of the leaders of the growing party of Philosophic Radicalism -gained for the repeal movement a steadily increasing support with -advanced members of Parliament. Among a certain section in the House -the desirability of freedom of combination began to be discussed; -presently it was considered practicable; and soon many came to regard -it as an inevitable outcome of their political creed. In 1822 Place -thought the time ripe for action; and Hume accordingly gave notice -of his intention to bring in a Bill to repeal all the laws against -combinations. - -Place’s manuscripts and letters contain a graphic account of the -wire-pullings and manipulations of the next two years.[174] In these -contemporary pictures of the inner workings of the Parliamentary -system we watch Hume cajoling Huskisson and Peel into granting him a -Select Committee, staving off the less tactful proposals of a rival -M.P.,[175] and finally, in February 1824, packing the Committee of -Inquiry at length appointed. Hume, with some art, had included in -his motion three distinct subjects--the emigration of artisans, the -exportation of machinery and combinations of workmen, all of which were -forbidden by law. To Place and Hume the repeal of the Combination Laws -was the main object; but Huskisson and his colleagues regarded the -Committee as primarily charged with an inquiry into the possibility of -encouraging the rising manufacture of machinery, which was seriously -hampered by the prohibition of sales to foreign countries. Huskisson -tried to induce Hume to omit from the Committee’s reference all mention -of the Combination Laws, evidently regarding them as only a minor and -unimportant part of the inquiry. But Place and Hume were now masters -of the situation; and for the next few months they devoted their whole -time to the management of the Committee. At first no one seems to have -had any idea that its proceedings were going to be of any moment; and -no trouble was taken by the Ministry with regard to its composition. -“It was with difficulty,” writes Place, “that Mr. Hume could obtain -the names of twenty-one members to compose the Committee; but when it -had sat three days, and had become both popular and amusing, members -contrived to be put upon it; and at length it consisted of forty-eight -members.”[176] Hume, who was appointed chairman, appears to have -taken into his own hands the entire management of the proceedings. A -circular explaining the objects of the inquiry was sent to the mayor -or other public officer of forty provincial towns, and appeared in the -principal local newspapers. Public meetings were held at Stockport -and other towns to depute witnesses to attend the Committee.[177] -Meanwhile Place, who had by this time acquired the confidence of the -chief leaders of the working class, secured the attendance of artisan -witnesses from all parts of the kingdom. Read in the light of Place’s -private records and daily correspondence with Hume, the proceedings of -this “Committee on Artisans and Machinery” reveal an almost perfect -example of political manipulation. Although no hostile witness was -denied a hearing, it was evidently arranged that the employers who -were favourable to repeal should be examined first, and that the -preponderance of evidence should be on their side. And whilst those -interests which would have been antagonistic to the repeal were neither -professionally represented nor deliberately organised, the men’s case -was marshalled with admirable skill by Place, and fully brought out -by Hume’s examination. Thus the one acted as the Trade Unionists’ -Parliamentary solicitor, and the other as their unpaid counsel.[178] - -Place himself tells us how he proceeded: “The delegates from the -working people had reference to me, and I opened my house to them. -Thus I had all the town and country delegates under my care. I heard -the story which every one of these men had to tell, I examined and -cross-examined them, took down the leading particulars of each case, -and then arranged the matter as briefs for Mr. Hume, and as a rule, for -the guidance of the witnesses, a copy was given to each.... Each brief -contained the principal questions and answers.... That for Mr. Hume was -generally accompanied by an appendix of documents arranged in order, -with a short account of such proceedings as were necessary to put Mr. -Hume in possession of the whole case. Thus he was enabled to go on with -considerable ease, and to anticipate or rebut objections.”[179] - -The Committee sat in private; but Hume’s numerous letters to Place show -how carefully the latter was kept posted up in all the proceedings: -“As the proceedings of the Committee were printed from day to day -for the use of the members, I had a copy sent to me by Mr. Hume, -which I indexed on paper ruled in many columns, each column having an -appropriate head or number. I also wrote remarks on the margins of the -printed evidence; this was copied daily by Mr. Hume’s secretary, and -then returned to me. This consumed much time, but enabled Mr. Hume to -have the whole mass constantly under his view; and I am very certain -that less pains and care would not have been sufficient to have carried -the business through.”[180] - -From Westminster Hall we are transported, by these private notes for -Hume’s use, all now preserved in the British Museum, into the back -parlour of the Charing Cross shop, where the London and provincial -artisan witnesses came for their instructions. “The workmen,” as -Place tells us, “were not easily managed. It required great care and -pains not to shock their prejudices so as to prevent them doing -their duty before the Committee. They were filled with false notions, -all attributing their distresses to wrong causes, which I, in this -state of the business, dared not attempt to remove. Taxes, machinery, -laws against combinations, the will of the masters, the conduct of -magistrates--these were the fundamental causes of all their sorrows and -privations.... I had to discuss everything with them most carefully, -to arrange and prepare everything, and so completely did these things -occupy my time that for more than three months I had hardly any -rest.”[181] - -The result of the inquiry was as Hume and Place had ordained. A series -of resolutions in favour of complete freedom of combination and liberty -of emigration was adopted by the Committee, apparently without dissent. -A Bill to repeal all the Combination Laws and to legalise trade -societies was passed through both Houses, within less than a week, at -the close of the session, without either debate or division. Place and -Hume contrived privately to talk over and to silence the few members -who were alive to the situation; and the measure passed, as Place -remarks, “almost without the notice of members within or newspapers -without.”[182] So quietly was the Bill smuggled through Parliament that -the magistrates at a Lancashire town unwittingly sentenced certain -cotton-weavers to imprisonment for combination some weeks after the -laws against that crime had been repealed.[183] - -Place and Hume had, however, been rather too clever. Whilst the -governing classes were quite unconscious that any important alteration -of law or policy had taken place, the unlooked-for success of Place’s -agitation produced, as Nassau Senior describes, “a great moral effect” -in all the industrial centres. “It confirmed in the minds of the -operatives the conviction of the justice of their cause, tardily and -reluctantly, but at last fully, conceded by the Legislature. That -which was morally right in 1824 must have been so, they would reason, -for fifty years before.... They conceived that they had extorted from -the Legislature an admission that their masters must always be their -rivals, and had hitherto been their oppressors, and that combinations -to raise wages, and shorten the time or diminish the severity of -labour, were not only innocent, but meritorious.”[184] Trade Societies -accordingly sprang into existence or emerged into aggressive publicity -on all sides. A period of trade inflation, together with a rapid rise -in the price of provisions, favoured a general increase of wages. For -the next six months the newspapers are full of strikes and rumours of -strikes. Serious disturbances occurred at Glasgow, where the employers -had been exceptionally oppressive, where the cotton operatives -committed several outrages, and where a general lock-out took place. -The cotton-spinners were once more striking in the Manchester district. -The shipping trade of the North-East Coast was temporarily paralysed by -a strong combination of the seamen on the Tyne and Wear, who refused -to sail except with Unionist seamen and Unionist officers. The Dublin -trades, then the best organised in the kingdom, ruthlessly enforced -their bye-laws for the regulation of their respective industries, and -formed a joint committee, the so-called “Board of Green Cloth,” whose -dictates became the terror of the employers. The Sheffield operatives -have to be warned that, if they persist in demanding double the former -wages for only three days a week work, the whole industry of the town -will be ruined.[185] The London shipwrights insisted on what their -employers considered the preposterous demand for a “book of rates” -for piecework. The London coopers demanded a revision of their wages, -which led to a long-sustained conflict. In fact, as a provincial -newspaper remarked a little later, “it is no longer a particular class -of journeymen at some single point that have been induced to commence -a strike for an advance of wages, but almost the whole body of the -mechanics in the kingdom are combined in the general resolution to -impose terms on their employers.”[186] - -The opening of the session of 1825 found the employers throughout -the country thoroughly aroused. Hume and Place had in vain preached -moderation, and warned the Unions of the danger of a reaction. The -great shipowning and shipbuilding interest, which had throughout the -century preserved intact its reputation for unswerving hostility to -Trade Unionism, had possession of the ear of Huskisson, then President -of the Board of Trade and member for Liverpool. Early in the session he -moved for a committee of inquiry into the conduct of the workmen and -the effect of the recent Act, which, he complained, had been smuggled -through the House without his attention having been called to the fact -that it went far beyond the mere repeal of the special statutes against -combinations.[187] This time the composition of the committee was not -left to chance, or to Hume’s manipulation. The members were, as Place -complains, selected almost exclusively from the Ministerial benches, -twelve out of the thirty being placemen, and many being representatives -of rotten boroughs. Huskisson,[188] Peel, and the Attorney-General -themselves took part in its proceedings; Wallace, the Master of the -Mint, was made chairman, and Hume alone represented the workmen. -Huskisson regarded the Committee as merely a formal preliminary to the -introduction of the Bill which the shipping interest had drafted,[189] -under which Trade Unions, and even Friendly Societies, would have been -impossible. For the inner history of this Committee we have to rely on -Place’s voluminous memoranda, and Hume’s brief notes to him. According -to these, the original intention was to call only a few employers as -witnesses, to exclude all testimony on the other side, and promptly to -report in favour of the repressive measure already prepared. Place, -himself an expert in such tactics, met them by again supplying Hume -daily with detailed information which enabled him to cross-examine the -masters and expose their exaggerations. And, if Place’s account of the -animus of the Committee and the Ministers against himself be somewhat -highly coloured, we have ample evidence of the success with which he -guided the alarmed Trade Unions to take effectual action in their own -defence. His friend John Gast, secretary to the London Shipwrights, -called for two delegates from each trade in the metropolis, and -formed a committee which kept up a persistent agitation against any -re-enactment of the Combination Laws. Similar committees were formed -at Manchester and Glasgow by the cotton operatives, at Sheffield -by the cutlers, and at Newcastle by the seamen and shipwrights. -Petitions, the draft of which appears in Place’s manuscripts, poured -in to the Select Committee and to both Houses. If we are to believe -Place, the passages leading to the committee-room were carefully kept -thronged by crowds of workmen insisting on being examined to rebut the -accusations of the employers, and waylaying individual members to whom -they explained their grievances. All this energy on the part of the -Unions was, as Place observes, in marked contrast with their apathy -the year before. The workmen, though they had done nothing to gain -their freedom of association, were determined to maintain it. Doherty, -the leader of the Lancashire Cotton-spinners, writing to Place in the -heat of the agitation, declared that any attempt at a re-enactment -of the Combination Laws would result in a widespread revolutionary -movement.[190] The net result of the inquiry was, on the whole, -satisfactory. The Select Committee found themselves compelled to hear -a certain number of workmen witnesses, who testified to the good -results of the Act of the previous year. The ship-owners’ Bill was -abandoned, and the House of Commons was recommended to pass a measure -which nominally re-established the general common-law prohibition of -combinations, but specifically excepted from prosecution associations -for the purpose of regulating wages or hours of labour. The master -shipbuilders were furious at this virtual defeat. The handbill is still -extant which they distributed at the doors of the House of Commons -on the day of the second reading of the emasculated Bill.[191] They -declared that its provisions were quite insufficient to save their -industry from destruction. If Trade Unions were to be allowed to exist -at all, they demanded that these bodies should be compelled to render -full accounts of their expenditure to the justices in Quarter Sessions, -and that any diversion of monies raised for friendly society purposes -should be severely punished. They pleaded, moreover, that at any rate -all federal or combined action among trade clubs should be prohibited. -Place and Hume, on the other hand, were afraid, and subsequent events -proved with what good grounds, that the narrow limits of the trade -combinations allowed by the Bill, and still more the vague terms -“molest” and “obstruct,” which it contained, would be used as weapons -against Trade Unionism. The Government, however, held to the draft -of the Committee. The shipbuilders secured nothing. Hume induced -Ministers to give way on some verbal points, and took three divisions -in vain protest against the measure. Place carried on the agitation to -the House of Lords, where Lord Rosslyn extracted the concession of a -right of appeal to Quarter Sessions, which was afterwards to prove of -some practical value. - -The Act of 1825 (6 Geo. IV. c. 129)[192]--which became known among the -manufacturers as “Peel’s Act”--though it fell short of the measure -which Place and Hume had so skilfully piloted through Parliament the -year before, effected a real emancipation. The right of collective -bargaining, involving the power to withhold labour from the market by -concerted action, was for the first time expressly established. And -although many struggles remained to be fought before the legal freedom -of Trade Unionism was fully secured, no overt attempt has since been -made to render illegal this first condition of Trade Union action.[193] - -It is a suggestive feature of this, as of other great reforms, that -the men whose faith in its principle, and whose indefatigable industry -and resolution carried it through, were the only ones who proved -altogether mistaken as to its practical consequences. If we read the -lesson of the century aright, the manufacturer was not wholly wrong -when he protested that liberty of combination must make the workers -the ultimate authority in industry, although his narrow fear as to the -driving away of capital and commercial skill and the reduction of the -nation to a dead level of anarchic pauperism were entirely contradicted -by subsequent developments. And the workman, to whom liberty to combine -opened up vistas of indefinite advancement of his class at the expense -of his oppressors, was, we now see, looking rightly forward, though he, -too, greatly miscalculated the distance before him, and overlooked many -arduous stages of the journey. But what is to be said of the forecasts -of Place and the Philosophic Radicals? “Combinations,” writes Place to -Sir Francis Burdett in 1825, “will soon cease to exist. Men have been -kept together for long periods only by the oppressions of the laws; -these being repealed, combinations will lose the matter which cements -them into masses, and they will fall to pieces. All will be as orderly -as even a Quaker could desire.... He knows nothing of the working -people who can suppose that, when left at liberty to act for themselves -without being driven into permanent associations by the oppression -of the laws, they will continue to contribute money for distant and -doubtful experiments, for uncertain and precarious benefits. If let -alone, combinations--excepting now and then, and for particular -purposes under peculiar circumstances--will cease to exist.”[194] - -It is pleasant to feel that Place was right in regarding the repeal as -beneficial and worthy of his best efforts in its support; but in every -less general respect he and his allies were as wrong as it was possible -for them to be. The first disappointment, however, came to the workmen. -Over and over again they had found their demands for higher wages -parried only by the employers’ resort to the law, and they now saw -the way clear before them for an organised attack upon their masters’ -profits. Trades which had not yet enjoyed permanent combinations began -to organise in the expectation of raising their wages to the level of -those of their more fortunate brethren. The Sheffield shop-assistants -combined to petition for early closing.[195] The cotton-weavers of -Lancashire met in delegate meeting at Manchester in August 1824 to -establish a permanent organisation to prevent reductions in prices -and to secure a uniform wage, the notice stating that it was by -their secret combinations that the tailors, joiners, and spinners had -succeeded in keeping up wages.[196] In the same month the Manchester -dyers turned out for an advance, and paraded the streets, which they -had placarded with their proposals.[197] The Glasgow calender-men -struck for a regular twelve hours’ day, and carried their point. The -success of the shipwrights on the north-east coast[198] induced the -London shipwrights to convert their “Committee for conducting the -Business in the North” into the “Shipwrights’ Provident Union of the -Port of London,” which existed continuously until its absorption in the -twentieth century by the national society dominating the trade. - -“Such is the rage for union societies,” reports the _Sheffield Iris_ of -July 12, 1825, “that the sea apprentices in Sunderland have actually -had regular meetings every day last week on the moor, and have -resolved not to go on board their ships unless the owners will allow -them tea and sugar.” Local trade clubs expanded, like the Manchester -Steam-Engine Makers’ Society, into national organisations. In other -cases corresponding clubs developed into federal bodies. The object in -all these cases was the same. The preamble to the first rules of the -Friendly Society of Operative House Carpenters and Joiners of Great -Britain, which was established by a delegate meeting in London in -1827, states that, “for the amelioration of the evils attendant on our -trade, and the advancement of the rights and privileges of labour,” it -was considered “absolutely necessary that a firm compact of interests -should exist between the whole of the operative carpenters and joiners -throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain.”[199] - -Nor was it only in the multiplication of trade societies that the -expansion showed itself. A committee of delegates from the London -trades meeting during the summer of 1825 set on foot the _Trades -Newspaper and Mechanics’ Weekly Journal_, a sevenpenny stamped paper, -with the motto, “They helped every one his neighbour, and every one -said to his brother, ‘Be of good cheer.’”[200] A vigorous attempt -was made to promote Trade Union organisation in all industries, and -to bring to bear a body of instructed working-class opinion upon the -political situation of the day.[201] - -The high hopes of which all this exultant activity was the symptom -were soon rudely dashed. The year 1825 closed with a financial panic -and widespread commercial disaster. The four years that followed were -years of contraction and distress. Hundreds of thousands of workmen in -all trades lost their employment, and wages were reduced all round. In -many manufacturing districts the operatives were kept from starvation -only by public subscriptions.[202] Strikes under these circumstances -ended invariably in disaster. A notable stand made by the Bradford -woolcombers and weavers in 1825 resulted in complete defeat and the -break-up of the Union.[203] - -During the greater part of the following year all Lancashire was -convulsed by incessant strikes of coal-miners and textile workers -against the repeated reductions of wages to which the employers -resorted--strikes which were marred by serious disorder, the -destruction of many hundreds of looms, and severe repression by the -troops.[204] - -At Kidderminster, three years later, practically the whole trade -of the town was brought to a standstill by the carpet-weavers’ six -months’ resistance to a reduction of 17 per cent in their wages[205]--a -resistance in which the operatives received the sympathy and support -of many who did not belong to their class. In the same year the -silk-weavers of London and other towns maintained an embittered -resistance to a further cut at wages.[206] The emancipated combinations -were no more able to resist reductions than the secret ones had been, -and in some instances the workmen again resorted to violence and -machine-breaking. - -For a moment the repeal seemed, after all, to have done nothing but -prove the futility of mere sectional combination, and the working men -turned back again from Trade Union action to the larger aims and wider -character of the Radical and Socialistic agitations of the time, with -which, from 1829 to 1842, the Trade Union Movement became inextricably -entangled. This is the phase which furnishes the theme of the following -chapter. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[111] An elaborate account of this legislation will be found in _Labour -Legislation, Labour Movements, and Labour Leaders_, by G. Howell, 1902, -pp. 21-42. - -[112] Act of Common Council, November 22, 1750: Hughson’s _London_, -p. 422. There is evidence of at least one other club of painters in -London dating back to the eighteenth century, the “Original Society of -Painters and Glaziers” existing in 1779, which afterwards became the -St. Martin’s Society of Painters and Glaziers (_Beehive_, October 24, -1863). - -[113] This term was used to denote men who had not served a legal -apprenticeship. See “Rules and Regulations of the Journeymen Weavers,” -reprinted in Appendix No. 10 to Report on Combination Laws, 1825. - -[114] The case of R. _v._ the Journeymen Tailors of Cambridge in 1721 -(8 Mod. 10) is obscurely reported; and it is uncertain under what law -the men were convicted. See Wright’s _Law of Criminal Conspiracies and -Agreements_, p. 53. - -[115] See the petitions from Devonshire towns, House of Commons -Journals, 1717, vol. xviii. p. 715, which, with others in subsequent -years, led to a Select Committee in 1726 (Journals, vol. xx. p. 648, -March 31, 1726). - -[116] See, for instance, the Acts regulating the woollen industry, 12 -Geo. I. c. 34 (1725); against embezzlement or fraud by shoemakers, 9 -Geo. I. c. 27 (1729); relating to hatters, 22 Geo. II. c. 27 (1749); -to silkweavers, 17 Geo. III. c. 55 (1777); and to papermaking, 36 Geo. -III. c. 111 (1795). Whitbread declared in the House of Commons that -there were in 1800 no fewer than forty such statutes. - -[117] _A Full and Accurate Report of the Proceedings of the -Petitioners, etc._ By One of the Petitioners (London, January 1800, -19 pp.). A rare pamphlet in the Goldsmiths’ Library at the University -of London. “It is remarkable,” says Mr. Justice Stephen, “that in the -parliamentary history for 1799 and 1800 there is no account of any -debate on these Acts, nor are they referred to in the Annual Register -for those years” (_History of the Criminal Law_, vol. iii. p. 208). -That the measure excited some interest in the textile districts may -be inferred from the publication at Leeds of a pamphlet entitled an -_Abstract of an Act to prevent Unlawful Combinations among Journeymen -to raise Wages, etc._ (Leeds, 1799), which is in the Manchester Public -Library (P. 1735). Lord Holland’s speeches against it are said to have -been reprinted for distribution in Manchester and Liverpool (Lady -Holland’s _Journal_, vol. ii. p. 102). - -Mr. and Mrs. Hammond have now traced fairly full accounts of the -proceedings, elucidating the scanty references in the Journals of the -House of Commons and House of Lords for 1799-1800 by quotations from -the _Parliamentary Register_, the _Senator_, _The Times_, _London -Chronicle_, _True Briton_, and _Morning Post_. See _The Town Labourer_, -1917, ch. vii. pp. 111-42; also Cunningham, _Growth, etc._, 1903, pp. -732-7. - -[118] _Times_, January 7, 1800; _Labour Legislation, Labour Movements, -and Labour Leaders_, by George Howell, 1902, p. 23. - -[119] 39 and 40 George III. c. 90; see _Cunningham_, 1903, p. 634. - -[120] 39 and 40 George III. c. 60; see, for all this, _The Town -Labourer, 1760-1832_, by J. L. and B. Hammond, 1917, ch. vii. A case in -which an attempt to put the arbitration clauses in force was baulked by -the employers was mentioned to the Committee on Artisans and Machinery, -1824, p. 603. - -[121] _Combinations of Workmen: Substance of the Speech of Francis -Jeffrey at the Dinner to Joseph Hume, M.P., at Edinburgh, November 18, -1825_ (Edinburgh, 1825). - -[122] _Sheffield Iris_, March 23, 1814. - -[123] Place MSS. 27798--7. The Act of 1800 was scathingly denounced by -Cobbett in the _Political Register_, August 30, 1823. - -[124] This is a constant subject of complaint by other employers. - -[125] Introduction to the London Scale of Prices (in London Society of -Compositors’ volume). - -[126] House of Commons Return, No. 135, of 1834. - -[127] Advertisements in _Nottingham Journal_, 1794-1810. - -[128] _Considerations addressed to the Journeymen Calico-Printers by -one of their Masters_ (Manchester, 1815); see also the Report of House -of Commons Committee on the Case of the Calico-Printers, 1806. - -[129] Evidence before Committee on Artisans and Machinery, 1824, as -summarised in the _Report on Trade Societies_ (1860) of the Social -Science Association: see also _A Digest of the Evidence before the -Committee on Artizans and Machinery_, by George White, 1824. - -[130] _The Edinburgh Book of Prices for Manufacturing Cabinet Work_ -(Edinburgh, 1805, 126 pp.), “as mutually agreed upon by the Masters -and Journeymen.” In 1825 the journeymen prepared a _Supplement_, -which, after the masters had concurred in it, was published by the men -(Edinburgh, 1825). Both these are in the Goldsmiths’ Library at the -University of London. - -[131] _A Few Remarks on the State of the Laws at present in Existence -for regulating Masters and Workpeople_, 1823 (142 pp.), p. 84. -Anonymous, but evidently by George White and Gravener Henson. - -[132] See, for instance, _The Times_ from 17th to 25th of June 1819. - -[133] _An Account of the Rise and Progress of the Dispute between the -Masters and Journeymen Printers exemplified in the Trial at large, with -Remarks Thereon_, 1799, a rare pamphlet, in the Goldsmiths’ Library at -the University of London. - -[134] Place MSS. 27798--8; _Times_, November 9, 1810. - -[135] Report in _Manchester Exchange Herald_, preserved in Place MSS. -27799--156. - -[136] _Bookfinishers’ Friendly Circular_, 1845-51, pp. 5, 21. - -[137] Bain’s _Merchant and Craft Gilds of Aberdeen_, p. 261. An earlier -combination of 1768 is also mentioned. - -[138] R. _v._ Hammond and Webb, 2 Esp. 719; see the _Morning Chronicle_ -report, preserved in Place MSS. 27799--29. - -[139] _Star_, November 26, 1799. - -[140] R. _v._ Connell and others, _Times_, July 10, 1819. - -[141] R. _v._ Ferguson and Edge, 2 St. 489. - -[142] _Sheffield Iris_, December 17, 1816. The men’s clubs often -existed under the cloak of friendly societies. In the overseers’ return -of sick clubs, made to Parliament in 1815, the following trade friendly -societies are included, many of these, at any rate, being essentially -Trade Unions: - -Tailors, with 360 members, and £740 Braziers, with 664 members, -and 1768 Masons, with 693 members, and 1852 Scissorsmiths, with -550 members, and 1309 Filesmiths, with 260 members, and 600 United -Silversmiths, with 240 members, and 299 Cutlers, with 65 members, and -450 Grinders, with 283 members _Sheffield Iris_, 1851. - - -[143] _A Few Remarks, etc._, p. 86. - -[144] Committee on Artisans and Machinery, 1824, p. 395. - -[145] See the _Gorgon_ for January and February 1819. - -[146] Second Report of Committee on Artisans and Machinery, 1824, p. -62. For other cases, see _The Town Labourer_, by J. L. and B. Hammond, -1917, pp. 130-33. - -[147] Throughout the century it seems to have been customary in -most handicrafts for the artisan to be allowed the privilege of -apprenticing one son, usually, the eldest, free of charge. For other -boys, especially for the sons of parents not belonging to the trade, a -fee of £5 to £20 was exacted by the employer. The secretary of the Old -Amicable Society of Woolstaplers thirty years ago informed us that, as -his brother had already entered the trade, his father had to pay £100 -for his indentures. - -[148] To take, for instance, the cabinetmakers and millwrights. When -Lovett came to London in 1819 he found that he could not get employment -without joining the Union (_Life of William Lovett_, by himself). -The millwrights at the beginning of the century were so strongly -organised--this probably led to the engineering employers’ petition -in 1799 out of which the Combination Acts sprang--that when Fairbairn -(after being actually engaged at Rennie’s works) was refused admission -into their society, he was driven to tramp out of London in search -of work in a non-union district (_Life of Sir William Fairbairn_, by -himself, 1877, pp. 89, 92). For the last three-quarters of the century -a considerable proportion of the cabinetmakers and engineers employed -in London have been outside the Trade Union ranks. - -[149] _Articles of the Society of Journeymen Brushmakers, held at the -sign of the Craven Head, Drury Lane_, 1806; Minutes, April 27, 1831. - -[150] John Gast, a shipwright of Deptford, was evidently one of the -ablest Trade Unionists of his time. We first hear of him in 1802, when -there was a serious strike in London that attracted the attention -of the Government (Home Office Papers in Record Office, 65--1, July -and August 1802), as the author of a striking pamphlet entitled _A -Vindication of the Conduct of the Shipwrights during the late disputes -with their Employers_ (1802, 38 pp.). In 1818 he is found advocating -the first recorded proposal for a general workmen’s organisation, -as distinguished from separate trade clubs--to be described in our -next chapter; and his _Articles of the Philanthropic Hercules for -the Mutual Support of the Labouring Mechanics_, which were printed -in the _Gorgon_, attracted the attention of Francis Place, who -described him (Place MSS, 27819--23) as having “long been secretary -to the Shipwrights’ Club: he was a steady, respectable man. He had -formed several associations of working men, but had been unable -to keep up any one of them.” He became one of Place’s most useful -allies in the agitation for a repeal of the Combination Laws, and -when, in 1825, their re-enactment was threatened, his “committee of -trades delegates” was Place’s strongest support. Gast was the leading -spirit in the establishment of the _Trades Newspaper_ in July 1825, -and became chairman of the committee of management, as well as a -frequent contributor. In the same year he was actively engaged in -the shipwrights’ struggle for a “Book of Rates,” or definite list of -piecework prices, and the energy with which he counteracted the design -of the Board of Admiralty, of allowing the London shipbuilders to -borrow men from the Portsmouth Navy Yard, contributed mainly to the -success of the fight. - -[151] Place MSS. 27800--195. - -[152] Place MSS. 27798--11; and _The Town Labourer, 1760-1832_, by J. -L. and B. Hammond, 1917. Between 1798-1803 and 1804-16 the piecework -wages for handloom cotton weaving were reduced in some cases by 80 per -cent at a time of war prices (_Geschichte der englischen Lohnarbeit_, -by Gustav Steffen, Stuttgart, 1900, vol. ii. pp. 19-20). See _History -of Wages in the Cotton Trade during the Past Hundred Years_, by G. H. -Wood, 1910; and Cunningham, _Growth, etc._, 1903, p. 634. - -[153] See on all these points the evidence given before the Committee -on Artisans and Machinery, 1824; especially that of Richmond. - -[154] Letter to the local Major-General, June 15, 1812, in Home Office -Papers, 40--1. - -[155] _Ibid._ - -[156] _The Town Labourer, 1760-1832_, by J. L. and B. Hammond, 1917, -p. 15. Whether Gravener Henson, the bobbin-net maker of Nottingham, -subsequently author of a _History of the Framework-Knitters_ (1831), -who had long been a leader of the Framework-knitters, was the “King -Lud” under whose orders the machine-breakers often purported to act, -is yet unproven (_Life of Francis Place_, by Prof. Graham Wallas, -revised edition, 1918). The Report of the House of Commons Committee -on the Framework-knitters’ petitions (1812) affords evidence of the -all-pervading misery of the time. For other glimpses of the Luddite -organisation, see _An Appeal to the Public, containing an account of -services rendered during the disturbances in the North of England in -the year 1812_, by Francis Raynes, 1817 (in Home Office Papers, 40); -_Report of Proceedings under Commission of Oyer and Terminer, January -2 to 12, 1813, at York_, by J. and W. B. Gurney, 1813; _Digest of -Evidence of Committee on Artizans and Machinery_, by George White, 1824 -(see p. 36, Richmond’s evidence as to the appeals of the Luddites to -the Glasgow cotton-spinners); and _Annual Register_, 1812. - -[157] Evidence of a colliery engineer in the Newcastle district before -Committee on Combination Laws, 1825; summarised in _Report on Trade -Societies_, 1860, by Social Science Association. See also _A Voice from -the Coalmines_, 1825; _A Candid Appeal to the Coalowners and Viewers -of Collieries on the Tyne and Wear, including a copy of the Collier’s -Bond, with Animadversions thereon and a series of proposed Amendments, -from the Committee of the Colliers’ United Association_, 1826 (in Home -Office Papers, H.O. 40 (19), with Lord Londonderry’s letter of February -28, 1826); _The Miners of Northumberland and Durham_, by Richard Fynes, -pp. 12-16 (1873); _An Earnest Address ... on behalf of the Pitmen_, by -W. Scott, 1831. - -[158] See Appendix to Report of Select Committee on Combinations, 1825. - -[159] R. _v._ Yates and Others, Liverpool Sessions, August 10, 1823. -See newspaper report preserved in Place MSS. 27804--154. - -[160] The entries in this old cash-book are of some interest: - -May 29, 1810 Paid ye Brushmakers £15 0 0 Lent ye Brushmakers 10 0 0 -Paid ye Friziers 20 0 0 June 26, 1810 Paid ye Silversmiths 10 0 0 -Expenses to Pipemakers 0 4 10 July 24, 1810 Paid ye Braziers 10 10 -0 Paid ye Bookbinders 10 0 0 Paid ye Curriers 10 0 0 Aug. 21, 1810 -Lent ye Bit and Spurmakers 5 0 0 Lent ye Scalemakers 5 0 0 Paid ye -Leathergrounders 5 0 0 Oct. 26, 1810 Paid ye Tinplate Workers 30 0 0 -Dec. 11, 1810 Lent ye Ropemakers 10 0 0 May 30, 1811 Received of Scale -Beam-makers 5 0 0 June 25, 1811 Expenses with Papermakers 0 12 6 July -20, 1812 Lent ye Sadlers 10 0 0 Oct. 12, 1812 Paid to Millwrights 50 0 -0 Dec. 7, 1812 Borrowed from the Musical Instrument-makers 2 0 0 - - -[161] Home Office Papers, 40--18, March 31, 1823. - -[162] See report in the _Manchester Exchange Herald_, about 1818, -preserved in Place MSS. 27799--156. - -[163] See, for instance, the witnesses delegated by the Glasgow and -Manchester trades to the Select Committee on Petitions of Artisans, -etc., report of June 13, 1811; or the joint action of the Yorkshire and -West of England Woollen-workers given in evidence before the Select -Committee of 1806. These cases are typical of many others. - -[164] Printed handbill signed by thirty-two persons, issued in the -summer of 1816, preserved in Place MSS. 27799--141. Place has also -preserved the rejoinder of the workmen, which is unsigned, as he notes, -for fear of prosecution. - -[165] _The Stocking Makers’ Monitor_, January 1818; _A few Remarks on -the State of the Law, etc._, by White and Henson, p. 88; _An Appeal -to the Public on the subject of the Framework-Knitters’ Fund_, by the -Rev. Robert Hall (Leicester, 1819); Cobbett’s _Weekly Register_, vol. -xxxix.; _A Reply to the Principal Objections advanced by Cobbett and -Others_, by the Rev. Robert Hall (Leicester, 1821); _Digest of Evidence -before the Committee on Artizans and Machinery_, by George White, 1824. - -[166] _Proceedings at a public Meeting of the Inhabitants of the -Township of Sheffield, held at the Town Hall, March 15, 1820_ -(Sheffield, 1820, 16 pp.). - -[167] _Times_, August 5, 1819. - -[168] Evidence of Sir William Rae, Bart., before Select Committee on -Artisans and Machinery, 1824, p. 486. - -[169] An admirable biography has now been written, _The Life of Francis -Place, 1771-1854_, by Prof. Graham Wallas; first edition, 1898; revised -edition, 1918. - -[170] Place MSS. 27798--8, 12, etc.; _Times_, November 9, 1810; _The -Tailoring Trade_, by F. W. Galton, 1896, pp. 110-11. - -[171] See the petitions of the Master Manufacturers of Glasgow, -Lancashire, and Nottinghamshire, in the Home Office Papers (42--141, -149, 150, 195, etc.). - -[172] When Place in 1824 urged the “Committee of Engine Silk-weavers” -of Spitalfields to petition for a repeal of the Combination Laws, the -meeting “Resolved, that protected as we have been for years under the -salutary laws and wisdom of the Legislature, and being completely -unapprehensive of any sort of combination on our part, we cannot -therefore take any sort of notice of the invitation held out by Mr. -Place.” When this resolution was put by the chairman, “an unanimous -burst of applause followed, with a multitude of voices exclaiming, ‘The -law, cling to the law, it will protect us!’” Place MSS. 27800--52; -_Morning Chronicle_, February 9, 1824. - -[173] The volumes for 1818-19 are in the British Museum. - -[174] The story has now been well told in _The Life of Francis Place_, -by Prof. Graham Wallas, revised edition, 1918, ch. viii.; and in _The -Town Labourer_, by J. L. and B. Hammond, 1917, ch. vii. A few other -details will be found in _Digest of Evidence before the Committee -on Artisans and Machinery_, by George White, 1824, and in _Labour -Legislation, Labour Movements, and Labour Leaders_, by G. Howell, 1902, -pp. 43-57. - -[175] In 1823 George White, a “clerk of committees” of the House -of Commons, had formed an alliance with Gravener Henson, the -bobbin-net maker of Nottingham, who had long been a leader of the -framework-knitters’ combinations, to whom reference has been made in -preceding pages. Together they prepared an elaborate Bill repealing -all the Combination Acts, and substituting a complicated machinery -for regulating piecework and settling industrial disputes. Some of -these proposals were meritorious anticipations of subsequent factory -legislation; but the time was not ripe for such measures. This Bill, -promptly introduced by Peter Moore, the member for Coventry, had the -effect of scaring some timid legislators, and especially alarming the -Front Bench. Hume was at a loss to know how to act; but Place, in -a letter displaying great political sagacity, advised him to baulk -the rival Bill by putting its author on the Committee of Inquiry, -explaining that “Moore is not a man to be put aside. The only way to -put him down is to let him talk his nonsense in the Committee, where, -being outvoted, he will be less of an annoyance in the House.” See -Place MSS. 27798--12. - -[176] Place MSS. 27798--30. - -[177] This attracted the attention of the Home Secretary (Home Office -Papers, 40--18). - -[178] Place offered to act as Hume’s “assistant”; but the members of -the Committee, whose suspicions had been aroused, refused to permit him -to remain in the room, on the double ground that he was not a member of -the House, nor even a gentleman! - -[179] Place MSS. 27798--22. - -[180] _Ibid._ 27798--23. - -[181] Place MS. 27798--22. - -[182] The Act was 5 George IV. c. 95. The question of the exportation -of machinery was deferred until the next session. - -[183] Letter in the _Manchester Gazette_, preserved in the Place MSS. -27801--214. - -[184] MS. Report of Nassau Senior to Lord Melbourne on Trade -Combinations (1831; unpublished; in Home Office Library). - -[185] _Sheffield Iris_, April 2, 1825. - -[186] _Sheffield Mercury_, October 8, 1825; see the _Manchester -Guardian_ for August 1824 to a similar effect. - -[187] Later in the year Lord Liverpool, the Prime Minister, and Lord -Eldon, the Lord Chancellor, protested in debate that they had been -quite unaware of the passing of the Act, and that they would never have -assented to it. - -[188] The _Annual Register_ for 1825 gives a fuller report of -Huskisson’s speech than Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. Further -particulars are supplied in George White’s _Abstract of the Act -repealing the Laws against Combinations of Workmen_ (1824); in Place’s -_Observations on Mr. Huskisson’s Speech on the Law relating to -Combinations of Workmen_, by F. P. (1825, 32 pp.); in Wallas’s _Life -of Francis Place_, revised edition, 1918, ch. viii.; in Hammond’s _The -Town Labourer_, ch. vii.; and in Howell’s _Labour Legislation, Labour -Movements, and Labour Leaders_, pp. 51-7. - -[189] This included a provision to forbid the subscription of any funds -to a trade or other association, unless some magistrate approved its -objects and became its treasurer. - -[190] Place MSS. 27803--299. - -[191] _Ibid._ 27803--212. - -[192] Home Office Papers, letter of January 3, 1832 (H.O. 40--30). - -[193] It is pleasant to record that some of the workmen expressed their -gratitude for Francis Place’s indefatigable services. “Soon after the -proceedings in 1825 were closed,” he writes, “the seamen of the Tyne -and Wear sent me a handsome silver vase, paid for by a penny-a-week -subscription; and the cutlers of Sheffield sent me an incomparable set -of knives and forks in a case” (Place MSS. 27798--66). - -[194] June 25, 1825. _Ibid._ 27798--57. - -[195] _Sheffield Iris_, September 27, 1825. - -[196] Handbill preserved in Place MSS. 27803--255. - -[197] _Manchester Guardian_, August 7, 1824; see also _On Combinations -of Trades_ (1830). - -[198] This is expressly stated in the preamble to the rules adopted at -the meeting on August 16, 1824, and recorded in the first minute-book. - -[199] This society afterwards developed into the existing General Union -of Carpenters and Joiners of Great Britain. - -[200] Two rival journals, _The Journeyman’s and Artisan’s London -and Provincial Chronicle_, and _The Mechanic’s Newspaper and Trade -Journal_, were also started, but soon expired. - -[201] The _Trades Newspaper_ was managed by a committee of eleven -delegates from different trades, of which John Gast was chairman, and -was edited, at first by Mr. Baines, son of the proprietor of the _Leeds -Mercury_, and afterwards by a Mr. Anderson. _The Laws and Regulations -of the Trades Newspaper_ (1825, 12 pp.) are preserved in the Place MSS. -27803--414. The issues from July 17, 1825, to its amalgamation with -_The Trades Free Press_ in 1828, are in the British Museum. - -[202] £232,000 was raised by one committee alone between 1826 and 1829. -See _Report of the Committee appointed at a Public Meeting at the City -of London Tavern. May 2, 1826, to relieve the Manufacturers_, by W. H. -Hyett, 1829. - -[203] _Wool and Wool-combing_, by Burnley, p. 169. - -[204] Home Office Papers, 40--20, 21, etc.; _Annual Register_, 1826, -pp. 63, 70, 111, 128; Walpole’s _History of England_, vol. ii. p. 141. - -[205] _A Letter to the Carpet Manufacturers of Kidderminster_, by the -Rev. H. Price (1828, 16 pp.); _A Letter to the Rev. H. Price, upon the -Tendency of Certain Publications of his_, by Oppidanus, 1828; and _A -Verbatim Report of the Trial of the Rev. Humphrey Price upon a Criminal -Information by the Kidderminster Carpet Manufacturers for Alleged -Inflammatory Publications during the Turn-out of the Weavers_, 1829. - -[206] _Resolutions of the Meeting of Journeymen Broad Silk Weavers at -Spitalfields, April 16, 1829_; in Home Office Papers, 40--23, 24. See, -for this period, Cunningham’s _Growth of English Industry and Commerce -in Modern Times_, 1903, pp. 759-762; and also _The Skilled Labourer_, -by J. L. and B. Hammond, 1919, published too late for us to make use of -its interesting descriptions of the principal trades. - - - - -CHAPTER III - -THE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD - -[1829-1842] - - -So far we have been mainly concerned with societies formed in -particular trades, nearly always confined to particular localities, -and known as institutions, associations, trade clubs, trade societies, -unions, and union societies. We have by anticipation applied the term -Trade Union to them in its modern sense; but in no case that we have -discovered did they call themselves so. It is in the leading articles -of the newspapers of 1830-4 that we first come upon references to -some great Power of Darkness vaguely described as “the Trades Union.” -We find, moreover, that there was in that day, as there has been -repeatedly since, an Old Unionism and a New Unionism, and that “the -Trades Union” represented the New Unionism, and the trade club, or -Trade Union, as we have called it, the Old. The distinction between a -Trade Union and a Trades Union is exactly that which the names imply. -A Trade Union is a combination of the members of one trade; a Trades -Union is a combination of different trades. “_The_ Trades Union,” the -bugbear of the _Times_ in 1834, means the ideal at which the Trades -Unionists aimed: that is, a complete union of all the workers in the -country in a single national Trades Union. The peculiar significance -of Trades Union as distinguished from Trade Union must be carefully -borne in mind throughout this chapter, as it has passed out of use and -occurs now only as a literary blunder. Our present unions of workers -in different though related trades are usually called Amalgamations or -Federations. But both Amalgamations and Federations, being definitely -limited to similar or related and interdependent trades, are in idea -essentially Trade Unions. The distinctive connotation of the term -Trades Union was the ideal of complete solidarity of all wage-workers -in “One Big Union”--that is to say, a single “universal” organisation. -It is the attempt, on the part of the Trade Union leaders, to form not -only national societies of particular trades, but also to include all -manual workers in one comprehensive organisation, that constitutes the -New Unionism of 1829-34.[207] - -We are not altogether without information as to the genesis of the -idea. The first attempt at a General Trades Union of which we have -any record is that of the “Philanthropic Society” or “Philanthropic -Hercules” of 1818. This we hear of almost simultaneously in Manchester, -the Potteries and London, though it seems to have originated in -first-named town. A meeting of workmen of various trades, held at -Manchester in August 1818, convinced of the impotence of isolated -Trade Clubs, sought to establish a society on a federal basis, each -constituent trade raising its own funds and separately moving for -advances or resisting reductions; but pledged first to consult the -committee and the other trades, and promised the support of all, -both in approved trade movements and in case of legal prosecution or -oppression. A committee of eleven was to be chosen by ballot, one-third -retiring monthly by rotation; and was to be assisted by a similar local -organisation in each town.[208] How far the “General Union,” as the -“Philanthropic Society” seems also to have been called, got under way -in Lancashire or Staffordshire remains uncertain; but in London the -idea was taken up by one of the ablest Trade Unionists of the time--the -shipwright John Gast, whom we have already mentioned as an ally of -Francis Place, who became president and called upon “the general body -of mechanics” to subscribe a penny per week to a central fund for the -defence of their common interests.[209] - -Whether anything came of the attempts at a General Union in 1818-19 we -have not discovered, but in all probability the project immediately -failed. Seven years later a similar effort met with no greater -success. “In 1826,” as we incidentally learn from a subsequent Labour -journal,[210] “a Trades Union was formed in Manchester, which extended -slightly to some of the surrounding districts, and embraced several -trades in each; but it expired before it was so much as known a large -majority of the operatives in the neighbourhood.” - -What was aimed at is clear enough. It was being recommended to the -workmen by some of their intellectual advisers. An able pamphlet of -1827 tells them that “Against the competition of the underpaid of -surrounding trades, the ready remedy is a central union of all the -general unions of all the trades of the country. The remuneration of -all the different branches of artisans and mechanics in the country -might then be fixed at those rates which would leave such an equalised -remuneration to all as would take away any temptation from those in one -branch to transfer their skill in order to undersell the labour of the -well-remunerated in another branch: the Central Union fund being always -ready to assist the unemployed in any particular branch, when their own -local and general funds were exhausted; provided always their claims to -support were by the Central Union deemed to be just.”[211] - -Experience seems to show that national organisation of particular -trades must precede the formation of any General Trades Union; and -it was in this way that the project now took form. In 1829 we see -renewed attempts at national organisation, in which the Lancashire -and Yorkshire textile and building operatives were pioneers. The year -1829, closing the long depression of trade which began in the autumn -of 1825, after the repeal of the Combination Laws, witnessed the -establishment of important national Unions in both industries, but that -of the Cotton-spinners claims precedence in respect of its more rapid -development. - -The Cotton-spinners’ trade clubs of Lancashire date apparently from -1792, and they spread, within a generation, to thirty or forty towns, -remaining always strictly local organisations. In the early years of -the nineteenth century attempts had been made by the Glasgow Spinners -to unite the Lancashire and Scottish organisations in a national -association; but these attempts had not resulted in more than temporary -alliances in particular emergencies. The rapid improvement of spinning -machinery, and the enterprise of the Lancashire millowners, were, at -the date of the repeal of the Combination Laws, shifting the centre -of the trade from Glasgow to Manchester; and it was the Lancashire -Cotton-spinners who now took the lead in trade matters. The failure -of a disastrous six months’ strike in 1829 at Hyde, near Manchester, -led to the conviction that no local Union could succeed against a -combination of employers; and the spinners’ societies of England, -Scotland, and Ireland were therefore invited to send delegates to a -conference to be held at Ramsay, in the Isle of Man, in the month of -December 1829. - -This delegate meeting, of which there is an excellent report,[212] -lasted for nearly a week. The proceedings were of a remarkably -temperate character, the discussions turning chiefly on the relative -advantages of one supreme executive to be established at Manchester, -and three co-equal national executives for England, Scotland, and -Ireland. No secrecy was attempted. John Doherty,[213] secretary -and leader of the Manchester Cotton-spinners, advocated a central -executive; while Thomas Foster (a man of independent means who -attended the conference at his own expense) favoured a scheme of home -rule. Eventually a “Grand General Union of the United Kingdom” was -established, subject to an annual delegate meeting and three national -committees. The union was to include all male spinners and piecers, the -women and girls being urged to form separate organisations, which were -to receive all the aid of the whole confederation in supporting them -to obtain “men’s prices.” The union was to promote local action for a -further legislative restriction of the hours of labour, to apply to all -persons under 21 years of age. Its income consisted of a contribution -of a penny per week per member, to be levied in addition to the -contribution to the local society. Doherty was general secretary, and -Foster and a certain Patrick McGowan were appointed to organise the -spinners throughout the United Kingdom. - -The Boroughreeve and Constables of Manchester, on May 26, 1830, -wrote in alarm to Sir Robert Peel: “The combination of workmen, long -acknowledged a great evil, and one most difficult to counteract, has -recently assumed so formidable and systematic a shape in this district -that we feel it our duty to lay before you some of its most alarming -features.... A committee of delegates from the operative spinners of -the three Kingdoms have established an annual assembly in the Isle -of Man to direct the proceedings of the general body towards their -employers, the orders for which they promulgate to their respective -districts and subcommittees. To these orders the most implicit -deference is shown; and a weekly levy or rent of one penny per head -on each operative is cheerfully paid. This produces a large sum, -and is a powerful engine, and principally to support those who have -turned out against their employers, agreeable to the orders of the -committee, at the rate of ten shillings per week for each person. The -plan of a general turnout having been found to be impolitic, they have -employed it in detail, against particular individuals or districts, -who, attacked thus singly, are frequently compelled to submit to their -terms rather than to the ruin which would ensue to many by allowing -their machinery (in which their whole capital is invested) to stand -idle.”[214] - -Whether this Cotton-spinners’ Federation, as we should call it, became -really representative of the three kingdoms does not appear. A second -general delegate meeting was held at Manchester in December 1830, -which intervened in the great spinners’ strike then in progress at -Ashton-under-Lyne. At this conference the constitution of 1829 was -re-enacted with some alterations. The three national executives were -apparently replaced by an executive council of three members elected -by the Manchester Society, to be reinforced at its monthly meetings by -two delegates chosen in turn by each of the neighbouring districts. -A general delegate meeting seems also to have been held, attended by -one delegate from each of the couple of scores of towns in which there -were local clubs.[215] Foster was appointed general secretary; and a -committee was ordered to draw up a general list of prices, for which -purpose one member in each mill was directed to send up a copy of the -list by which he was paid. Although another delegate meeting of this -“Grand General Union” was fixed for Whit Monday 1831 at Liverpool, no -further record of its existence can be traced. It is probable that the -attempt to include Scotland and Ireland proved a failure, and that the -union had dwindled into a federation of Lancashire societies, mainly -preoccupied in securing a legislative restriction of the hours of -labour.[216] - -But the National Union of Cotton-spinners prepared the way for the -more ambitious project of the Trades Union. Doherty, who seems to have -resigned his official connection with the Cotton-spinners’ Union, -conceived the idea of a National Association, not of one trade alone, -but of all classes of wage-earners. Already in May 1829 we find him, -as Secretary of the Manchester Cotton-spinners, writing to acknowledge -a gift of ten pounds from the Liverpool Sailmakers, and expressing “a -hope that our joint efforts may eventually lead to a Grand General -Union of all trades throughout the United Kingdom.”[217] At his -instigation a meeting of delegates from twenty organised trades was -held at Manchester in February 1830, which ended in the establishment, -five months later, of the National Association for the Protection of -Labour. The express object of this society was to resist reductions, -but not to strike for advances. In an eloquent address to working -men of all trades, the new Association appealed to them to unite for -their own protection and in order to maintain “the harmony of society” -which is destroyed by their subjection. How is it, the Association -asks, that whilst everything else increases--knowledge, wealth, -civil and religious liberty, churches, madhouses, and prisons--the -circumstances of the working man become ever worse? “He, the sole -producer of food and raiment, is, it appears, destined to sink whilst -others rise.” To prevent this evil the Association is formed.[218] -Its constitution appears to have been largely borrowed from that -of the contemporary Cotton-spinners, which it resembled in being a -combination, not of directly enlisted individuals, but of existing -separate societies, each of which paid an entrance fee of a pound, -together with a shilling for each of its members, and contributed at -the rate of a penny per week per head of its membership. Doherty was -the first secretary, and the Association appears very soon to have -enrolled about 150 separate Unions, mostly in Lancashire, Cheshire, -Derby, Nottingham, and Leicester. The trades which joined were mainly -connected with the various textile industries--the cotton-spinners, -hosiery-workers, calico-printers, and silk-weavers taking a leading -part. The Association also included numerous societies of mechanics, -moulders, black-smiths, and many miscellaneous trades. The building -trades were scarcely represented--a fact to be accounted for by the -contemporary existence of the Builders’ Union hereafter described. -The list[219] of the receipts of the Association for the first nine -months of its existence includes payments amounting to £1866, a sum -which indicates a membership of between 10,000 and 20,000, spread over -the five counties already mentioned. A vigorous propaganda was carried -on throughout the northern and midland counties by its officials, -who succeeded in establishing a weekly paper, the _United Trades -Co-operative Journal_, which was presently brought to an end by the -intervention of the Commissioners of Stamps, who insisted on each -number bearing a fourpenny stamp.[220] Undeterred by this failure, the -committee undertook the more serious task of starting a sevenpenny -stamped weekly, and requested Francis Place to become the treasurer -of an accumulated fund. “The subscription,” writes Place to John Cam -Hobhouse, December 5, 1830, “extends from Birmingham to the Clyde; the -committee sits at Manchester; and the money collected amounts to about -£3000, and will, they tell me, shortly be as much as £5000, with which -sum, when raised, they propose to commence a weekly newspaper to be -called the _Voice of the People_.” Accordingly in January 1831 appeared -the first number of what proved to be an excellent weekly journal, the -object of which was declared to be “to unite the productive classes of -the community in one common bond of union.” Besides full weekly reports -of the committee meetings of the National Association at Manchester and -Nottingham, this newspaper, ably edited by John Doherty, gave great -attention to Radical politics, including the Repeal of the Union with -Ireland, and the progress of revolution on the Continent.[221] - -From the reports published in the _Voice of the People_ we gather -that the first important action of the Association was in connection -with the almost continuous strikes of the cotton-spinners at -Ashton-under-Lyne, which flamed up into a sustained conflict on a large -scale, during which Ashton, a young millowner, was murdered by some -unknown person in the winter of 1830-31, in resistance to a new list -of prices arbitrarily imposed by the Association of Master Spinners in -Ashton, Dukinfield, and Stalybridge.[222] Considerable sums were raised -by way of levy for the support of the strike, the Nottingham trades -subscribing liberally. But the Association soon experienced a check. In -February 1831 a new secretary decamped with £100. This led a delegate -meeting at Nottingham, in April 1831, to decree that each Union should -retain in hand the money contributed by its own members. But the usual -failings of unions of various trades quickly showed themselves. The -refusal of the Lancashire branches to support the great Nottingham -strike which immediately ensued led to the defection of the Nottingham -members. Nevertheless the Association was spreading over new ground. -We hear of delegates from Lancashire inducing thousands of colliers -in Derbyshire to join, whilst other trades, and even the agricultural -labourers, were talking about it.[223] At the end of April a -delegate meeting at Bolton, representing nine thousand coalminers -of Staffordshire, Yorkshire, Cheshire, and Wales, resolved to join. -The Belfast trades applied for affiliation. In Leeds nine thousand -members were enrolled, chiefly among the woollen-workers. Missionaries -were sent to organise the Staffordshire potters; and a National -Potters’ Union, extending throughout the country, was established -and affiliated. All this activity lends a certain credibility to the -assertion, made in various quarters, that the Association numbered one -hundred thousand members, and that the _Voice of the People_, published -at 7d. weekly, enjoyed the then enormous circulation of thirty thousand. - -Here at last we have substance given to the formidable idea of “the -Trades Union.” It was soon worked up by the newspapers to a pitch at -which it alarmed the employers, dismally excited the imaginations of -the middle class, and compelled the attention of the Government. But -there was no cause for apprehension. Lack of funds made the Association -little more than a name. Practically no trade action is reported in -such numbers of its organ as are still extant. The business of the -Manchester Committee seems to have been confined to the promotion of -the “Short Time Bill.” On April 23, 1831, at the general meeting of -the Association, then designated the Lancashire Trades Unions, it was -resolved to prepare petitions in favour of extending this measure to -all trades and all classes of workers. Active support was given in -the meantime to Mr. Sadler’s Factory Bill. Towards the end of the -year we suddenly lose all trace of the National Association for the -Protection of Labour, as far as Manchester is concerned. “After it had -extended about a hundred miles round this town,” writes a working-class -newspaper of 1832, “a fatality came upon it that almost threatened -its extinction.... But though it declined in Manchester it spread and -flourished in other places; and we rejoice to say that the resolute -example set by Yorkshire and other places is likely once more to revive -the drooping energies of those trades who had the honour of originating -and establishing the Association.”[224] - -What the fatality was that extinguished the Association in Manchester -is not stated; but Doherty, to whose organising ability its initial -success had been due, evidently quarrelled with the executive -committee, and the _Voice of the People_ ceased to appear. In its place -we find Doherty issuing, from January 1832, the _Poor Man’s Advocate_, -and vainly striving, in face of the “spirit” of “jealousy and faction,” -to build up the Yorkshire branches of the Association into a national -organisation, with its headquarters in London. After the middle of 1832 -we hear no more, either of the Association itself or of Doherty’s more -ambitious projects concerning it.[225] - -The place of the National Association was soon filled by other -contemporary general trade societies, of which the first and most -important was the Builders’ Union, or the General Trades Union, as it -was sometimes termed. It consisted of the separate organisations of the -seven building trades, viz. joiners, masons, bricklayers, plasterers, -plumbers, painters, and builders’ labourers, and is, so far as we know, -the solitary example, prior to the present century, in the history -of those trades of a federal union embracing all classes of building -operatives, and purporting to extend over the whole country.[226] - -The Grand Rules of the Builders’ Union set forth an elaborate -constitution in which it was attempted to combine a local and trade -autonomy of separate lodges with a centralised authority for defensive -and aggressive purposes. The rules inform us that “the object of this -society shall be to advance and equalise the price of labour in every -branch of the trade we admit into this society.” Each lodge shall be -“governed by its own password and sign, masons to themselves, and -joiners to themselves, and so on;” and it is ordered that “no lodge be -opened by any other lodge that is not the same trade of that lodge -that, opens them, that masons open masons, and joiners open joiners, -and so on;” moreover, “no other member [is] to visit a lodge that is -not the same trade unless he is particularly requested.” Each trade had -its own bye-laws; but these were subject to the general rules adopted -at an annual delegate meeting. This annual conference of the “Grand -Lodge Delegates,” better known as the “Builders’ Parliament,” consisted -of one representative of each lodge, and was the supreme legislative -authority, altering rules, deciding on general questions of policy, and -electing the president and other officials. The local lodges, though -directly represented at the annual meetings, had had apparently little -connection in the interim with the seat of government. The society -was divided into geographical districts, the lodges in each district -sending delegates to quarterly district meetings, which elected a -grand master, deputy grand master, and corresponding secretary for -the district, and decided which should be the “divisional lodge,” -or district executive centre. These divisional lodges or provincial -centres were, according to the rules, to serve in turn as the grand -lodge or executive centre for the whole society. Whether the members -of the general committee were chosen by the general lodge or by the -whole society is not clear; but they formed, with the president and -general corresponding secretary, the national executive. The expenses -of this executive and of the annual delegate meeting were levied on -the whole society, each lodge sending monthly returns of its members -and a summary of its finances to the general secretary. The main -business of the national executive was to determine the trade policy -of the Associations, and to grant or withhold permission to strike. -As no mention is made of friendly benefits, we may conclude that the -Builders’ Union, like most of the national or general Unions of this -militant time, confined itself exclusively to defending its members -against their employers. - -The operative builders did not rest content with an elaborate -constitution and code. There was also a ritual. The Stonemasons’ -Society has preserved among its records a MS. copy of a “Making Parts -Book,” ordered to be used by all lodges of the Builders’ Union on the -admission of members. Under the Combination Laws oaths of secrecy and -obedience were customary in the more secret and turbulent Trade Unions, -notably that of the Glasgow Cotton-spinners and the Northumberland -Miners. The custom survived the repeal; and admission to the Builders’ -Union involved a lengthy ceremony conducted by the officers of the -lodge--the “outside and inside tylers,” the “warden,” the “president,” -“secretary,” and “principal conductor”--and taken part in by the -candidates and the members of the lodge. Besides the opening prayer, -and religious hymns sung at intervals, these “initiation parts” -consisted of questions and responses by the _dramatis personæ_ in -quaint doggerel, and were brought to a close by the new members taking -a solemn oath of loyalty and secrecy. Officers clothed in surplices, -inner chambers into which the candidates were admitted blindfolded, -a skeleton, drawn sword, battle-axes, and other mystic “properties” -enhanced the sensational solemnity of this fantastic performance.[227] -Ceremonies of this kind, including what were described to the Home -Office as “oaths of a most execrable nature,”[228] were adopted by -all the national and general Unions of the time: thus we find items -for “washing surplices” appearing in the accounts of various lodges -of contemporary societies. Although in the majority of cases the -ritual was no doubt as harmless as that of the Freemasons or the -Oddfellows, yet the excitement and sensation of the proceedings may -have predisposed lightheaded fanatical members, in times of industrial -conflict, to violent acts in the interest of the Association. At all -events, the references to its mock terrors in the capitalist press seem -to have effectually scared the governing classes. - -The first years of the Builders’ Union, apparently, were devoted to -organisation. During 1832 it rapidly spread through the Lancashire and -Midland towns; and at the beginning of the following year a combined -attack was made upon the Liverpool employers. The ostensible grievance -of the men was the interference of the “contractor,” who, supplanting -the master mason, master carpenter, etc., undertook the management of -all building operations. A placard issued by the Liverpool Painters -announces that they have joined “the General Union of the Artisans -employed in the process of building,” in order to put down “that -baneful, unjust, and ruinous system of monopolising the hard-earned -profits of another man’s business, called ‘contracting,’” Naturally, -the little masters were not friendly to the contracting system; and -most of them agreed with the men’s demand that its introduction should -be resisted. Encouraged by this support, the several branches of the -building trade in Liverpool simultaneously sent in identical claims -for a uniform rate of wages for each class of operatives, a limitation -of apprentices, the prohibition of machinery and piecework, and other -requirements special to each branch of the trade. These demands were -communicated to the employers in letters couched in dictatorial and -even insulting terms, and were coupled with a claim to be paid wages -for any time they might lose by striking to enforce their orders. “We -consider,” said one of these letters, “that as you have not treated -our rules with that deference you ought to have done, we consider -you highly culpable and deserving of being severely chastised.” And -“further,” says another, “that each and every one in such strike shall -be paid by you the sum of four shillings per day for every day you -refuse to comply.”[229] - -This sort of language brought the employers of all classes into line. -At a meeting held in June 1833 they decided not only to refuse all -the men’s demands, but to make a deliberate attempt to extinguish -the Union. For this purpose they publicly declared that henceforth -no man need apply for work unless he was prepared to sign a formal -renunciation of the Trades Union and all its works. The insistence -on this formal renunciation, henceforth to be famous in Trade Union -records as the “presentation of the document,” exasperated the -Builders’ Union. The Liverpool demands were repeated in Manchester, -where the employers adopted the same tactics as at Liverpool.[230] - -In the very heat of the battle (September 1833) the Builders’ Union -held its annual delegate meeting at Manchester. It lasted six days; -cost, it is said, over £3000; and was attended by two hundred and -seventy delegates, representing thirty thousand operatives. This -session of the “Builders’ Parliament” attracted universal attention. -Robert Owen addressed the Conference at great length, confiding to it -his “great secret” “that labour is the source of all wealth,” and that -wealth can be retained in the hands of the producers by a universal -compact among the productive classes. It was decided, perhaps under his -influence, to build central offices at Birmingham, which should also -serve as an educational establishment. The design for this “Builders’ -Gild Hall,” as it was termed, was made by Hansom, an architect who, -as an enthusiastic disciple of Owen, threw himself heartily into the -strike that was proceeding also in this town. It included, on paper, -a lecture-hall and various schoolrooms for the children of members. -The foundation-stone was laid with great ceremony on December 5, 1833, -when the Birmingham trades marched in procession to the site, and -enthusiastic speeches were made.[231] - -We learn from the _Pioneer, or Trades Union Magazine_ (an unstamped -penny weekly newspaper published at first at Birmingham, at that time -the organ of the Builders’ Union[232]), the ardent faith and the vast -pretensions of these New Unionists. “A union founded on right and just -principles,” wrote the editor in the first number, “is all that is now -required to put poverty and the fear of it for ever out of society.” -“The vaunted power of capital will now be put to the test: we shall -soon discover its worthlessness when deprived of your labour. Labour -prolific of wealth will readily command the purchase of the soil; and -at a very early period we shall find the idle possessor compelled to -ask of you to release him from his worthless holding.” Elaborate plans -were propounded for the undertaking of all the building of the country -by a Grand National Gild of Builders: each lodge to elect a foreman; -and the foremen to elect a general superintendent. The disappointment -of these high hopes was rude and rapid. The Lancashire societies -demurred to the centralisation which had been voted by the delegate -meeting in September at the instigation of the Midland societies. Two -great strikes at Liverpool and Manchester ended towards the close of -the year in total failure. The Builders’ Gild Hall was abandoned;[233] -and the _Pioneer_ moved to London, where it became the organ of another -body, the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union, with which the -south country and metropolitan branches of the building trade had -already preferred to affiliate themselves. Nevertheless the Builders’ -Union retained its hold upon the northern counties during the early -months of 1834, and held another “parliament” at Birmingham in April, -at which Scotch and Irish representatives were present.[234] - -The aggressive activity and rapid growth of the Builders’ Union -during 1832-33 had been only a part of a general upheaval in labour -organisation. The Cotton-spinners had recovered from the failure of the -Ashton strike (1830-31) by the autumn of 1833, when we find Doherty -prosecuting with his usual vigour the agitation for an eight hours day -which had been set on foot by his Society for National Regeneration. -“The plan is,” writes J. Fielden (M.P. for Oldham) to William Cobbett, -“that about the 1st March next, the day the said Bill (now Act) limits -the time of work for children under eleven years of age to eight hours -a day, those above that age, both grown persons and adults, should -insist on eight hours a day being the maximum of time for them to -labour; and their present weekly wages for sixty-nine hours a week -to be the minimum weekly wages for forty-eight hours a week after -that time”; and he proceeds to explain that the Cotton-spinners had -adopted this idea of securing shorter hours by a strike rather than -by legislation on Lord Althorpe’s suggestion that they should “make a -short-time bill for themselves.”[235] Fielden and Robert Owen served, -with Doherty, on the committee of this society, which included a few -employers. The Lancashire textile trades followed the lead of the -Cotton-spinners, and prepared for a “universal” strike. Meanwhile -their Yorkshire brethren were already engaged in an embittered struggle -with their employers. The Leeds Clothiers’ Union, established about -1831, and apparently one of the constituent societies of the National -Association for the Protection of Labour, bore a striking resemblance -to the Builders’ Union, not only in ceremonial and constitution, but -also in its policy and history.[236] In the spring of 1833 it made a -series of attacks on particular establishments with the double aim of -forcing all the workers to join the Union and of obtaining a uniform -scale of prices. These demands were met with the usual weapon. The -employers entered into what was called “the Manufacturers’ Bond,” by -which they bound themselves under penalty to refuse employment to -all members of the Union. The men indignantly refused to abandon the -society; and a lock-out ensued which lasted some months, and was the -occasion of repeated leading articles in the _Times_.[237] - -The Potters’ Union (also established by Doherty in 1830) numbered, -in the autumn of 1833, eight thousand members, of whom six thousand -belonged to Staffordshire and the remainder to the lodges at -Newcastle-on-Tyne, Derby, Bristol, and Swinton[238]--another instance -of the extraordinary growth of Trade Unions during these years. - -How far these and other societies were joined together in any federal -body is not clear. The panic-stricken references in the capitalist -press to “the Trades Union,” and the vague mention in working-class -newspapers of the affiliation of particular societies to larger -organisations, lead us to believe that during the year 1833 there was -more than one attempt to form a “General Union of All Trades.” The -Owenite newspapers, towards the end of 1833, are full of references -to the formation of a “General Union of the Productive Classes.” What -manner of association Owen himself contemplated may be learnt from his -speech to the Congress of Owenite Societies in London on the 6th of -October. “I will now give you,” said he, “a short outline of the great -changes which are in contemplation, and which shall come suddenly upon -society like a thief in the night.... It is intended that national -arrangements shall be formed to include all the working classes in the -great organisation, and that each department shall become acquainted -with what is going on in other departments; that all individual -competition is to cease; that all manufactures are to be carried on -by National Companies.... All trades shall first form Associations of -lodges to consist of a convenient number for carrying on the business: -... all individuals of the specific craft shall become members.”[239] -Immediately after this we find in existence a “Grand National -Consolidated Trades Union,” in the establishment and extraordinary -growth of which the project of “the Trades Union” may be said to have -culminated. This organisation seems to have actually started in January -1834. Owen was its chief recruiter and propagandist. During the next -few months his activity was incessant; and lodges were affiliated all -over the country. Innumerable local trade clubs were absorbed. Early -in February 1834 a special delegate meeting was held at Owen’s London -Institute in Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square, at which it was resolved -that the new body should take the form of a federation of separate -trade lodges, each lodge to be composed usually of members of one -trade, but with provision for “miscellaneous lodges” in places where -the numbers were small, and even for “female miscellaneous lodges.” -Each lodge retained its own funds, levies being made throughout the -whole order for strike purposes. The Conference urged each lodge -to provide sick, funeral, and superannuation benefits for its own -members; and proposals were adopted to lease land on which to employ -“turn-outs,” and to set up co-operative workshops. The initiation -rites and solemn oath, common to all the Unions of the period, were -apparently adopted. - -Nothing in the annals of Unionism in this country at all approached -the rapidity of the growth which ensued.[240] Within a few weeks -the Union appears to have been joined by at least half a million -members, including tens of thousands of farm labourers and women. -This must have been in great measure due to the fact that, as no -discoverable regular contribution was exacted for central expenses, -the affiliation or absorption of existing organisations was very -easy. Still, the extension of new lodges in previously unorganised -trades and districts was enormous. Numerous missionary delegates, -duly equipped with all the paraphernalia required for the mystic -initiation rites, perambulated the country; and a positive mania for -Trade Unionism set in. In December 1833 we are told that “scarcely a -branch of trade exists in the West of Scotland that is not now in a -state of Union.”[241] The _Times_ reports that two delegates who went -to Hull enrolled in one evening a thousand men of various trades.[242] -At Exeter the two delegates were seized by the police, and found to -be furnished with “two wooden axes, two large cutlasses, two masks, -and two white garments or robes, a large figure of Death with the dart -and hourglass, a Bible and Testament.”[243] Shop-assistants on the one -hand, and journeymen chimney-sweeps on the other, were swept into the -vortex. The cabinetmakers of Belfast insisted on joining “the Trades -Union, or Friendly Society, which had for its object the unity of all -cabinetmakers in the three kingdoms.”[244] We hear of “Ploughmen’s -Unions” as far off as Perthshire,[245] and of a “Shearman’s Union” -at Dundee. And the then rural character of the Metropolitan suburbs -is quaintly brought home to us by the announcement of a union of the -“agricultural and other labourers” of Kensington, Walham Green, Fulham, -and Hammersmith. Nor were the women neglected. The “Grand Lodge of -Operative Bonnet Makers” vies in activity with the miscellaneous “Grand -Lodge of the Women of Great Britain and Ireland”; and the “Lodge of -Female Tailors” asks indignantly whether the “Tailors’ Order” is really -going to prohibit women from making waistcoats. Whether the Grand -National Consolidated Trades Union was responsible for the lodges of -“Female Gardeners” and “Ancient Virgins,” who afterwards distinguished -themselves in the riotous demand for an eight hours day at Oldham,[246] -is not clear. - -How the business of this colossal federation was actually managed -we do not know.[247] Some kind of executive committee sat in London, -with four paid officers. The need for statesmanlike administration was -certainly great. The avowed policy of the federation was to inaugurate -a general expropriatory strike of all wage-earners throughout the -country, not “to condition with the master-producers of wealth and -knowledge for some paltry advance in the artificial money price in -exchange for their labour, health, liberty, natural enjoyment, and -life; but to ensure to every one the best cultivation of all their -faculties and the most advantageous exercise of all their powers.” -But from the very beginning of its career it found itself incessantly -involved in sectional disputes for small advances of wages and -reduction of hours. The mere joining of “the Trades Union” was often -made the occasion of the dismissal by the employers of all those who -would not sign the “document” abjuring all combinations. Thus the -accession of the Leicester Hosiers in November 1833 led to a disastrous -dispute, in which over 1300 men had to be supported. In Glasgow a -serious strike broke out among the building trades at a time when the -Calico-printers, Engineers, and Cabinetmakers were already struggling -with their employers. The most costly conflict, however, which the -Grand National found on its hands during the winter was that which -raged at Derby, where fifteen hundred men, women, and children had been -locked out by their employers for refusing to abandon the Union. The -“Derby turn-outs” were at first supported, like their fellow-victims -elsewhere, by contributions sent from the trade organisations in -various parts of the kingdom; but it soon became evident that without -systematic aid they would be compelled to give way. A levy of a -shilling per member was accordingly decreed by the Grand National -Executive in February 1834. Arrangements were made for obtaining -premises and machinery upon which to set a few of the strikers to work -on their own account. The struggle ended, after four months, in the -complete triumph of the employers, and the return of the operatives to -work. - -The “Derby turn-out” was widely advertised by the newspapers, and -brought much odium on the Grand National. But the denunciation of -“the Trades Union” greatly increased when part of London was laid -in darkness by a strike of the gas-stokers. The men employed by -the different gas companies in the metropolis had been quietly -organising during the winter, with the intention of simultaneously -withdrawing from work if their demands were not acceded to. The -plot was discovered, and the companies succeeded in replacing their -Union workmen by others. But weeks elapsed before the new hands were -able completely to perform their work,[248] and early in March 1834 -Westminster was for some days in partial darkness. Amid the storm of -obloquy caused by these disputes the Grand National suddenly found -itself in conflict with the law. The conviction of six Dorchester -labourers in March 1834 for the mere act of administering an oath, and -their sentence to seven years’ transportation, came like a thunderbolt -on the Trade Union world. - -To understand such a barbarous sentence we must picture to ourselves -the effect on the minds of the Government and the propertied classes -of the menacing ideal of “the Trades Union,” brought home by the -aggressive policy of the Unions during the last four years. Already -in 1830 the formation of national and General Unions had excited -the attention of the Government. “When we first came into office in -November last,” writes Lord Melbourne, the Whig Home Secretary, to Sir -Herbert Taylor, “the Unions of trades in the North of England and in -other parts of the country for the purpose of raising wages, etc., and -the General Union for the same purpose, were pointed out to me by Sir -Robert Peel [the outgoing Tory Home Secretary] in a conversation I had -with him upon the then state of the country, as the most formidable -difficulty and danger with which we had to contend; and it struck me as -well as the rest of His Majesty’s servants in the same light.”[249] - -To advise the Cabinet in this difficulty Lord Melbourne called in -Nassau Senior, who had just completed his first term of five years -as Professor of Political Economy at Oxford, and directed him to -prepare, in conjunction with a legal expert named Tomlinson, a report -on the situation and a plan of remedial legislation. This document -throws light both on the state of mind and on the practical judgement -of the trusted economist. The two commissioners appear to have made -no inquiries among workmen, and to have accepted implicitly every -statement, including hearsay gossip, offered by employers. The evidence -thus collected naturally led to a very unfavourable conclusion. It -produced, as the commissioners recite, “upon our minds the conviction -that if the innocent and laborious workman and his family are to be -left without protection against the cowardly ferocity by which he -is now assailed; if the manufacturer is to employ his capital and -the mechanist or chemist his ingenuity, only under the dictation of -his short-sighted and rapacious workmen, or his equally ignorant -and avaricious rivals; if a few agitators are to be allowed to -command a strike which first paralyses the industry of the peculiar -class of workpeople over whom they tyrannise, and then extends -itself in an increasing circle over the many thousands and tens of -thousands to whose labour the assistance of that peculiar class of -workpeople is essential;--that if all this is to be unpunished, and -to be almost sanctioned by the repeal of the laws by which it was -formerly punishable;--it is in vain to hope that we shall long retain -the industry, the skill, or the capital on which our manufacturing -superiority, and with that superiority our power and almost our -existence as a nation, depends.” They accordingly conclude with a -series of astounding proposals for the amendment of the law. The Act -of 1825 could not conveniently be openly repealed; but its mischievous -results were to be counteracted by drastic legislation. They -recommend that a law should be passed clearly reciting the common law -prohibitions of conspiracy and restraint of trade. The law should go -on to forbid, under severe penalties, “all attempts or solicitations, -combinations, subscriptions, and solicitations to combinations” -to threaten masters, to persuade blacklegs, or even simply to ask -workmen to join the Union.[250] Picketing, however peaceful, was to be -comprehensively forbidden and ruthlessly punished. Employers or their -assistants were to be authorised themselves to arrest men without -summons or warrant, and hale them before any justice of the peace. The -encouragement of combinations by masters was to be punished by heavy -pecuniary penalties, to be recovered by any common informer. “This,” -say the commissioners, “is as much as we should recommend in the first -instance. But if it should be proved that the evil of the combination -system cannot be subdued at a less price, ... _we must recommend the -experiment of confiscation_,”--confiscation, that is, of the “funds -subscribed for purposes of combination and deposited in Savings Banks -or otherwise.”[251] - -The Whig Government dared not submit either the report or the -proposals to a House of Commons pledged to the doctrines of Philosophic -Radicalism. “We considered much ourselves,” writes Lord Melbourne,[252] -“and we consulted much with others as to whether the arrangements of -these unions, their meetings, their communications, or their pecuniary -funds could be reached or in any way prevented by any new legal -provisions; but it appeared upon the whole impossible to do anything -effectual unless we proposed such measures as would have been a serious -infringement upon the constitutional liberties of the country, and to -which it would have been impossible to have obtained the consent of -Parliament.” - -The King, however, had been greatly alarmed at the meeting of the -“Builders’ Parliament,” and pressed the Cabinet to take strong -measures.[253] Rotch, the member for Knaresborough, gave notice in -April 1834 of his intention to bring in a Bill designed to make -combinations of trades impossible--a measure which would have obtained -a large amount of support from the manufacturers.[254] The coal-owners -and ship-owners, the ironmasters, had all been pressing the Home -Secretary for legislation of this kind. - -But although Lord Melbourne’s prudent caution saved the Unions from -drastic prohibitory laws, the Government lost no opportunity of showing -its hostility to the workmen’s combinations. When in August 1833 the -Yorkshire manufacturers presented a memorial on the subject of “the -Trades Union,” Lord Melbourne directed the answer to be returned that -“he considers it unnecessary to repeat the strong opinion entertained -by His Majesty’s Ministers of the criminal character and the evil -effects of the unions described in the Memorial,” adding that “no -doubt can be entertained that combinations for the purposes enumerated -are illegal conspiracies, and liable to be prosecuted as such at -common law.”[255] The employers scarcely needed this hint. Although -combination for the sole purpose of fixing hours or wages had ceased -to be illegal, it was possible to prosecute the workmen upon various -other pretexts. Sometimes, as in the case of some Lancashire miners in -1832, the Trade Unionists were indicted for illegal combination for -merely writing to their employers that a strike would take place.[256] -Sometimes the “molestation or obstruction” prohibited in the Act of -1825 was made to include the mere intimation of the men’s intention -to strike against the employment of non-unionists. In a remarkable -case at Wolverhampton in August 1835, four potters were imprisoned -for intimidation, solely upon evidence by the employers that they -had “advanced their prices in consequence of the interference of the -defendants, who acted as plenipotentiaries for the men,” without, as -was admitted, the use of even the mildest threat.[257] Picketing, even -of the most peaceful kind, was frequently severely punished under this -head, as four Southwark shoemakers found in 1832 to their cost.[258] -More generally the men on strike were proceeded against under the laws -relating to masters and servants, as in the case of seventeen tanners -at Bermondsey in February 1834, who were sentenced to imprisonment for -the offence of leaving their work unfinished.[259] - -With the authorities in this temper, their alarm at the growth of the -Grand National Consolidated Trades Union may be imagined. A new legal -weapon was soon discovered. At the time of the mutiny at the Nore in -1797 an Act had been passed (37 Geo. III. c. 123) severely penalising -the administering of an oath by an unlawful society. In 1819, when -political sedition was rife, a measure prohibiting unlawful oaths had -formed one of the notorious “Six Acts.” In neither case were trade -combinations aimed at, though Lord Ellenborough, in an isolated -prosecution in 1802,[260] had held that an oath administered by a -committee of journeymen shearmen in Wiltshire came within the terms -of the earlier statute. It does not seem to have occurred to any one -to put the law in force against Trade Unions until the oath-bound -confederacy of the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union began to -make headway even in the rural villages of the South of England. - -The story of the trial and transportation of the Dorchester labourers -is the best-known episode of early Trade Union history.[261] The -agricultural labourers of the southern counties, oppressed by the -tacit combinations of the farmers and by the operation of the Corn -Laws, as well as exceptionally demoralised by the Old Poor Law, had -long been in a state of sullen despair. The specially hard times of -1829 had resulted in outbursts of machine-breaking, rick-burning, and -hunger riots, which had been put down in 1830 by the movement of troops -through the disturbed districts, and the appointment of a Special -Commission of Assize to try over 1000 prisoners, several of whom were -hung and hundreds transported. The whole wage-earning population of -these rural districts was effectually cowed.[262] With the improvement -of trade a general movement for higher wages seems to have been set -on foot. In 1832 we find the Duke of Wellington, as Lord-Lieutenant -of Hampshire, reporting to Lord Melbourne that more than half the -labourers in his county were contributing a penny per week to a network -of local societies affiliated, as he thought, to some National Union. -“The labourers said that they had received directions from the Union -not to take less than ten shillings, and that the Union would stand by -them.”[263] These societies, whatever may have been their constitution, -had apparently the effect of raising wages not only in Hampshire, but -also in the neighbouring counties. In the village of Tolpuddle, in -Dorsetshire, as George Loveless tells us, an agreement was made between -the farmers and the men, in the presence of the village parson, that -the wages should be those paid in other districts. This involved a rise -to ten shillings a week. In the following year the farmers repented of -their decision, and successively reduced wages shilling by shilling -until they were paying only seven shillings a week. In this strait -the men made inquiries about “the Trades Union,” and two delegates -from the Grand National visited the village. Upon their information -the Lovelesses established “the Friendly Society of Agricultural -Labourers,” having its “Grand Lodge” at Tolpuddle. For this village -club the elaborate ritual and code of rules of one of the national -orders of the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union were adopted. No -secrecy seems to have been observed, for John Loveless openly ordered -of the village painter a figure of “Death painted six feet high for a -society of his own,”[264] with which to perform the initiation rites. -The farmers took alarm, and induced the local magistrates, on February -21, 1834, to issue placards warning the labourers that any one joining -the Union would be sentenced to seven years’ transportation. This was -no idle threat. Within three days of the publication of the notice the -Lovelesses and four other members were arrested and lodged in gaol. - -The trial of these unfortunate labourers was a scandalous perversion -of the law. The Lovelesses and their friends seem to have been -simple-minded Methodists, two of them being itinerant preachers. -No accusation was made, and no evidence preferred against them, of -anything worse than the playing with oaths, which, as we have seen, -formed a part of the initiation ceremony of the Grand National and -other Unions of the time, with evidently no consciousness of their -statutory illegality. Not only were they guiltless of any intimidation -or outrage, but they had not even struck or presented any application -for higher wages. Yet the judge (John Williams), who had only recently -been raised to the bench, charged the grand jury on the case at -portentous length, as if the prisoners had committed murder or treason, -and inflicted on them, after the briefest of trials, the monstrous -sentence of seven years’ transportation. - -The action of the Government shows how eagerly the Home Secretary -accepted the blunder of an inexperienced judge as part of his policy of -repression. Lord Melbourne expressed his opinion that “the law has in -this case been most properly applied”;[265] and the sentence, far from -exciting criticism in the Whig Cabinet, was carried out with special -celerity. The case was tried on March 18, 1834; before the 30th the -prisoners were in the hulks; and by the 15th of the next month Lord -Howick was able to say in the House of Commons that their ship had -already sailed for Botany Bay.[266] - -The Grand National Consolidated Trades Union proved to have a wider -influence than the Government expected. The whole machinery of the -organisation was turned to the preparation of petitions and the -holding of public meetings, and a wave of sympathy rallied, for a -few weeks, the drooping energies of the members. Cordial relations -were established with the five great Unions which remained outside -the ranks, for the northern counties were mainly organised by the -Builders’ Union, the Leeds, Huddersfield and Bradford District Union, -the Clothiers’ Union, the Cotton-spinners’ Union, and the Potters’ -Union, which on this occasion sent delegates to London to assist the -executive of the Grand National. The agitation culminated in a monster -procession of Trade Unionists to the Home Office to present a petition -to Lord Melbourne--the first of the great “demonstrations” which have -since become a regular part of the machinery of London politics. The -proposal to hold this procession had excited the utmost alarm, both -in friends and to foes. The _Times_, with the Parisian events of 1830 -still in its memory, wrote leader after leader condemning the project, -and Lord Melbourne let it be known that he would refuse to receive -any deputation or petition from a procession. Special constables were -sworn in, and troops brought into London to prevent a rising. At -length the great day arrived (April 21, 1834). Owen and his friends -managed the occasion with much skill. In order to avoid interference -by the new police, the vacant ground at Copenhagen Fields, on which -the processionists assembled, was formally hired from the owner. The -trades were regularly marshalled behind thirty-three banners, each man -decorated by a red ribbon. At the head of the procession rode, in full -canonicals and the scarlet hood of a Doctor of Divinity, the corpulent -“chaplain to the Metropolitan Trades Unions,” Dr. Arthur S. Wade.[267] -The demonstration, in point of numbers, was undoubtedly a success. We -learn, for instance, that the tailors alone paraded from 5000 to 7000 -strong, and the master builders subsequently complained that their -works had been entirely suspended through their men’s participation. -Over a quarter of a million signatures had been obtained to the -petition, and, even on the admission of the _Times_, 30,000 persons -took part in the procession, representing a proportion of the London of -that time equivalent to 100,000 to-day.[268] - -Meanwhile Radicals of all shades hastened to the rescue. A public -meeting was held at the Crown and Anchor Tavern at which Roebuck, -Colonel Perronet Thompson, and, Daniel O’Connell spoke; and a debate -took place in the House of Commons in which the ferocious sentence -was strongly attacked by Joseph Hume.[269] But the Government, far -from remitting the punishment, refused even to recognise that it was -excessive; and the unfortunate labourers were allowed to proceed to -their penal exile.[270] - -The Dorchester conviction had the effect of causing the oath to -be ostensibly dropped out of Trade Union ceremonies, although in -particular trades and districts it lingered a few years longer.[271] -At their “parliament” in April 1834 the Builders’ Union formally -abolished the oath. The Grand National quickly adopted the same -course; and the Leeds and other Unions followed suit. But the judge’s -sentence was of no avail to check the aggressive policy of the Unions. -Immediately after the excitement of the procession had subsided, one -of the most important branches of the Grand National precipitated a -serious conflict with its employers. The London tailors, hitherto -divided among themselves, formed in December 1833 the “First Grand -Lodge of Operative Tailors,” and resolved to demand a shortening of the -hours of labour. The state of mind of the men is significantly shown -by the language of their peremptory notice to the masters. “In order,” -they write, “to stay the ruinous effects which a destructive commercial -competition has so long been inflicting on the trade, they have -resolved to introduce certain new regulations of labour into the trade, -which regulations they intend shall come into force on Monday next.” A -general strike ensued, in which 20,000 persons are said to have been -thrown out of work, the whole burden of their maintenance being cast on -the Grand National funds. A levy of eighteenpence per member throughout -the country was made in May 1834, which caused some dissatisfaction; -and the proceeds were insufficient to prevent the tailors’ strike -pay falling to four shillings a week. The result was that the men -gradually returned to work on the employers’ terms.[272] - -These disasters, together with innumerable smaller strikes in various -parts, all of which were unsuccessful, shook the credit of the Grand -National. The executive attempted in vain to stem the torrent of -strikes by publishing a “Declaration of the Views and Objects of Trades -Unions,” in which they deprecated disputes and advocated what would now -be called Co-operative Production by Associations of Producers.[273] -They gave effect to this declaration by refusing to sanction the London -shoemakers’ demand for increased wages, on the ground that a conflict -so soon after the tailors’ defeat was inopportune. The result was -merely that a general meeting of the London shoemakers voted, by 782 -to 506, for secession from the federation, and struck on their own -account.[274] - -An even more serious blow was the lock-out of the London building -trades in July 1834. These trades in London had joined the Grand -Consolidated rather than the Builders’ Union; and in the summer of -1834 an act of petty tyranny on the part of a single firm brought -about a general conflict. The workmen employed by Messrs. Cubitt -had resolved not to drink any beer supplied by Combe, Delafield & -Co., in retaliation for the refusal of that firm to employ Trade -Unionists. Messrs. Cubitt thereupon refused to allow any other beer -to be drunk on their premises, and locked out their workmen. The -employers throughout London, angered by the Union’s resistance to -sub-contract and piecework, embraced this opportunity to insist that -all their employees should sign the hated “document.” The heads of the -Government departments in which building operatives were employed -placed themselves in line with private employers by making the same -demands.[275] The struggle dragged on until November 1834, when the -document seems to have been tacitly withdrawn, and the men returned to -work, accepting the employers’ terms on the other points at issue.[276] -We learn from the correspondence of the Stonemasons’ Society that this -defeat--for such it virtually was--completely broke up the organisation -in the London building trade. What was happening to the Builders’ Union -during these months is not clear. The federal organisation apparently -broke up at about this time; and the several trades fell back upon -their local clubs and national societies. - -Whilst the London builders were thus engaged, similar struggles were -going on in the other leading industries. At Leeds, for instance, in -May 1834 the masters were again presenting the “document”; and the men, -after much resistance and angry denunciation, were compelled to abandon -the Clothiers’ Union. The Cotton-spinners, whom we left preparing to -carry out Fielden’s idea of a general strike for an eight hours day -with undiminished wages for all cotton operatives, resolved to demand -the reduction of hours from the 1st of March 1834, the day appointed -for the operation of the new Factory Act of 1833 limiting the hours -of children to eight per day. The operatives in many mills sent in -notices, which were simply ignored by the employers. In this they seem -to have estimated the weakness of the men correctly; for the expected -general strike was deferred by a delegate meeting until the 2nd of -June. That date found the men still unprepared for action, and the -strike was further postponed until the 1st of September. After that we -hear no more of it. - -The Oldham operatives did indeed in April 1834 make an unpremeditated -attempt to secure eight hours. It happened that the local constables -broke up a Trade Union meeting. A rescue took place, followed by an -attack on an obnoxious mill, and the shooting of one of the rioters -by a “Knobstick.” The affray provoked the Oldham working class into -a spasm of insurrection. The workers in all trades, both male and -female, ceased work, and held huge meetings on the Moor, where they -were addressed by Doherty and others from Manchester, and demanded the -eight hours day. Within a week the excitement subsided, and work was -resumed.[277] - -By the end of the summer it was obvious that the ambitious projects -of the Grand National Consolidated and other “Trades Unions” had -ended in invariable and complete failure. In spite of the rising -prosperity of trade, the strikes for better conditions of labour had -been uniformly unsuccessful. In July 1834 the federal organisations -all over the country were breaking up. The great association of half a -million members had been completely routed by the employers’ vigorous -presentation of the “document.” Of the actual dissolution of the -organisation we have no contemporary record, but the impression which -it made on the more sober Trade Unionists may be gathered from the -following description, which appeared in a working-class journal seven -years afterwards. “We were present,” says the editor of the _Trades -Journal_, “at many of the meetings of the Grand National Consolidated -Trades Union, and have a distinct recollection of the excitement that -prevailed in them--of the apparent determination to carry out its -principles in opposition to every obstacle--of the enthusiasm exhibited -by some of the speakers--of the noisy approbation of the meeting--the -loud cries of ‘hear hear,’ ‘bravo,’ ‘hurra,’ ‘union for ever,’ etc. It -was the opinion of many at that time that little real benefit would be -effected by this union, as their proceedings were indicative, not of a -calm and dispassionate investigation of the causes of existing evils, -but of an over-excited state of mind which would speedily evaporate, -and leave them in the same condition as before. The event proved that -this opinion was not ill-founded. A little mole-hill obstructed their -onward progress; and rather than commence the labour of removing so -puny an obstacle, they chose to turn back, each taking his own path, -regardless of the safety or the interests of his neighbour. It was -painful to see the deep mortification of the generals and leaders of -this quickly inflated army, when left deserted and alone upon the -field.”[278] - -A period of general apathy in the Trade Union world ensued. The -“London Dorchester Committee” continued with indomitable perseverance -to collect subscriptions and present petitions for the return of the -six exiled labourers; but “the Trades Union,” together with the ideal -from which it sprang, vanished in discredit. The hundreds of thousands -of recruits from the new industries or unskilled occupations rapidly -reverted to a state of disorganisation. The national “orders” of -Tailors and Shoemakers, the extended organisations of Cotton-spinners -and Woollen-workers, split up into fragmentary societies. Throughout -the country the organised constituents of the Grand National fell back -upon their local trade clubs. - -The records of the rise and fall of the “New Unionism” of 1830-4 -leave us conscious of a vast enlargement in the ideas of the workers, -without any corresponding alteration in their tactics in the field. In -council they are idealists, dreaming of a new heaven and a new earth; -humanitarians, educationalists, socialists, moralists: in battle they -are still the struggling, half-emancipated serfs of 1825, armed only -with the rude weapons of the strike and boycott; sometimes feared and -hated by the propertied classes; sometimes merely despised; always -oppressed, and miserably poor. We find, too, that they are actually -less successful with the old weapons now that they wield them with new -and wider ideas. They get beaten in a rising market instead of, as -hitherto, only in a falling one. And we shall soon see that they did -not recover their lost advantage until they again concentrated their -efforts on narrower and more manageable aims. But we have first to -inquire how they came by the new ideas. - -In the bad times which followed the peace of 1815 the writings of -Cobbett had attained an extraordinary influence and authority over the -whole of that generation of working men. His trenchant denunciation of -the governing classes, and his incessant appeals to the wage-earners -to assert their right to the whole administration of affairs, were -inspired by the political tyranny of the anti-Jacobin reaction, the -high prices and heavy taxes, and the apparent creation by “the Funding -System” of an upstart class of non-producers living on the interest -of the huge debt contracted by the nation during the war--evils the -least of which was enough to stimulate an eager politician like Cobbett -to the utmost exercise of his unrivalled power of invective. But the -working classes were suffering, in addition, from a calamity which -no mere politician of that time grasped, in the effects of the new -machine and factory industry, which was blindly crushing out the old -methods by the mere brute force of competition instead of replacing -it with due order and adjustment to the human interests involved. -This phenomenon was beyond the comprehension of its victims. Each of -them knew what was happening to himself as an individual; but only -one man--a manufacturer--seems to have understood what was happening -to the entire industry of the country. This man was Robert Owen. To -him, therefore, political Democracy, which was all-in-all to Cobbett -and his readers, appeared quite secondary to industrial Democracy, -or the co-operative ownership and control of industry answerable to -the economic co-operation in all industrial processes which had -been brought about by machinery and factory organisation, and which -had removed manufacture irrevocably from the separate firesides of -independent individual producers. With Cobbett and his followers the -first thing to be done was to pass a great Reform Bill, behind which, -in their minds, lay only a vague conception of social change. Owen and -his more enthusiastic disciples, on the other hand, were persuaded that -a universal voluntary association of workers for productive purposes on -his principles would render the political organisation of society of -comparatively trivial account. - -The disillusionment of the newly emancipated Trade Clubs in the -collapse of 1825 left the working-class organisations prepared for -these wider gospels. Social reform was in the air. “Concerning the -misery and degradation of the bulk of the people of England,” writes -a contemporary observer, “men of every order, as well as every party, -unite and speak continually; farmers, parish officers, clergymen, -magistrates, judges on the bench, members on either side of both Houses -of Parliament, the King in his addresses to the nation, moralists, -statesmen, philosophers; and finally the poor creatures themselves, -whose complaints are loud and incessant.”[279] Cobbett and the -Reformers had the first turn. The chief political organisation of the -working classes during the Reform Bill agitation began as a trade -club. In 1831 a few carpenters met at their house of call in Argyle -Street, Oxford Street, to form a “Metropolitan Trades Union,” which -was to include all trades, and to undertake, besides its Trade Union -functions, a vague scheme of co-operative production and a political -agitation for the franchise.[280] But under the influence of William -Lovett the last object soon thrust aside all the rest. The purely -Trade Union aims were dropped; the Owenite aspirations sank into the -background; and under the title of the “National Union of the Working -Classes” the humble carpenters’ society expanded into a national -organisation for obtaining Manhood Suffrage. As such it occupies, -during the political turmoil of 1831-2, by far the largest place in the -history of working-class organisation, and was largely implicated in -the agitation and disturbances connected with the Reform Bill.[281] - -The Reform Bill came and passed, but no Manhood Suffrage. The effect -of this disappointment at the hands of the most advanced political -party in the country is thus described by Francis Place, now become an -outside observer of the Trade Union Movement. “The year (1833) ended -leaving the (National) Union (of the Working Classes) in a state of -much depression. The nonsensical doctrines preached by Robert Owen -and others respecting communities and goods in common; abundance of -everything man ought to desire, and all for four hours’ labour out of -every twenty-four; the right of every man to his share of the earth in -common, and his right to whatever his hands had been employed upon; the -power of masters under the present system to give just what wages they -pleased; the right of the labourer to such wages as would maintain him -and his in comfort for eight or ten hours’ labour; the right of every -man who was unemployed to employment and to such an amount of wages as -have been indicated--and other matters of a similar kind which were -continually inculcated by the working men’s political unions, by many -small knots of persons, printed in small pamphlets and handbills which -were sold twelve for a penny and distributed to a great extent--had -pushed politics aside ... among the working people. These pamphlets -were written almost wholly by men of talent and of some standing in -the world, professional men, gentlemen, manufacturers, tradesmen, and -men called literary. The consequence was that a very large proportion -of the working people in England and Scotland became persuaded that -they had only to combine, as it was concluded they might easily do, -to compel not only a considerable advance in wages all round, but -employment for every one, man and woman, who needed it, at short hours. -This notion induced them to form themselves into Trades Unions in a -manner and to an extent never before known.”[282] - -This jumble of ordinary Trade Union aims and communist aspirations, -described from the hostile point of view of a fanatical Malthusian and -staunch believer in the “Wage Fund,” probably fairly represents the -character of the Owenite propaganda. It made an ineradicable impression -on the working-class leaders of that generation, and inspired the great -surge of solidarity which rendered possible the gigantic enlistments of -the Grand National, with its unprecedented regiments of agricultural -labourers and women. Its enlargement of consciousness of the working -class was no doubt a good in itself which no mistakes in practical -policy could wholly cancel.[283] But Owen did mischief as well as -good; and as both the evil and the good live after him--for nothing -that Owen did can yet be said to be interred with his bones--it is -necessary to examine his Trade Union doctrine in some detail. He was -at his best when, as the experienced captain of industry, he denounced -with fervent emphasis that lowering of the Standard of Life which was -the result of the creed of universal competition. It was to combat -this that he advocated Factory Legislation, and promoted combinations -“to fix a maximum time and a minimum wages”; and it was by thus -attempting to secure the workers’ Standard of Life by legislation and -Trade Union action that he gained the influential support, not only -of philanthropists, but also of certain high-minded manufacturers, -with whose aid he formed in December 1833 the “Society for National -Regeneration,”[284] to which we have already referred. The most -definite proposal of this society, the shortening of the hours of -labour to eight per day, was what led to that suggestion of Fielden’s -on which the Lancashire cotton operatives acted in their abortive -general strike for an eight hours day. It also produced the long series -of “Short Time Committees” in the textile towns whose persistent -agitation eventually secured the passing of the Ten Hours Bill, itself -only an instalment of our great Factory Code. History has emphatically -justified Owen on this side of his labour policy. - -But there was a Utopian side to it which acted more questionably. -The working-class world became, under his influence, inflated with a -premature conception and committed to an impracticable working scheme -of social organisation. He proved himself an able thinker and seer -when he pointed out that the horrible poverty of the time was a new -economic phenomenon, the inevitable result of unfettered competition -and irresponsible individual ownership of the means of production -now that those means had become enormously expensive and yet compact -enough to employ hundreds of men under the orders of a few, besides -being so prodigiously efficient as to drive the older methods quite -out of the market. But from the point of view of the practical -statesman, it must be confessed that he also showed himself something -of a simpleton in supposing, or at least assuming, that competition -could be abolished and ownership socialised by organising voluntary -associations to supersede both the millowners and the State. He had -tried the experiment in America with the famous community of New -Harmony, and its failure had for the time thoroughly disgusted him -with communities. But his disgust was not disillusion, for its only -practical effect was to set him to repeat the experiment with the Trade -Unions. Under his teaching the Trade Unionists came to believe that it -was possible, by a universal non-political compact of the wage-earners, -apparently through a universal expropriatory strike, to raise wages and -shorten the hours of labour “to an extent,” as Place puts it, “which, -at no very distant time, would give them the whole proceeds of their -labour.” The function of the brain-worker as the director of industry -was disregarded, possibly because in the cotton industry (in which Owen -had made a fortune) it plays but an insignificant part in the actual -productive processes, and is mainly concerned with that pursuit of -cheap markets to buy in and dear markets to sell in which formed no -part of the Utopian commonwealth at which “the Trades Union” aimed. The -existing capitalists and managers were therefore considered as usurpers -to be as soon as possible superseded by the elected representatives -of voluntary and sectional associations of producers, in which it -seems to have been assumed all the brain-working technicians would be -included. The modern Socialist proposal to substitute the officials -of the Municipality or State was unthinkable at a period when all -local governing bodies were notoriously inefficient and corrupt and -Parliament practically an oligarchy. Under the system proposed by Owen -the instruments of production were to become the property, not of the -whole community, but of the particular set of workers who used them. -“There is no other alternative,” he said, “than National Companies for -each trade.... Thus all those trades which relate to clothing shall -form a company--such as tailors, shoemakers, hatters, milliners, and -mantua-makers; and all the different manufacturers [_i.e._ operatives] -shall be arranged in a similar way; communications shall pass from the -various departments to the Grand National establishment in London.” In -fact, the Trade Unions were to be transformed into “national companies” -to carry on all the manufactures.[285] The Agricultural Union was -to take possession of the land, the Miners’ Union of the mines, the -Textile Unions of the factories. Each trade was to be carried on by its -particular Trade Union, centralised in one “Grand Lodge.” - -Of all Owen’s attempts to reduce his Socialism to practice this was -certainly the very worst. For his short-lived communities there was at -least this excuse: that within their own area they were to be perfectly -homogeneous little Communist States. There were to be no conflicting -sections; and profit-making and competition were to be effectually -eliminated. But in “the Trades Union,” as he conceived it, the mere -combination of all the workmen in a trade as co-operative producers no -more abolished commercial competition than a combination of all the -employers in it as a Joint Stock Company. In effect his Grand Lodges -would have been simply the head offices of huge Joint Stock Companies -owning the entire means of production in their industry, and subject -to no control by the community as a whole. They would therefore have -been in a position at any moment to close their ranks and admit fresh -generations of workers only as employees at competitive wages instead -of as shareholders, thus creating at one stroke a new capitalist class -and a new proletariat. Further, the improvident shareholders would soon -have begun to sell their shares in order to spend their capital, and -thus to drop with their children into the new proletariat; whilst the -enterprising and capable shareholders would equally have sold their -shares to buy into other and momentarily more profitable trades. Thus -there would have been not only a capitalist class and proletariat, but -a speculative stock market. Finally there would have come a competitive -struggle between the Joint Stock Unions to supplant one another in -the various departments of industry. Thus the shipwrights, making -wooden ships, would have found the boilermakers competing for their -business by making iron ships, and would have had either to succumb -or to transform their wooden ship capital into iron ship capital and -enter into competition with the boilermakers as commercial rivals in -the same trade. This difficulty was staring Owen in the face when he -entered the Trade Union Movement; for the trades, then as now, were -in continual perplexity as to the exact boundaries between them; for -example, the minute-books of the newly formed Joiners’ Society in -Glasgow (whose secretary was a leading Owenite) show that its great -difficulty was the demarcation of its trade against the cabinetmaker -and the engineer-patternmaker, each of whom claimed certain technical -operations as proper to himself alone. In short, the Socialism of Owen -led him to propose a practical scheme which was not even socialistic, -and which, if it could possibly have been carried out, would have -simply arbitrarily redistributed the capital of the country without -altering or superseding the capitalist system in the least. - -All this will be so obvious to those who comprehend our capitalist -system that they will have some difficulty in believing that it could -have escaped so clever a man and so experienced and successful a -capitalist as Owen. How far he made it a rule to deliberately shut -his eyes to the difficulties that met him, from a burning conviction -that any change was better than leaving matters entirely alone, cannot -even be guessed; but it is quite certain that he acted in perfect -good faith, simply not knowing thoroughly what he was about. He had -a boundless belief in the power of education to form character; and -if any scheme promised just sufficient respite from poverty and -degradation to enable him and his disciples to educate one generation -of the country’s children, he was ready to leave all economic -consequences to be dealt with by “the New Moral World” which that -generation’s Owenite schooling would have created. Doubtless he thought -that “the Trades Union” promised him this much; and besides, he did not -foresee its economic consequences. He was disabled by that confident -sciolism and prejudice which has led generations of Socialists to -borrow from Adam Smith and the “classic” economists the erroneous -theory that labour is by itself the creator of value, without going -on to master that impregnable and more difficult law of economic rent -which is the very corner-stone of collectivist economy. He took his -economics from his friend William Thompson,[286] who, like Hodgskin and -Hodgskin’s illustrious disciple, Karl Marx, ignored the law of rent in -his calculations, and taught that all exchange values could be measured -in terms of “labour time” alone. Part of the Owenite activity of the -time actually resulted in the opening of labour bazaars, in which -the prices were fixed in minutes. The fact that it is the consumer’s -demand which gives to the product of labour any exchange-value at -all, and that the extent and elasticity of this demand determines -how much has to be produced; and the other governing consideration, -namely, that the expenditure of labour required to bring articles of -the same desirability to market varies enormously according to natural -differences in fertility of soil, distance to be traversed, proximity -to good highways, waterways, or ports, accessibility of water-power or -steam fuel, and a hundred other circumstances, including the organising -ability and executive dexterity of the producer, found themselves left -entirely out of account. Owen assumed that the labour of the miner -and that of the agricultural labourer, whatever the amount and nature -of the product of each of them, would spontaneously and continuously -exchange with each other equitably at par of hours and minutes when the -miners had received a monopoly of the bowels of the country, and the -agricultural labourers of its skin. He did not even foresee that the -Miners’ Union might be inclined to close its ranks against newcomers -from the farm labourers, or that the Agricultural Union might refuse -to cede sites for the Builders’ Union to work upon. In short, the -difficult economic problem of the equitable sharing of the advantages -of superior sites and opportunities never so much as occurred to the -enthusiastic Owenite economists of this period. - -One question, and that the most immediately important of all, was -never seriously faced: How was the transfer of the industries from the -capitalists to the Unions to be effected in the teeth of a hostile and -well-armed Government? The answer must have been that the overwhelming -numbers of “the Trades Union” would render conflict impossible. His -enthusiastic disciple, William Benbow, successively a shoemaker, -bookseller, and coffee-house keeper, invented the instrument of the -General Strike--a sacred “holiday month” prepared for and participated -in by the entire wage-earning class, the mere “passive resistance” of -which would, without violence or conflict, bring down all existing -institutions. Whether this was in Owen’s mind in 1834, as it was, in -1839, avowedly in those of the Chartists, is uncertain.[287] At all -events, Owen, like the early Christians, habitually spoke as if the Day -of Judgment of the existing order of society was at hand. The next six -months, in his view, were always going to see the “New Moral World” -really established. The change from the capitalist system to a complete -organisation of industry under voluntary associations of producers was -to “come suddenly upon society like a thief in the night.” “One year,” -comments his disciple, “may disorganise the whole fabric of the old -world, and transfer, by a sudden spring, the whole political government -of the country from the master to the servant.”[288] It is impossible -not to regret that the first introduction of the English Trade Unionist -to Socialism should have been effected by a foredoomed scheme which -violated every economic principle of Collectivism, and left the -indispensable political preliminaries to pure chance. - -It was under the influence of these large plans and confident hopes -that the Trade Unions were emboldened to adopt the haughty attitude and -contemptuous language towards the masters which provoked Manchester and -Liverpool employers to meet the challenge of the Builders’ Union by -“the Document.” The “intolerable tyranny” of the Unions, so much harped -on by contemporary writers, represents, to a large extent, nothing more -than the rather bumptious expression of the Trade Unionists’ feeling -that they were the rightful directors of industry, entitled to choose -the processes, and select their fellow-workers, and even their managers -and foremen. And it must be remembered that this occurred at a period -when class prejudice was so strong that any attempt at a parley made -by the workers, however respectfully, was regarded as presumptuous -and unbecoming. Hence the working class had always too much reason to -believe that civility on their part would be thrown away. It is certain -that during the Owenite intoxication the impracticable expectations -of national dominion on the part of the wage-earners were met with an -equally unreasonable determination by the governing classes to keep -the working men in a state not merely of subjection, but of abject -submission. The continued exclusion of the workmen from the franchise -made constitutional action on their side impossible. The employers, -on the other hand, used their political and magisterial power against -the men without scruple, inciting a willing Government to attack the -workmen’s combinations by every possible perversion of the law, and -partiality in its administration. Regarding absolute control over -the conduct of their workpeople as a _sine qua non_ of industrial -organisation, even the genuine philanthropists among them insisted -on despotic authority in the factory or workshop. Against the abuse -of this authority there was practically no guarantee. On the other -side it can be shown that large sections of the wage-earners were not -only moderate in their demands, but submissive in their behaviour. As -a rule, wherever we find exceptional aggression and violence on the -part of the operatives, we discover exceptional tyranny on the side -of the employers. To give an example or two, the continual outrages -which disgrace the annals of Glasgow Trade Unionism for the first -forty years of this century are accounted for by the reports of the -various Parliamentary Inquiries which mark out the Glasgow millowners -as extraordinarily autocratic in their views and tyrannous in their -conduct. Again, the aggressive conduct of certain sections of the -building trades is frequently complained of in the capitalist press -between 1830-40. But the agreements which the large contractors of -that time required “all those to sign who enter into their employ,” -printed copies of which are still extant, show that the demands of -the employers were intolerably arbitrary.[289] Then there is the -case of the miners of Great Britain, who were in very ill repute for -riotous proceedings from 1837-44. The provocation they received may -be judged from a manifesto issued by Lord Londonderry in his dual -capacity as mine-owner and Lord-Lieutenant of Durham County during -the great strike of the miners in 1844 for fairer terms of hiring. -He not only superintends, as Lord-Lieutenant, the wholesale eviction -of the strikers from their homes, and their supersession by Irishmen -specially imported from his Irish estates, but he peremptorily orders -the resident traders in “his town of Seaham,” on pain of forfeiting his -custom and protection, to refuse to supply provisions to the workmen -engaged in what he deems “an unjust and senseless warfare _against -their proprietors and masters_.”[290] The same intolerance marks -the magazines and journals of the dominant classes of the period. It -seems to have been habitually taken for granted that the workman had -not merely to fulfil his contract of service, but to yield implicit -obedience in the details of his working life to the will of his -master. Combinations and strikes on the part of the “lower orders” -were regarded as futile and disorderly attempts to escape from their -natural position of social subservience. In short, the majority of -employers, even in this time of negro emancipation, seem to have been -unconsciously acting upon the dictum subsequently attributed to J. C. -Calhoun, the defender of American slavery, that “the true solution of -the contest of all time between labour and capital is that capital -should own the labourer whether white or black.” - -The closing scene of Owen’s first and last attempt at “the Trades -Union” shows how ephemeral had been his participation in the real life -of the Trade Union Movement. In August 1834 he called together one of -his usual miscellaneous congresses, consisting of delegates from all -kinds of Owenite societies, with a few from the Grand National and -other Trade Unions. At this congress the “Grand National Consolidated -Trades Union,” which was to have brought to its feet Government, -landlords, and employers, was formally converted into the “British and -Foreign Consolidated Association of Industry, Humanity, and Knowledge,” -having for its aim the establishment of a “New Moral World” by the -reconciliation of all classes. Beyond one or two small and futile -experiments in co-operative production, it had attempted nothing to -realise Owen’s Utopia. Its whole powers had been spent, seemingly -with his own consent, in a series of aggressive strikes. For all -that, Owen’s meteoric appearance in the Trade Union World left a deep -impression on the movement. The minute-books and other contemporary -records of the Trade Unions of the next decade abound in Owenite -phraseology, such as the classification of Society into the “idle” and -the “industrious” classes, the latter apparently meaning--and being -certainly understood to mean--only the manual workers. More important -is the persistence of the idea that the Trade Unions, as Associations -of Producers, should recover control of the instruments of production. -From this time forth innumerable attempts were made, by one Trade Union -or another, to employ its own members in Productive Co-operation. A -long series of industrial disasters, culminating in the great losses of -1874, has, even now, scarcely eradicated the last remnant of this Joint -Stock Individualism from the idealists of the Trade Union Movement; or -taught them to distinguish accurately between it and the demonstrably -successful Co-operative Production of the Associations of Consumers -which constitute the Co-operative Movement of to-day. Outside the -organised ranks his effect upon general working-class opinion was, -as Place remarks, enormous, as we could abundantly show were we here -concerned with the “Union Shops,” “Equitable Labour Exchanges,” and -industrial communities which may be considered the most direct result -of the Owenite propaganda, or with the fortunes of the innumerable -co-operative associations of producers, whose delegates formed the -backbone of the Owenite congresses of these years.[291] - -The Trade Union Movement was not absolutely left for dead when -Owen quitted the field. The skilled mechanics of the printing and -engineering trades had, as we shall presently see, held aloof from -the general movement, and their trade clubs were unaffected either by -the Owenite boom or its subsequent collapse. In some other trades the -inflation of 1830-4 spread itself over a few more years. The Potters’ -Union went on increasing in strength, and in 1835 gained a notable -victory over the employers, when a “Green Book of Prices” was agreed -to, which long remained famous in the trade. Renewed demands led to -the formation by the employers of a Chamber of Commerce to resist the -men’s aggression. The “yearly bond” was rigidly insisted upon, and a -great strike ensued, which ended in 1837 in the complete collapse of -the Union.[292] In 1836 the Scottish compositors formed the General -Typographical Association of Scotland, which for a few years exercised -an effective control over the trade. The same year saw a notable -strike by the Preston Cotton-spinners, from which is dated the general -adoption of the self-acting mule.[293] But the most permanent effect -is seen in the building trades. The national Unions of Plumbers and -Carpenters have preserved an unbroken existence down to the present -day,[294] whilst the Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons -remained for nearly another half century one of the most powerful of -English Unions. The fortnightly circulars of the English Stonemasons -reveal, for a few years, not only a vigorous life and quick growth, -but also many successful short strikes to secure Working Rules and to -maintain Time Wages. The Scottish Stonemasons are referred to as being -even more active and influential in trade regulation, and as having -included practically all the Scottish masons. There is evidence, too, -of informal federal action between the National Unions of Stonemasons, -Carpenters, and Bricklayers. Unfortunately the absence of such modern -machinery of organisation as Trades Councils, Trade Union Congresses, -and standing joint committees prevented the scattered sectional -organisations from forming any general movement. This state of things -was broken into during the year 1837 by the sensational strikes in -Glasgow, the prolonged legal prosecution and severe punishment of their -leaders, and the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry -into the results of the repeal of the Combination Laws. - -We do not propose to enter here into the details of the famous -trial of the five Glasgow cotton-spinners for conspiracy, violent -intimidation, and for the murder of fellow-workers. But it is one of -the “leading cases” of Trade Union history, and the manifestations -of feeling which it provoked show to the depths the state of mind of -the working classes.[295] The evidence given in court, and repeated -before the Select Committee of 1838, leaves no reasonable doubt that -the Cotton-Spinners’ Union in its corporate capacity had initiated -a reign of terror extending over twenty years, and that some of the -incriminated members had been personally guilty not of instigation -alone, but of actual violence, if not of murder. In spite of this, -the whole body of working-class opinion was on their side, and the -sentence of seven years’ transportation was received with as much -indignation as that upon the Dorchester labourers four years before. -This was one of the natural effects of the class despotism and scarcely -veiled rebellion which we have already described. The use of violence -by working men, either against obnoxious employers or against traitors -in their own ranks, was regarded in much the same way as the political -offences of a subject race under foreign dominion. Such deeds did -not, in fact, necessarily indicate any moral turpitude on the part of -the perpetrators. No one accused the five Glasgow cotton-spinners of -bad private character or conduct, and at least four out of the five -were men of acknowledged integrity and devotedness.[296] Their unjust -treatment whilst awaiting trial, and still more their sentence to -transportation, enlisted the sympathy of the Parliamentary Radicals, -and Wakley, the member for Finsbury, did not hesitate to bring their -case before the House of Commons as one of legal persecution and -injustice. - -At this time the trade societies of Dublin and Cork had caused serious -complaint by attempting to establish, and not without violence, an -effective monopoly in certain skilled industries. Their action had been -reproved by Daniel O’Connell, whom they, in their turn, had repudiated -and denounced. O’Connell defeated Wakley’s friendly motion for an -inquiry into the cotton-spinners’ case by a serious indictment of Trade -Unionism. By a clever analysis of the rules of the Irish societies, -which he made out to be purely obstructive and selfish, he condemned, -in a speech of great power, all attempts on the part of trade -combinations to regulate the conditions of labour. The well-established -methods of modern Trade Unionism, such as the maintenance of a minimum -rate, received from him the same condemnation as the unsocial and -oppressive monopolies for which the Irish trades had long been -notorious. The Government met this speech by granting a Select -Committee under Sir Henry Parnell to inquire into the whole question; -and Trade Unionism accordingly found itself once more on its defence -as a permanent element in social organisation. The case of the Glasgow -cotton-spinners and the appointment of this Parliamentary Committee -for the moment revived the sentiment of solidarity in the Trade Union -world. A joint committee of the Glasgow trades was formed to collect -subscriptions for the defence of the prisoners; and communications for -this purpose were made to all the known Trade Unions. Considerable -funds were subscribed, as the trial was repeatedly postponed at great -expense to the prisoners; and when at last, in January, 1838, they were -convicted and sentenced, a combined agitation for some mitigation of -their punishment was begun. By this time it had become known that some -kind of inquiry into Trade Unionism was in contemplation. The Unions -at once set their house in order. The Stonemasons, who had already -given up the administration of oaths, resolved, for greater security -against illegal practices, “that all forms of regalia, initiation, and -passwords be dispensed with and entirely abolished.”[297] The Dublin -Plasterers formally suspended their exclusive rules, and deferred -the issue of a new edition until after the inquiry.[298] In Glasgow, -the chief seat of the disorder, many societies--among others, the -local Carpenters--deliberately burned their minute-books and archives -for the past year. The London societies appointed a committee, “The -London Trades Combination Committee,” to conduct the Unionist case -in the Parliamentary inquiry. Lovett, then well known as a Radical -politician, became secretary, and issued a stirring address to the -Trade Unions throughout the country, asking for subscriptions and -evidence.[299] But the Parliamentary Committee proved both perfunctory -and inconclusive. The Government, which had conceded it merely to rid -itself of the importunity of Wakley on the one hand and O’Connell on -the other, had evidently no intention of taking any action on the -subject; and the Committee, always thinly attended, made no attempt -at a general inquiry, and confined itself practically to Dublin and -Glasgow. O’Connell got the opportunity he desired of demonstrating, -through selected witnesses, the violent and exclusive spirit which -animated the Irish Unions. With regard to Glasgow, the chief witness -was Sheriff, afterwards Sir Archibald, Alison, whose vigorous action -had quelled the cotton-spinners in that city. It was scarcely necessary -to call witnesses on behalf of the Unions; but John Doherty, then -become a master-printer and bookseller, was allowed to describe the -Manchester spinners’ organisation and the ill-fated associations of -1829-31. The inquiry resulted in nothing but the presentation to the -House of two volumes of evidence, without even so much as a report. It -seems to have been expected that the Committee would be reappointed -to complete its task; but when the next session came the matter was -quietly dropped.[300] - -The temporary fillip given by the cotton-spinners’ trial and the -Parliamentary Committee did not stop the steady decline of Trade -Unionism throughout the country. Trade, which had been on the wane -since 1836, grew suddenly worse. The decade closed with three of the -leanest years ever known; and widespread distress prevailed. The -membership of the surviving Trade Unions rapidly decreased. The English -Stonemasons, perhaps the strongest of the contemporary societies, -reduced themselves, in 1841, temporarily, to absolute bankruptcy by -their disastrous strike against an obnoxious foreman on the rebuilding -of the Houses of Parliament. The Scottish Stonemasons’ Society, of -equal or greater strength, collapsed at about the same time, from -causes not known to us. The Glasgow trades had been completely -disorganised by the disasters of 1837. The Lancashire textile -operatives showed no sign of life; whilst such growing societies as -the Ironfounders, the Journeymen Steam-Engine Makers and Millwrights, -and the Boilermakers were crippled by the heavy drafts made upon their -funds by unemployed members. The state of mind of the working classes -was no more propitious than the state of trade. Fierce discontent -and sullen anger are the characteristics of this period. Hatred of -the New Poor Law, of the iniquitous taxes on food, of the general -oppression by the dominant classes, blazes out in the Trade Union -records of the time. The agitation for the “Six Points,” set on foot -by Lovett and others in the Working Men’s Association of 1836, became -the centre of working-class aspiration. The _Northern Star_, started -at the end of 1837, rapidly distanced all other provincial journals in -circulation. The lecturers of the Anti-Corn Law League increased the -popular discontent, even when their own particular panacea failed to -find acceptance. A general despair of constitutional reform led to the -growing supremacy of the “Physical Force” section of the Chartists, and -to the insurrectionism of 1839-42. - -The political developments of these years are outside the scope of -this work. The Chartist Movement plays the most important part in -working-class annals from 1837 to 1842, and does not quit the stage -until 1848. Made respectable by sincerity, devotion, and even heroism -in the rank and file, it was disgraced by the fustian of many of its -orators and the political and economic quackery of its pretentious and -incompetent leaders whose jealousies and intrigues, by successively -excluding all the nobler elements, finally brought it to nought. -An adequate history of it would be of extreme value to our young -Democracy.[301] Here it is only necessary to say that whilst the -Chartist Movement commanded the support of the vast majority of the -manual-working wage-earners, outside the ranks of those who were -deeply religious, there is no reason to believe that the Trade Unions -at any time became part and parcel of the Movement, as they had, -during 1833-4, of the Owenite agitation, though some of their members -furnished the most ardent supporters of the Charter. Individual trades, -such as the shoemakers, seem to have been thoroughly permeated with -Chartism, and were always attempting to rally other trade societies to -the cause. The angry strikes of 1842 in Lancashire and the Midlands, -fostered, as some said, by the Anti-Corn Law League, were “captured” -by the Chartists, and almost converted into political rebellions. The -delegate meeting of the Lancashire and Yorkshire trade clubs, which -was conducting the “general strike” then in progress “for the wages -of 1840,” resolved in August 1842 to recommend all wage-earners “to -cease work until the Charter becomes the law of the land.”[302] For a -few weeks, indeed, it looked as if the Trade Union Movement, such as -it was, would become merged in the political current. But the manifest -absurdity of persuading starving men to remain on strike until the -whole political machinery of the country had been altered, must have -quickly become apparent to the shrewder Trade Unionists. When Chartist -meetings at Sheffield were calling for a “general strike” to obtain the -Charter, the secretaries of seven local Unions wrote to the newspapers -explaining that their trades had nothing to do with the meetings -or the resolutions.[303] It must be remembered in this connection -that the number of Trade Unionists was, in these years, relatively -small--probably not so great as a hundred thousand in the whole -kingdom--so that they could not have formed any appreciable proportion -of the two, three or four million adherents that the Chartist leaders -were in the habit of claiming. And it may be doubted whether in -any case a Trade Union itself, as distinguished from particular -members who happened to be delegates, made any formal profession of -adherence to Chartism. In the contemporary Trade Union records that -are still extant, such as those of the Bookbinders, Compositors, -Ironfounders, Cotton-spinners, Steam-engine makers, and Stonemasons, -there are no traces of Chartist resolutions; although denunciations -of the “Notorious New Poor Law oppression” abound in the _Fortnightly -Circular_ of the Stonemasons;[304] whilst the Ironfounders, -Compositors, and Cotton-spinners pass resolutions in favour of Free -Trade. A partial explanation of this reticence on the more exciting -topic of the Charter is doubtless to be found in the frequently adopted -rule excluding politics and religion from Trade Union discussions--a -rule which was, in 1842, protested against by an enthusiastic Chartist -delegate from the Bookbinders at the Manchester Conference.[305] There -must, however, have been something more than mere obedience to the rule -in the unwillingness of the trade societies to be mixed up with the -Chartist agitation. The rule had not prevented the organised trades of -1831-2 from taking a prominent part in the Reform Bill Movement. The -banners of the Edinburgh trade clubs were conspicuous in the public -demonstration on the rejection of the Bill of 1831. When the House -of Lords gave way, the Birmingham Trade Unions themselves organised -a triumphal procession, which was discountenanced by the middle -class.[306] The records of the London Brushmakers show that they -even subscribed from the Union funds to Reform associations. But we -never find the trade societies of 1839-42 contributing to Chartist -funds, or even collecting money for Chartist victims. The cases of -Frost, Williams, and Jones, the Newport rebels of 1839, were least -as deserving of the working-class sympathy as those of the Glasgow -cotton-spinners. But the Trade Unions showed no inclination to -subscribe money or get up petitions in aid of them. “Never,” writes -Fergus O’Connor, in 1846, “was there more criminal apathy than that -manifested by the trades of Great Britain to the sufferings of those -men;” and he adds, “that if one half that was done for the Dorchester -labourers or the Glasgow cotton-spinners had been done for Frost, -Williams, and Jones, they would long since have been restored.”[307] - -Insurrectionism, whether Owenite or Chartist, was, in fact, losing its -attraction for the working-class mind. Robert Owen’s economic axioms of -the extinction of profit and the elimination of the profit-maker were, -during these very years, passing into the new Co-operative Movement, -inaugurated in 1844 by the Rochdale Pioneers. The believers in a -“new system of society,” to be brought about by universal agreement, -were henceforth to be found in the ranks of the commercial-minded -Co-operators rather than in those of the militant Trade Unionists. -Chartism, meanwhile, had degenerated from Lovett’s high ideal of a -complete political democracy to an ignoble scramble for the ownership -of small plots of land. The example of the French Revolution of 1848 -fanned the dying embers for a few weeks into a new flame; and many of -the London trades swung into the somewhat theatrical fête of April 10, -1848, swelling the procession against which the Duke of Wellington -had marshalled the London middle class. But the danger of revolution -had passed away. A new generation of workmen was growing up, to whom -the worst of the old oppression was unknown, and who had imbibed the -economic and political philosophy of the middle-class reformers. -Bentham, Ricardo, and Grote were read only by a few; but the activity -of such popular educationalists as Lord Brougham and Charles Knight -propagated “useful knowledge” to all the members of the Mechanics’ -Institutes and the readers of the _Penny Magazine_. The middle-class -ideas of “free enterprise” and “unrestricted competition” which -were thus diffused received a great impetus from the extraordinary -propaganda of the Anti-Corn Law League, and the general progress of -Free Trade. Fergus O’Connor and Bronterre O’Brien struggled in vain -against the growing dominance of Cobden and Bright as leaders of -working-class opinion. And so we find in the Trade Union records of -1847-8, that vigorous resistance begins to be made to any movement in -support of the old ideals. The Steam-Engine Makers’ Society suspended -some of their branches for depositing the branch funds in Fergus -O’Connor’s Land Bank. When two branches of the Stonemasons’ Society -propose the same investment, the others indignantly protest against -it as an absurd political speculation. And it is significant that -these protests came, not from the cautious elders whose enthusiasm had -outlived many failures, but from those who had never shared the old -faith. When in 1848 the Yorkshire Woolstaplers proposed to take a farm -upon which to set to work their unemployed men, it was the younger -members, as we are expressly told, who strenuously but vainly resisted -this action, which resulted ruinously for the society. - -All this makes the close of the “revolutionary” period of the Trade -Union Movement. For the next quarter of a century we shall watch the -development of the new ideas and the gradual building up of the great -“amalgamated” societies of skilled artisans, with their centralised -administration, friendly society benefits, and the substitution, -wherever possible, of Industrial Diplomacy for the ruder methods of the -Class War. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[207] In a manuscript essay on the different forms of association, -entitled “Trades Unions condemned, Trade Clubs justified,” Place gives -us the distinction between the two. “A trade society,” he says, “that -is, a club consisting of the journeymen in any one trade which does -not form part of a union of several trades, which does not appoint -delegates to meet other delegates, is a very different thing from a -Trades Union, even though it may call itself a union. Trades Unions -are those in which several trades, or portions of several trades, in -the same line of business or in different callings, are confederated -by means of delegates.” Place often refers to this distinction between -the Trade Clubs, which were, according to his view, “very valuable -institutions,” and the “Trades Unions,” or “associations of several or -many trades in one combination,” which he regarded as “very mischievous -associations.” William Lovett, too, watching the same transformation, -makes, in a letter published in the _Poor Man’s Guardian_ of August 30, -1834, exactly the same distinction. - -[208] See the reports to the Home Secretary (Home Office Papers, -42--179, 180, 181, 182); _The Town Labourer_ (by J. L. and B. Hammond, -1917), pp. 306-11. - -[209] See the “Articles of the Philanthropic Hercules, for the Mutual -Support of the Labouring Mechanics,” dated December 24, 1818, which -Gast contributed to the _Gorgon_. Gast’s preliminary address appears in -the issue for December 5, 1818, and in that of January 29, 1819, the -society is described as established (Place MSS. 27899--143). - -[210] _The Herald of the Rights of Industry_ (Manchester, April 5, -1834). - -[211] _Labour Rewarded: The Claims of Labour and Capital: How to secure -to Labour the Whole Product of its Exertions_, by One of the Idle -Classes [William Thompson], 1827; see _The Irish Labour Movement_, by -W. P. Ryan, 1919. - -[212] _A Report of the Proceedings of the Meeting of Cotton-spinners -at Ramsay_, etc. (Manchester, 1829, 56 pages); _Copy of Resolutions of -the Delegates from the Operative Cotton-spinners who met at the Isle of -Man_ (Manchester, 1830), in Home Office Papers, 40--27. - -[213] John Doherty, described by Place as a somewhat hot-headed Roman -Catholic--really one of the acutest thinkers and stoutest leaders -among the workmen of his time--was born in Ireland in 1799, and went -to work in a cotton-mill at Larne, Co. Antrim, at the age of ten. In -1816 he migrated to Manchester, where he quickly became one of the -leading Trade Unionists, and secretary to the local Cotton-spinners’ -Society. We find him, for instance, taking a prominent part in the -agitation against the proposed re-enactment of the Combination Laws -in 1825. Whether he was concerned in the Philanthropic Society or -General Union of 1818 or 1826 we do not know. In 1829 he organised the -great strike of the Hyde spinners against a reduction of rates, and -became, as described in the text, successively General Secretary to -the Federation of Spinners’ Societies, and to the National Association -for the Protection of Labour, in which office he is reported, probably -inaccurately, to have received the then enormous salary of £600 a year. -We naturally find him the object of great suspicion by the Government, -but no charge seems ever to have been brought against him (Home Office -Papers, 40--26, 27). The articles in the _Voice of the People_ and -the _Poor Man’s Advocate_, which are evidently from his pen, show him -to have been a man of wide information, great natural shrewdness, -and far-reaching aims. His idea was that all the local and district -Unions were to be federated in a national organisation for the sole -purpose of dealing with trade matters, and that they should also be -federated in a National Association for obtaining political reforms. -In 1832, during the Reform crisis, Place describes him as advising -the working classes to use the occasion for a social revolution. He -subsequently acted as secretary to an association of operatives and -masters established to enforce the Factory Acts, and was one of Lord -Shaftesbury’s most strenuous supporters. In 1838, when he had become -a printer and bookseller in Manchester, he gave evidence before the -Select Committee on Combinations of Workmen, in which he described the -spinners’ organisations and strikes. There is a pamphlet by him in the -Goldsmiths’ Library at the University of London, entitled _A Letter to -the Members of the National Association for the Protection of Labour_ -(Manchester, 1831). - -[214] Home Office Papers, 40--27. - -[215] _Ibid._, December 3, 1830, 40--26. - -[216] Foster died in 1831, and McGowan settled at Glasgow. “Almost -every spinning district,” writes the _Poor Man’s Advocate_ of June -23, 1832, “of any consequence, was enrolled in the Union. The power -of the Union, of course, increased with its members, and a number of -the worst-paying employers were compelled to advance the wages of the -spinners to something like the standard rate.... The Union, however, -which Mr. McGowan had mainly contributed to mature, has since, from -distrust or weariness, sunk into comparative insignificance.” - -[217] The letter is preserved in the MS. “Contribution Book” of the -Liverpool Sailmakers’ Friendly Association, established 1817. - -[218] _Address of the National Association for the Protection of Labour -to the Workmen of the United Kingdom_ (4 pp. 1830), in Home Office -Papers, 40--27. - -[219] Given as Appendix to the pamphlet _On Combination of Trades_ -(1830). Compare Wade’s _History of the Middle and Working Classes_ -(1834), p. 277. - -[220] Thirty-one numbers, extending from March 6 to October 2, 1830, -are in the Manchester Public Library (620 B). - -[221] The numbers from January to September 1831 are in the British -Museum. See Place’s letter in _Westminster Review_ (1831), p. 243. - -[222] Home Office Papers, 40--26, 27. - -[223] Home Office Papers, April 8, 1831, 44--25. - -[224] _Union Pilot and Co-operative Intelligencer_, March 24, 1832 -(Manchester Public Library, 640 E). - -[225] Meanwhile the coalminers of Northumberland and Durham, under the -leadership of “Tommy Hepburn,” an organiser of remarkable ability, had -formed their first strong Union in 1830, which for two years kept the -two counties in a state of excitement. Strikes and riotings in 1831 -and 1832 caused the troops to be called out: marines were sent from -Portsmouth, and squadrons of cavalry scoured the country. After six -months’ struggle in 1832 the Union collapsed, and the men submitted. -See Home Office Papers for these years, 40--31, 32, &c.; Sykes’ _Local -Records of Northumberland_, &c., vol. ii. pp. 293, 353; Fynes’ _Miners -of Northumberland and Durham_ (Blyth, 1873), chaps, iv. v. vi.; _An -Earnest Address and Urgent Appeal to the People of England in behalf of -the Oppressed and Suffering Pitmen of the Counties of Northumberland -and Durham_ (by W. Scott, Newcastle, 1831); _History and Description of -Fossil Fuel_, etc. (by John Holland, 1835), pp. 298-304. - -[226] It is not clear whether this scheme was initiated by carpenters -or masons. The carpenters and joiners are distinguished among the -building trades for the antiquity of their local trade clubs, which -are known to have existed in London as far back as 1799. A national -organisation was established in London in July 1827, called the -Friendly Society of Operative Carpenters and Joiners, which still -survives under the title of the “General Union.” MS. records in -the office of the latter show that this federation had 938 members -in 1832, rising to 3691 in 1833, and to 6774 in 1834, a total not -paralleled until 1865. This rapid increase marks the general upheaval -of these years. But this Society did not throw in its lot with the -Builders’ Union until 1833. On the other hand, the existing Operative -Stonemasons’ Friendly Society, which dates its separate existence from -1834, but which certainly existed in some form from 1832, has among -its archives what appear to be the original MS. rules and initiation -rites of its predecessor, the Builders’ Union; and in these documents -the masons figure as the foremost members. Moreover, these rules and -rites closely resemble those of contemporary unions among the Yorkshire -woollen-workers; and an independent tradition fixes the parent lodge -of the Masons’ Society at the great woollen centre of Huddersfield, -whereas the Friendly Society of Carpenters and Joiners, founded in -London, had its headquarters at Leicester. But however this may be, -the constitution and ceremonies described in these documents owe their -significance to the fact that they are nearly identical with those -adopted by many of the national Unions of the period, and were largely -adopted by the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union of 1834. - -[227] A similar ritual is printed in _Character, Objects, and -Effects of Trades Unions_ (1834), as used by the Woolcombers’ Union. -Probably the Builders’ Union copied their ritual from some union of -woollen-workers. The Stonemasons’ MS. contains, like the copy printed -in this pamphlet, a solemn reference to “King Edward the Third,” who -was regarded as the great benefactor of the English wool trade, but -whose connection with the building trade is not obvious. In a later -printed edition of _The Initiating Parts of the Friendly Society of -Operative Masons_, dated Birmingham, 1834, his name is omitted, and -that of Solomon substituted, apparently in memory of the Freemasons’ -assumed origin at the building of the Temple at Jerusalem. - -The actual origin of this initiation ceremony is not certainly known -John Tester, who had been a leader of the Bradford Woolcombers in 1825, -afterwards turned against the Unions, and published, in the _Leeds -Mercury_ of June and July 1834, a series of letters denouncing the -Leeds Clothiers’ Union. In these he states that “the mode of initiation -was the same as practised for years before by the flannel-weavers -of Rochdale, with a party of whom the thing, in the shape it then -wore, had at first originated.... A great part of the ceremony, ... -particularly the death scene, was taken from the ceremonial of one -division of the Oddfellows, ... who were flannel-weavers at Rochdale, -in Lancashire; and all that could be well turned from the rules and -lectures of one society into the regulations of the others was so -turned, with some trifling verbal alterations.” In another letter he -says that the writer of the “lecture book” was one Mark Warde. Tester -is not implicitly to be believed, but it seems probable that the -regalia, doggerel rhymes, and mystic rites of the unions of this time -were copied from those of an Oddfellows’ Lodge, with some recollections -of Freemasonry. In his _Mutual Thrift_ (1891), the Rev. J. Frome -Wilkinson describes (p. 14) the initiation ceremony of the “Patriotic -Oddfellows,” a society which merged in the present “Grand United -Order of Oddfellows” before the close of the century. The ceremony so -described corresponds in many characteristic details with that of the -Trades Unions. All the older friendly society “Orders” imposed an oath, -and were consequently unlawful. - -[228] Home Office Papers, December 29, 1832, 40--31. - -[229] At Birmingham, when the builders’ strike presently extended to -that town, the following was the manifesto drawn up for adoption by the -Builders’ Union, for presentation to the leading building contractor -who had just undertaken to erect the new grammar-school. (No record of -its adoption and presentation has been found.) “We, the delegates of -the several Lodges of the Building Trades, elected for the purpose of -correcting the abuses which have crept into the modes of undertaking -and transacting business, do hereby give you notice that you will -receive no assistance from the working-men in any of our bodies to -enable you to fulfil an engagement which we understand you have entered -into with the Governors of the Free Grammar School to erect a new -school in New Street, unless you comply with the following conditions: - -“Aware that it is our labour alone that can carry into effect what -you have undertaken, we cannot but view ourselves as parties to your -engagement, if that engagement is ever fulfilled; and as you had -no authority from us to make such an engagement, nor had you any -legitimate right to barter our labour at prices fixed by yourself, we -call upon you to exhibit to our several bodies your detailed estimates -of quantities and prices at which you have taken the work; and we call -upon you to arrange with us a fixed percentage of profit for your own -services in conducting the building, and in finding the material on -which our labour is to be applied. - -“Should we find upon examination that you have fixed equitable prices -which will not only remunerate you for your superintendence but us for -our toil, we have no objections upon a clear understanding to become -partners to the contract, and will see you through it, after your -having entered yourself a member of our body, and after your having -been duly elected to occupy the office you have assumed” (_Robert Owen: -A Biography_, by Frank Podmore, 1906, vol. ii. p. 442-4). - -[230] _An Impartial Statement of the Proceedings of the Members of the -Trades Union Societies, and of the Steps taken in consequence by the -Master Traders of Liverpool_ (Liverpool, 1833); _Remarks on the Nature -and Probable Termination of the Struggle now existing between the -Master and Journeyman Builders_ (Manchester, 1833); _Times_, June 27, -1833. - -[231] _Pioneer_, December 7, 1833; _History of Birmingham_, by W. -Hutton (Birmingham, 1835), p. 87. - -[232] It was edited by James Morrison, an enthusiastic Owenite, who -died, worn out, in 1835 (_Beer’s History of British Socialism_, 1919, -p. 328). - -[233] It was eventually finished by the landlord, and still exists as a -metal warehouse in Shadwell Street. - -[234] In May 1834 an informer offered to supply the Home Secretary -With full particulars of its organisation, leading members and their -activities, for two sums of £50 each (Home Office Papers, 40--32). - -[235] Letters to Cobbett’s _Weekly Register_, reprinted in the -_Pioneer_, December 21, 1833. See also Home Office Papers, 40--32; and -the _Crisis_ for November and December 1833. _The Voice of the West -Riding_, an unstamped weekly, June and July 1833, was devoted to this -agitation in the Yorkshire textile industry (see Home Office Papers, -40--31). - -[236] For an unfavourable account of this Union, see the extremely -biassed statement given in the pamphlet _Character, Objects, and -Effects of Trades Unions_ (1834). The employers seem to have regarded -all the demands of the men as equally unreasonable, even the request -for a list of piecework prices. See _Times_, October 2, 1833. A printed -address _To the Flax and Hemp Trade of Great Britain_, issued by the -flaxworkers of Leeds, November 30, 1832, refers with admiration to -the effectiveness of this Union (Home Office Papers, 40--31; see also -41--11). - -[237] _Times_, October 28, 1833. - -[238] _Crisis_, October 19, 1833. - -[239] _Crisis_, October 12, 1833. The history of the General Trades -Unions from 1832 to 1834 is mainly to be gathered from the files of -the Owenite press, the _Crisis_, the _Pioneer_, and the _Herald of the -Rights of Industry_, with frequent ambiguous references in the Home -Office Papers for these years. The _Poor Man’s Guardian_ and the _Man_ -also contain occasional references. The _Official Gazette_, issued by -the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union itself in June 1834, has -unfortunately not been preserved. We have also been unable to discover -any copy of the Glasgow Owenite journals, the _Tradesman_, _Trades -Advocate_, _Liberator_, etc., mostly edited or written by Owen’s -disciple, Alexander Campbell, the secretary of the local joiners’ Trade -Union. - -[240] It is interesting to notice how closely this organisation -resembles, in its Trade Union features, the well-known “Knights of -Labour” of the United States, established in 1869, and for some years -one of the most powerful labour organisations in the world (“Historical -Sketch of the Knights of Labour,” by Carroll D. Wright, _Quarterly -Journal of Economics_, January, 1887). Its place was taken by the -American Federation of Labour, with exclusively Trade Union objects. - -[241] _Glasgow Argus_, quoted in _People’s Conservative_, December 28, -1833. - -[242] May 5, 1834. - -[243] _Times_, January 23 and 30, 1834. - -[244] _Kerr’s Exposition of Legislative Tyranny and Defence of the -Trades Union_ (Belfast, 1834), vol. 1611 of the Halliday Tracts in the -Royal Irish Academy, Dublin; see _The Irish Labour Movement_, by W. P. -Ryan, 1919. - -[245] _Poor Man’s Guardian_, July 26, 1834. - -[246] _Times_, April 19, 1834. - -[247] The only record of this organisation known to us is a copy of -the Rules in the Goldsmiths’ Library at the University of London, -which we print in the Appendix. A “Memorial from the Grand National -Consolidated Trades Union of Great Britain and Ireland to the Producers -and Non-Producers of Wealth and Knowledge” is printed in the _Crisis_, -May 17, 1834; another, “to the Shopmen, Clerks, Porters and other -industrious non-producers,” in the issue for April 26, 1834. - -[248] See the London newspapers for March 1834; a good summary is given -in the _Companion to the Newspaper_ for that month (p. 71). - -[249] September 26, 1831: _Lord Melbourne’s Papers_ (1889), ch. v. p. -130. The note he left on leaving the Home Office was as follows: “I -take the liberty of recommending the whole of this correspondence _re_ -the Union to the immediate and serious consideration of my successor -at the Home Department” (Home Office Papers, 40--27). See also the -statements in the House of Lords debate, _Times_, April 29, 1834; and -the comments in _Labour Legislation, Labour Movements, and Labour -Leaders_, by George Howell, 1902, p. 23. - -[250] “We recommend that the soliciting of any person to join in -combinations, or to subscribe to the like purposes, should be -punishable on summary conviction by imprisonment for a shorter period, -say not exceeding two months.” - -[251] The report was never published, and lies in MS. in the Home -Office library. Ten years later, when Nassau Senior was acting as -Commissioner to report on the condition of the handloom weavers, -he revived a good deal of his 1830 Report, but not the astonishing -proposals quoted in the text. The portion thus revived appears in -his _Historical and Philosophical Essays_ (1865), vol. ii. We had -placed in our hands, through the kindness of Mrs. Simpson, daughter -of Nassau Senior, the original answers and letters upon which his -report was based. This correspondence shows that the leading Manchester -manufacturers were not agreed upon the desirability of re-enacting the -Combination Laws, though they, with one accord, advocated stringent -repression of picketing. Nor were they clear that combinations had, on -the whole, hindered the introduction of new machinery, one employer -even maintaining that the Unions indirectly promoted its adoption. -But the most interesting feature of the correspondence is the extent -to which the employers complained of the manner in which their rivals -incited, and even subsidised, strikes against attempted reductions of -rates. The millowner, whose improved processes gave him an advantage -in the market, found any corresponding reduction of piecework rates -resisted, not only by his own operatives, but by all the other -manufacturers in the district, who sometimes went so far as to publish -a joint declaration that any such reduction was ‘highly inexpedient.’ -The evidence, in fact, from Nassau Senior’s point of view, justified -his somewhat remarkable proposal to punish employers for conniving at -combinations. - -[252] Lord Melbourne to Sir Herbert Taylor, September 26, 1831 -(_Papers_, chap. v. p. 131). The workmen’s combinations began at -this time to attract more serious attention from capable students -than they had hitherto received. Two able pamphlets, published -anonymously--there is reason to believe at the instance and at the -cost of the Whig Government--_On Combinations of Trades_ (1830), and -_Character, Objects, and Effects of Trades Unions_ (1834), set forth -the constitution and proceedings of the new unions, and criticise -their pretensions in a manner which has not since been surpassed. The -second of these was by Edward Carlton Tufnell, one of the factory -commissioners, and remains perhaps the best statement of the case -against Trades Unionism. Tufnell also wrote a pamphlet, entitled -_Trades Unionism and Strikes_ (1834; 12mo); and Harriet Martineau one -_On the Tendency of Strikes and Sticks to produce Low Wages_ (Durham, -1834; 12mo), neither of which we have seen. A well-informed but hostile -article, founded on these materials, appeared in the _Edinburgh Review_ -for July 1834. Charles Knight published in the same year a sixpenny -pamphlet, _Trades Unions and Strikes_ (1834, 99 pp.), which took the -form of a bitter denunciation of the whole movement. - -[253] See his letter of March 30, 1834, in _Lord Melbourne’s Papers_, -chap. v. - -[254] _Leeds Mercury_, April 26, 1834. Joseph Hume said he had had the -“greatest difficulty in prevailing upon the Ministers not to bring in a -bill for putting down the Trades Unions” (_Poor Man’s Guardian_, March -29, 1834). - -[255] Letter dated September 3, 1833, in _Times_, September 9, 1833. - -[256] R. _v._ Bykerdike, 1 Moo. and Rob. 179, Lancaster Assizes, 1832. -A letter was written to certain coal-owners, “by order of the Board of -Directors for the body of coal-miners,” stating that unless certain -men were discharged the miners would strike. Held to be an illegal -combination. See _Leeds Mercury_, May 24, 1834. - -[257] _Times_, August 22, 1835. - -[258] _Poor Man’s Guardian_, September 29, 1832. - -[259] _Times_, February 27, 1834. - -[260] R. _v._ Marks and others, 3 East Rep. 157. - -[261] Lengthy accounts appeared in the newspapers for March and April -1834. The indictment is given in full in the House of Commons Return, -No. 250, of 1835 (June 1st). The legal report is in 6 C. and P. 596 -(R. _v._ Loveless and others). The _Times_ reported the judge’s -charge at some length, March 18, 1834, and the case itself March 20, -1834, giving the rules of the projected union. An able article in the -_Law Magazine_, vol xi. pp. 460-72, discusses the law of the case. -The defendants subsequently published two statements for popular -circulation, viz. _Victims of Whiggery, a statement of the persecution -experienced by the Dorchester Labourers_, by George Loveless (1837), -and _A narrative of the sufferings of James Loveless, etc._ (1838), -which are in the British Museum. See also _Labour Legislation, Labour -Movements, and Labour Leaders_, by G. Howell, 1902, pp. 62-75; Spencer -Walpole’s _History of England_, vol. iii. chap. xiii. pp. 229-31; and -_Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates_, vols. xxii. and xxiii. - -[262] The student is referred to the admirable account of these -proceedings in _The Village Labourer_, by J. L. and B. Hammond, 1912. -See, for a contemporary account, _Swing Unmasked, or the Cause of Rural -Incendiarism_, by G. C. Wakefield, M.P., 1831. - -[263] _Lord Melbourne’s Papers_, pp. 147-150, letters dated November -3 and 7, 1832. Lord Melbourne seems to have thought, probably quite -incorrectly, that these rural organisations were in connection with -the political organisation called the National Union of the Working -Classes, founded by William Lovett in 1831, to support the Reform Bill. - -[264] _Times_, March 20, 1834. - -[265] _Lord Melbourne’s Papers_, p. 158. - -[266] _Times_, March 18, 20, 31; April 1, 16, 19, 1834; _Leeds -Mercury_, April 26, 1834. - -[267] A prominent Owenite agitator of the time, incumbent of St. -Nicholas, Warwick, who is said to have been inhibited from preaching by -his bishop. - -[268] _Times_, April 22; _Companion to the Newspaper_, May and June -1834. Trade Union accounts declare that 100,000 to 200,000 persons were -present. A detailed description of the day is given in Somerville’s -_Autobiography of a Working Man_ (1848), not usually a trustworthy work. - -[269] _Times_, April 19, 1834. - -[270] The agitation for their release was kept up, both in and out -of Parliament, by the “London Dorchester Committee”; and in 1836 the -remainder of the sentence was remitted. Through official blundering it -was two years later (April 1838) before five out of the six prisoners -returned home. The sixth, as we learn from a circular of the Committee, -dated August 20, 1838, had even then not arrived. “Great and lasting -honour,” writes a well-informed contemporary, “is due to this body of -workmen (the London Dorchester Committee), about sixteen in number, by -whose indefatigable exertions, extending over a period of five years, -and the valuable assistance of Thomas Wakley, M.P. for Finsbury, the -same Government who banished the men were compelled to pardon them -and bring them home free of expense. From the subscriptions raised -by the working classes during this period, amounting to about £1300, -the Committee, on the return of the men, were enabled to place five -of them, with their families, in small farms in Essex, the sixth -preferring (with his share of the fund) to return to his native place.” -(Article in the _British Statesman_, April 9, 1842, preserved in Place -MSS. 27820--320.) See also House of Commons Return, No. 191 of 1837 -(April 12); and _Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates_, vol. xxxii. p. 253. - -[271] The series of “Initiation Parts,” or forms to be observed on -admission of new members, which are preserved in the archives of the -Stonemasons’ Society, reveal the steady tendency to simplification of -ritual. We have first the old MS. doggerel already described, dating -probably from 1832. The first print of 1834, whilst retaining a good -deal of the ceremonial, turns the liturgy into prose and the oath into -an almost identical “declaration,” invoking the “dire displeasure” of -the Society in case of treachery. The second print, which bears no -date, is much shorter; and the declaration becomes a mere affirmation -of adhesion. The Society’s circulars of 1838 record the abolition, -by vote of the members, of all initiation ceremonies, in view of the -Parliamentary Inquiry about to be held into Trade Unionism. But even -the simplified form of 1838 retains, in its reference to the workmen -as “the real producers of _all_ wealth,” an unmistakable trace of the -Owenite spirit of the Builders’ Union of 1832. - -[272] _Times_, April 30 to June 10; House of Lords debate, April 28; -_Globe_, May 21, 1834; Home Office Papers, May 10, 1834, 40--32; _The -Tailoring Trade_, by F. W. Galton, 1896. - -[273] _Leeds Mercury_, May 3, 1834. - -[274] See the address of the “Grand Master” to the “Operative -Cordwainers of the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union,” _Crisis_, -June 28, 1834; also _Times_, May 2, 1834; Home Office Papers, 40--32. - -[275] _Times_, August 21, 1834. - -[276] _Statement of the Master Builders of the Metropolis in -explanation of the differences between them and the workmen respecting -the Trades Unions_, 1834. See also _Times_, July 27 to November 29, -1834. - -[277] The _Times_ honoured these events by long descriptive reports -from its “own correspondent,” then an unusual practice; see the issues -from April 17 to 25, 1834. A good account is also to be found in the -_Leeds Mercury_, April 19 and 26, 1834; see also the _History of the -Marcroft Family_ (1889), pp. 1036. - -[278] _Trades Journal_, March 1, 1841; probably written by Alexander -Hutchinson, general secretary of the Friendly United Smiths of Great -Britain and Ireland. - -[279] _England and America: a Comparison of the Social and Political -State of both Nations_, 1833, 2 vols. - -[280] _Poor Man’s Guardian_, March 12, 1831; Place MSS. 27791--246, -272. “There were seven Co-operative Congresses in the years 1830-5 in -which the Trade Union and Labour Exchange elements were prominent” -(Prof. Foxwell’s Introduction to _The Right to the Full Produce of -Labour_, by Anton Menger, 1899). - -[281] See the volumes of the _Poor Man’s Guardian_, preserved in the -British Museum. - -[282] Place MSS. 27797--290; see a similar account in the _Life of -William Lovett_, by himself, p. 86. James Mill writes to Lord Brougham -on September 3, 1832, as follows: “Nothing can be conceived more -mischievous than the doctrines which have been preached to the common -people.... The nonsense to which your lordship alludes about the right -of the labourer to the whole produce of the country, wages, profits, -and rent all included, is the mad nonsense of our friend Hodgskin, -which he has published as a system, and propagates with the zeal of -perfect fanaticism.... The illicit cheap publications, in which the -doctrine of the right of the labouring people, who they say are the -only producers, to all that is produced, is very generally preached, -... are superseding the Sunday newspapers and every other channel -through which the people might get better information” (Bain’s _James -Mill_, p. 363, 1882). The series of Socialist authors of these years, -usually ignored, have been well described by Prof. Foxwell in his -Introduction to the English translation of Menger’s _Right to the Whole -Produce of Labour_, 1899; and more fully and philosophically in M. -Beer’s _History of British Socialism_, 1919, vol. i. - -[283] “Owen’s chief merit was that he filled the working classes with -renewed hope at a time when the pessimism, both of orthodox economists -and of their unorthodox opponents, had condemned labour to be an -appendage of machinery, a mere commodity whose value, like that of -all commodities, was determined by the bare cost of keeping up the -necessary supply. Owen laid stress upon the human side of economics. -The object of industry was to produce happier and more contented men -and women” (_The Chartist Movement_, by Mark Hovell, 1918, p. 45). - -[284] The prospectus of this Society is in the British Library of -Political Science at the London School of Economics. A copy is given -in the _Morning Chronicle_, December 7, 1833. Its Manchester meetings -are reported in the _Crisis_ for November and December 1833. It seems -to have had for its organ a penny weekly called _The Herald of the -Rights of Industry_, some numbers of which are in the British Museum. -Professor Foxwell has kindly drawn our attention to a further reference -to it in the _Life of James Deacon Hume_, p. 55. It excited the -curiosity of the Home Secretary. See Home Office Papers, 40--31. - -[285] See Owen’s elaborate speech, reported in the _Crisis_, October -12, 1833; _Robert Owen: a Biography_, by Frank Podmore, 1906; and -_Trade Unionism_, by C. M. Lloyd, 1915. - -[286] _Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth most -conducive to Human Happiness_, by William Thompson, 1824; also his -_Labour Rewarded, the Claims of Labour and Capital_; _How to secure to -Labour the whole Product of its Exertions_, by One of the Idle Classes, -1827; see Professor Foxwell’s Introduction to _The Right to the -whole Produce of Labour_, by Anton Menger, 1899; _History of British -Socialism_, by M. Beer, 1919, vol. i.; and _The Irish Labour Movement_, -by W. P. Ryan, 1919, ch. iii. - -[287] The pamphlet, entitled _The Grand National Holiday and Congress -of the Productive Classes_, by William Benbow, 1831, had an extensive -circulation. Mark Hovell (_The Chartist Movement_, 1918, p. 91) thinks -he was the same William Benbow whom Bamford mentions as a delegate -from Manchester in 1817 (_Life of a Radical_, p. 8), and whom Henry -Hunt describes as of the Manchester Hampden Club, and as having been -reported by a Government spy to be manufacturing pikes in 1816 (_The -Green Bag Plot_, 1918). - -[288] Leading article in the _Crisis_, October 12, 1833. - -[289] A specimen dated 1837 is preserved by the Stonemasons’ Society, -according to which a Liverpool contractor bound all his employees to -serve him at a fixed wage for a long term of years, any time lost by -sickness or otherwise not to be paid for and to be added to the term; -all “lawful commands” to be obeyed; and no present or future club or -other society to be joined without the employer’s consent. - -[290] See his manifestoes reprinted in _Northern Star_, July 6 and -July 27, 1844. “Lord Londonderry again warns all the shopkeepers and -tradesmen in his town of Seaham that if they still give credit to -pitmen who hold off work, and continue in the Union, such men will be -marked by his agents and overmen, and will never be employed in his -collieries again, and the shopkeepers may be assured that they will -never have any custom or dealings with them from Lord Londonderry’s -large concerns that he can in any manner prevent. - -“Lord Londonderry further informs the traders and shopkeepers, that -having by his measures increased very largely the last year’s trade -to Seaham, and if credit is so improperly and so fatally given to his -unreasonable pitmen, thereby prolonging the injurious strike, it is his -firm determination to carry back all the outlay of his concerns even to -Newcastle. - -“Because it is neither fair, just, or equitable that the resident -traders in his own town should combine and assist the infatuated -workmen and pitmen in prolonging their own miseries by continuing -an insane strike, and an unjust and senseless warfare against their -proprietors and masters.” - -[291] Some account of these developments will be found in _The -Co-operative Movement in Great Britain_, by Beatrice Potter (Mrs. -Sidney Webb). - -[292] The collapse was duly reported to the Home Secretary (Home Office -Papers, 40--33, 34, 35). - -[293] See Ashworth’s paper before British Association, 1837; _Remarks -upon the Importance of an Inquiry into the Amount and Appropriation -of Wages by the Working Classes_, by W. Felkin, 1837; _Appeal to the -Public from the United Trades of Preston_, February 14, 1837 (in Home -Office Papers, 40--35). - -[294] The United Society of Operative Plumbers (reorganised 1848) -still dominates its branch of the trade, and retains traces of the -federal constitution of the Builders’ Union. The sister organisation -of carpenters (now styled the General Union of Carpenters and Joiners) -has been overtaken and overshadowed by the newer Amalgamated Society of -Carpenters and Joiners; whilst the Operative Bricklayers’ Society has -absorbed practically all the older societies in its own branch of the -trade. - -[295] Glasgow was still the principal centre of the cotton industry, -especially in weaving. In 1838 there were in the Glasgow area about -36,000 handlooms devoted mainly to cotton, with two persons to a -loom, whilst in all Lancashire there were only 25,000 (Parliamentary -Papers, xlii. of 1849 and xxiv. of 1840; _The Chartist Movement_, by -Mark Hovell, 1918, p. 14). Combination among the cotton operatives of -Glasgow was of old standing. After the strike of 1812, already referred -to, trouble broke out again in 1820 and 1822, when outrages were -committed (_Arts and Artisans_, by J. G. Symons, 1839, p. 137). - -Besides securing full reports in the newspapers, the Trade Union -committee conducting the case published at a low price an account of -the trial in parts, which has not been preserved. Two other exhaustive -reports were issued, and may still be consulted, viz. _Report of -the trial of Thomas Hunter and other operative cotton-spinners in -Glasgow in 1838_, by Archibald Swinton (Edinburgh, 1838), and _The -trial of Thomas Hunter, etc., the Glasgow Cotton-spinners_, by James -Marshall (Glasgow, 1838). See also the _Autobiography of Sir Archibald -Alison_, 1883; the _Northern Star_ for 1837-8; the _Annual Register_ -for 1838, pp. 206-7; and the evidence before the Select Committee -on Combinations, 1838. A summary will be found in Howell’s _Labour -Legislation, Labour Movements and Labour Leaders_, 1902, pp. 83-4. - -[296] The five prisoners were pardoned in 1840, in consequence of their -exemplary conduct. There is a joint letter by them in the _Trades -Journal_ for August, 1840, relating to the subscriptions raised for -them by a London committee. - -[297] _Stonemasons’ Fortnightly Circular_, January 19, 1838. - -[298] Evidence of W. Darcy, the secretary, second report of 1838 -Committee, p. 130. - -[299] Circular dated March 1, 1838, in Stonemasons’ archives; and -_An Address from the London Trades Committee appointed to watch the -Parliamentary Inquiry into Combinations_, 1838. - -[300] George Howell suggests, we are not sure with what authority, that -Nassau Senior, whose report on Trade Unionism to the Home Secretary -in 1830 we have already described, tendered this to Sir Henry Parnell -as the basis of a report by the Committee of 1838, but the proposal -was not accepted (_Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and Labour -Leaders_, 1902, pp. 83-4). See also _The Irish Labour Movement_, by W. -P. Ryan, 1919. - -[301] A series of subsequent publications has now gone far to fill this -gap. _The Chartist Movement_, by R. G. Gammage (republished 1894), -may now be supplemented by _The Life of Francis Place_, by Professor -Graham Wallas (revised edition, 1918); _Le Chartisme_, 1830-48, by -E. Dolléans, 2 vols. (Paris, 1912-13); _The Chartist Movement_, by -Mark Hovell, 1918; _The Social and Economic Aspects of the Chartist -Movement_, by F. F. Rosenblatt (New York, 1916); _The Decline of the -Chartist Movement_, by P. W. Slosson (New York, 1916); _Chartism and -the Churches_, by H. V. Faulkner (New York, 1916); _Die Entstehung und -die ökonomischen Grundsätze der Chartistenbewegung_, by John Tildsley -(Jena, 1898); and especially by the two separate volumes on the -_History of British Socialism_, by M. Beer, 1919 and 1920. - -[302] _Northern Star_, August 20, 1842. - -[303] _Sheffield Iris_, August 1842. - -[304] See, for instance, that for October 1839. - -[305] _Northern Star_, August 20, 1842. “It is clear that the trade -societies as a whole stood outside the Chartist Movement, though many -Trade Unionists were no doubt Chartists too. The societies could not -be induced to imperil their funds and existence at the orders of the -Chartist Convention” (_The Chartist Movement_, by Mark Hovell, 1918, p. -169). - -[306] _History of Birmingham_, by W. Hutton (Birmingham, edition of -1835), p. 149. - -[307] _Northern Star_, August 24, 1846. - - - - -CHAPTER IV - -THE NEW SPIRIT AND THE NEW MODEL - -[1843-1860] - - -We have seen the magnificent hopes of 1829-42 ending in bitter -disillusionment: we shall now see the Trade Unionists of the next -generation largely successful in reaching their more limited aims. -Laying aside all projects of Social Revolution, they set themselves -resolutely to resist the worst of the legal and industrial oppressions -from which they suffered, and slowly built up for this purpose -organisations which have become integral parts of the structure of a -modern industrial state. This success we attribute mainly to the spread -of education among the rank and file, and the more practical counsels -which began, after 1842, to influence the Trade Union world. But we -must not overlook the effect of economic changes. The period between -1825 and 1848 was remarkable for the frequency and acuteness of its -commercial depressions. From 1850 industrial expansion was for many -years both greater and steadier than in any previous period.[308] It is -no mere coincidence that these years of prosperity saw the adoption -by the Trade Union world of a “New Model” of organisation, under which -Trade Unionism obtained a financial strength, a trained staff of -salaried officers, and a permanence of membership hitherto unknown. - -The predominance of Chartism over Trade Unionism was confined to the -bad times of 1837-42. Under the influence of the rapid improvement -and comparative prosperity which followed, the Chartist agitation -dwindled away; and a marked revival in Trade Unionism took effect in -the re-establishment, about 1843, of the Potters’ Union, and of an -active Cotton-spinners’ Association, and, in 1845, by the amalgamation -of the metropolitan and provincial societies of compositors into -the National Typographical Society.[309] The powerful United Flint -Glass Makers’ Society (reorganised in 1849 as the Flint Glass Makers’ -Friendly Society of Great Britain and Ireland) dates from the same -year. Delegate meetings of other trades were held; and national -societies of tailors and shoemakers were set on foot. A national -conference of curriers in 1845 established a federal union of all the -local clubs in the trade. But the most important of the new bodies -was the Miners’ Association of Great Britain and Ireland, formed at -Wakefield in 1841.[310] Up to this period the miners, held in virtual -serfage by the truck system and the custom of yearly hirings, had not -got beyond ephemeral strike organisations. Strong county Unions now -grew up in Northumberland and Durham on the one hand, and Lancashire -and Yorkshire on the other; and the new body was a federation of these. -Under the leadership of Martin Jude, it developed an extraordinary -propagandist activity, at one time paying no fewer than fifty-three -missionary organisers, who visited every coalpit in the kingdom. The -delegate meetings at Manchester and Glasgow in the year 1844 soon came -to represent practically the whole of the mining districts of Great -Britain; and the membership rose, it is said, to at least 100,000.[311] - -A leading feature of this Trade Unionist revival was a dogged -resistance to legal oppression. Although the more sensational -prosecutions of Trade Union leaders had ceased with the abandonment of -unlawful oaths, there was still going on, up and down the kingdom, an -almost continuous persecution of the rank and file, by the magistrates’ -interpretation of the law relating to masters and servants. The miners, -in particular, were hampered by lengthy hirings, during which they were -compelled to serve if required, but were not guaranteed employment. -Unskilled in legal subtleties, and not yet served by an experienced -class of Trade Union secretaries, they were made the victims of a -thousand and one quibbles and technicalities. The Northumberland and -Durham Miners’ Union grappled with the difficulty in a thoroughly -practical spirit. They engaged W. P. Roberts,[312] an able and -energetic solicitor, with strong labour sympathies, to light every -case in the local courts. In 1844 the Miners’ Association of Great -Britain and Ireland followed this excellent example by appointing -Roberts their standing legal adviser at a salary of £1000 a year. When -the Durham miners had to relinquish his services at the end of 1844, -he was taken over by the newly formed Lancashire Miners’ Union. The -“miners’ attorney-general,” as he was called, showed an indefatigable -activity in the defence of his clients, and was soon retained in -all Trade Union cases. The magistrates throughout the country found -themselves for the first time confronted by a pertinacious legal -expert, who, far more ingenious than the employers, was not less -unscrupulous in taking advantage of every technicality of the law. - -In a letter written to the Flint Glass Makers’ Friendly Society in -1851, Roberts himself gives a vivid picture of the difficulties -against which the Unions had to contend. After explaining the law, -as he understood it, he proceeds as follows: “But it is exceedingly -difficult to induce those of the class opposed to you to take this -view of things. I do not say this sarcastically, but as a fact learnt -by long and observant experience. There are indeed men on the bench -who are honest enough, and desirous of doing their duty. But all their -tendencies and circumstances are against you. They listen to your -opponents, not only often, but cheerfully--so they know more fully the -case against you than in your favour. To you they listen too--but in a -sort of temper of ‘Prisoner at the Bar, you are entitled to make any -statement you think fit, and the Court is bound to hear you; but mind, -whatever you say,’ etc. In the one case you observe the hearty smile -of goodwill; in the other the derisive sneer, though sometimes with a -ghastly sort of kindliness in it. Then there is the knowledge of your -overwhelming power when acting unitedly, and this begets naturally -a corresponding desire to resist you at all hazards. And there are -hundreds of other considerations all acting the same way--meetings, -political councils, intermarriages, hopes from wills, etc. I do not say -that all occupants of the bench are thus influenced, nor to the same -extent; but it certainly is at the best an uphill game to contend in -favour of a working man in a question which admits of any doubt against -him. It never happened to me to meet a magistrate who considered that -an agreement among masters not to employ any particular ‘troublesome -fellow’ was an unlawful act; reverse the case, however, and it -immediately becomes a formidable conspiracy, which must be put down by -the strong arm of the law, etc.... When I was acting for the Colliers’ -Union in the North we resisted every individual act of oppression, even -in cases where we were sure of losing; and the result was that in a -short time there was no oppression to resist. For it is to be observed -that oppression like that we are speaking of--which after all is merely -a more genteel and cowardly mode of thieving--shrinks at once from a -determined and decided opposition. In the North we should have tried -this case, first in the County Court, then at the Assizes, and then -perhaps in the Queen’s Bench.”[313] - -One result of Roberts’ successful advocacy is perhaps to be seen in -the introduction, during the Parliamentary session of 1844, of a Bill -“for enlarging the powers of justices in determining complaints between -masters, servants, and artificers,” which the Government got referred -to a committee, by which various extraordinary interpolations were made -in what was at first a harmless measure.[314] Not only was any J.P. to -be authorised to issue a warrant for the summary arrest of any workman -complained of by his employer, but “any misbehaviour concerning such -service or employment” was to be punished by two months’ imprisonment, -at the discretion of a single justice. It is easy to see what a wide -interpretation would have been given by many a justice of the peace to -this vague phrase; and Roberts was not slow to point out the danger to -his clients. Upon his incitement the delegate meeting of coal-miners -at Sheffield set on foot a vigorous agitation against the Bill, which -had already slipped through second reading and committee without a -division. The Potters’ Union took the matter up with special vigour, -and circulated draft petitions throughout the Midlands.[315] A friendly -member, Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, obstructed its further progress, and -got it postponed until after the Easter recess. Meanwhile petitions -poured in upon the astonished House, amounting, it was said, to a -total of two hundred, and representing two millions of workmen. When -the Bill came on again all the Radicals and the “Young England” Tories -were marshalled against it. Sir James Graham in vain protested that the -Government meant nothing more than a consolidation of the existing law, -and led into the lobby all his colleagues who were present, including -Mr. Gladstone. But the combination on the other side of Duncombe, -Wakley, Hume, and Ferrand, with Tories like Lord John Manners, and a -few enlightened Whigs such as C. P. Villiers, settled the fate of this -attempt on the part of the employers to sharpen the blunted weapon of -the law against the hated Trade Unions.[316] - -The miners were less successful in their strikes than in their legal -and political business. In 1844 their National Conference at Glasgow, -representing 70,000 men, voted, by 28,042 to 23,357, in favour of -striking against their grievances, and the Durham men, numbering some -30,000, engaged in that prolonged struggle with Lord Londonderry -and their other employers for more equitable terms of hiring and -payment, to which we have already alluded.[317] After many months’ -embittered strife the strike failed disastrously; and the great -Miners’ Association, whose proceedings form so important a feature of -the _Northern Star_ for 1844 and 1845, gradually disappears from its -pages, and in the general collapse of the coal trade in 1847-8 it came -completely to an end. - -But the culminating point in this revival of Trade Union activity was -the formation, at Easter, 1845, of the National Association of United -Trades for the Protection of Labour, an organisation which resuscitated -and combined some of the ideas both of Owen and of Doherty. This -Association was explicitly based, as its rules inform us, “upon two -great facts: first, that the industrious classes do not receive a -fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labour; and, secondly, that for some -years past their endeavours to obtain this have, with few exceptions, -been unsuccessful. The main causes of this state of things are to -be found in the isolation of the different sections of working men, -and the absence of a generally recognised and admitted authority -from the trades themselves.” But, unlike the Owenite movement of -1833-4, the National Association of United Trades was from the first -distinguished by the moderation of its aims and the prudence of its -administration--qualities to which we may attribute its comparatively -lengthy survival for fifteen years. No attempt was made to supersede -existing organisations of particular trades by a “General Trades -Union.” “The peculiar local internal and technical circumstances of -each trade,” say the rules, “render it necessary that for all purposes -of efficient internal government its affairs should be administered by -persons possessing a practical knowledge of them. For this reason it -is not intended to interfere with the organisation of existing Trade -Unions.” Moreover, the promoters evidently intended the Association -to become more of a Parliamentary Committee than a federation for -trade purposes. Its purpose and duty was declared to be “to protect -the interests and promote the well-being of the associated trades” by -mediation, arbitration, and legal proceedings, and by promoting “all -measures, political and social and educational, which are intended to -improve the condition of the labouring classes.”[318] - -This new attempt to form a National Federation originated in a -suggestion from the “United Trades” of Sheffield, embodied in an -able letter written to Duncombe[319] by their secretary, John Drury. -Duncombe had become widely known to the Trade Unionists, not only -through his friendship with Fergus O’Connor, and his outspoken support -of Chartism in the House of Commons, but also by his successful -obstruction and defeat of the Masters and Servants Bill of the previous -Session. He appears to have laid Drury’s proposals before the leading -men in the London Unions, who agreed to form a committee to report on -the scheme, and to summon a conference of Trade Union delegates from -all parts of the country. At Easter, 1845, 110 delegates, representing -not only the London trades, but also the Lancashire miners and textile -operatives, the hosiery and woollen-workers of Yorkshire and the -Midlands, and the “United Trades” of Manchester, Sheffield, Norwich, -Hull, Bristol, Rochdale, and Yarmouth, met together in London. - -The preliminary report made to the Conference by the London -Committee of Trade Delegates is practically the first manifestation -of that spirit of cautious if somewhat limited statesmanship which -characterised the Trade Union leaders of the next thirty years.[320] -The Committee, whilst recommending the immediate formation of a -national organisation, “to vindicate the rights of labour,” and “to -oppose the tyranny of any legislative enactments to coerce trade -societies, or of a similar character to the Masters and Servants Bill -of last session, were deeply impressed with the importance of, and -beneficial tendency arising from, a good understanding between the -employer and the employed; seeing that their interests are mutual, -and that neither can injure the other without the wrong perpetrated -recoiling upon the party who inflicts it. They would therefore suggest -it to be one of the principal objects of this Conference to cultivate -a good understanding with the employer, and thereby remove those -prejudices which exist against trade combinations, by showing upon -all occasions that they only seek by combination to place themselves -upon equal terms as disposers of their labour with those who purchase -it; to secure themselves from injury, but by no means to inflict it -upon others. Although the Committee are anxious that this desirable -and important organisation should be carried out to the fullest -possible extent, they feel that great caution must be observed in -the formation of its laws and regulations, in order that the evils -which existed and eventually destroyed the Consolidated Union of 1833 -shall be carefully avoided. The Committee conceive it necessary to -call the attention of those trades who are comparatively disunited, -and whose men are consequently working for different rates of wages, -to the great necessity that exists, that those who are receiving the -highest wages should use every effort within their power to secure to -their fellow-workmen a fair remuneration for their labour; and that -every inducement should be held out by the several trade societies -to their separated brethren to join them, in order that they may be -the better enabled to make common cause in cases of aggression, which -would be the certain result if each trade were to form itself into one -well-regulated society for their mutual interests.... And, finally, the -Committee would earnestly recommend to this Conference, in order that -these important points may be considered and dispassionately argued, -that no proposition of a political nature, beyond what has been already -alluded to, should be introduced, or occupy its attention; convinced -as they are that the only way to carry out these desirable objects -satisfactorily, and with a due consideration to the best interests of -all those who are concerned, is to consider and dispose of but one -question at a time: and, moreover, to keep trade matters and politics -as separate and distinct as circumstances will justify.”[321] - -The proceedings of this Conference show that the change of front on -the part of the Trade Union leaders was reflected in the attitude of -the rank and file. The surviving influence of Owenism is to be traced -in the frequent recurrence of the idea of co-operative production, the -desire to establish agricultural communities, and the proposal for a -legislative shortening of the hours of labour. But of the aggressive -policy and ambitious aims of 1830-34 scarcely a vestige remains. -Strikes were deprecated, and the idea of a general cessation of work -was entirely abandoned. The projects of co-operative production were -on an altogether different plane from Owen’s grand schemes. The Trade -Unionists of the National Conference of 1845 had apparently no vision -of a general transfer of the instruments of production from the -capitalists to the Trade Unions; co-operative production was regarded -simply as an auxiliary to Trade Union action, the union workshop -furnishing a cheap alternative to unproductive strike pay. Besides thus -formally abandoning the methods and pretensions of 1834, the Conference -declared its allegiance to a new method of Trade Union activity--the -policy of conciliation and arbitration. In the demand for “local Boards -of Trade,” a phrase borrowed apparently from the silk-weavers, we -see the beginning of that system of authoritative mutual negotiation -between the representatives of capital and labour which became a very -distinctive feature of British Trade Unionism in the last half of the -nineteenth century. - -But the shadow of the failure of 1834 still hung over projects of -universal Trade Unions. Although nearly all trades had been represented -at the first conference, most of the larger organisations decided, on -consideration, to hold aloof from the new body. We find, for instance, -the Manchester Lodge of the Stonemasons’ Society promptly protesting -against the adherence of the society’s delegate, and expressing their -emphatic opinion “that past experience has taught us that we have had -general union enough.” This view was endorsed by the Central Committee, -which, in submitting the matter to the votes of the members, observes -that “there are several trade societies in England as perfectly -organised as ourselves, although their machinery may be somewhat -various; but we can hear of none of these societies being desirous to -join this national movement.... It may be very well for trades who -are divided into sections and have no national organisation amongst -themselves to join such an association--they have nothing to lose; but -it is a question for serious reflection whether a general union of each -trade separately would not be far more effective than the heterogeneous -association in question.”[322] A similar view seems to have been taken -by the Coal-miners, whose national federation was still in existence. A -delegate meeting of the newly formed National Typographical Association -decided by a large majority to remain outside. The Lancashire -Cotton-spinners sent a delegate to the adjourned conference, and even -proposed to have perambulating lecturers to explain the advantages of -the new organisation, but never actually decided to join.[323] - -The adjourned conference on July 28, 1845, was therefore composed, in -the main, of the delegates of the smaller or less organised trades. -About fifty delegates took part in the proceedings, which extended -over six days. It was eventually decided to separate the Trade Union -from the co-operative aims, and to form two distinct but mutually -helpful associations. The “National Association of United Trades for -the Protection of Labour” undertook to deal with disputes between -masters and men, and look after the interests of labour in the House -of Commons. The “National United Trades Association for the Employment -of Labour” proposed to raise capital with which to employ men who -were on strike under circumstances approved by its twin brother. At -the second conference, held at Manchester in June 1846, when 126 -delegates, representing, it was said, 40,000 members, were present, -the contribution to the Trade Association was fixed at twopence in -the pound of weekly earnings; and it was decided that the strike -allowance should vary from nine shillings up to fourteen shillings per -week, the latter sum being the wages agreed on for men employed in -the association’s own workshops. Up to this date no strike had been -supported, as it was desired to avoid the premature action which had, -it was held, destroyed the Grand National Consolidated Union. A number -of paid organisers were engaged. The Association, which hitherto had -consisted of woollen and hosiery-workers and of the Midland hardware -trades, spread in various new directions. The executive of the Friendly -Society of Operative Carpenters and Joiners--the association that had -played so important a part in the movement of 1830--issued a manifesto -to its members in favour of joining, and the general secretary became -an active member of the Executive of the National Association. The -Manchester Section of the National Cordwainers’ Society urged all -its members and all societies of boot and shoemakers to join. The -Potters of Staffordshire, the Miners of Scotland, the new-born -National Association of Tailors, as well as the Metropolitan branches -of the Boilermakers’ and Masons’ Societies came in. The Association, -in fact, became reputed a power in the land, and drew down upon -itself the abusive censure of the _Times_.[324] But in spite of the -wise intentions of its founders, it soon began to suffer from the -characteristic complaints of general unions. The depression of trade -which began in 1845 brought about during the next two years reductions -of wages, followed by strikes and turn-outs in almost every branch of -industry. The local committees of the National Association, frequently -composed of the officials of the trades concerned, promised their -members the support of the national funds, and took umbrage when the -Executive sitting in London reversed their decisions. Each constituent -trade felt that its interests were misunderstood, or its grievances -neglected. A prolonged strike of the Manchester building trades in -1846, begun without sanction, failed miserably, the local committee of -the National Association declaring that the collapse was due to lack of -the financial support which had been promised on behalf of the central -body. The coal and iron miners at Holytown in Lanarkshire engaged -in a struggle against their employers which excited the sympathy of -the Trade Union world, but which ended in failure. An equally severe -conflict by the calico-printers at Crayford in Kent met with no better -success. The Scottish miners complained that they had been inadequately -supported by the association; and the Lancashire miners made this the -pretext for continued abstention. - -Though Duncombe’s association had discouraged strikes, and acted -principally as a mediating body, the employers throughout the country -showed themselves uniformly hostile. The “document” which had figured -so prominently in 1833-4 reappeared in a slightly altered form. The -employers signified their toleration if not their approval of local -trade clubs, but condemned with equal acrimony national unions of -particular trades, or general unions of all trades. Affecting a sudden -concern for the independence of character of their workmen, they -insisted that the existence of any kind of central committee, however -representative it might be, prevented the men from being free agents, -and exposed them to the arbitrary commands of an irresponsible body. -In face of this attitude, the efforts of the National Association to -bring about peaceful settlements met with only qualified success. The -London Executive, unable to cope with the applications for assistance -that poured in daily from all parts of the country, issued strong -admonitions against unauthorised strikes, but had eventually to -give or withhold support without sufficient knowledge of the local -circumstances. Duncombe was principally occupied in drawing up and -presenting petitions in favour of the legislative shortening of the -hours of labour, and in this direction he rendered valuable assistance -to the Lancashire cotton-spinners’ “Short Time Committee,” which -secured the Ten Hours Act of 1847. The Central Executive was, indeed, -during these years, more a Parliamentary Committee for the whole -movement than a federation of Trade Unions. The plan of co-operative -workshops, from which so much had been expected, proved entirely -futile in the prolonged contests of the staple trades. One flourishing -boot workshop was started; and the 1847 conference found, in all, one -hundred and twenty-three men at work, the enterprises being confined to -those trades carried on by hand labour in a small way. In 1848 it was -decided to merge the two associations in one, and to set about raising -£50,000 in order to start on a larger scale. But before this could -be attempted the association suffered a double reverse from which it -never recovered. Duncombe was compelled, by failing health, to withdraw -during 1848 from active participation in its work. And at the end of -the following year a strike of the Wolverhampton tinplate-workers -involved the National Association in a struggle with employers and with -the law which drained its funds and destroyed its credit.[325] - -The later history of the association is obscure.[326] It lingered on -for many years in a small way, its paid officers serving as advisers -and representatives to a number of minor Trade Unions. Its principal -work in later years was the promotion and support of bills for the -establishment of councils of conciliation, and its persistent efforts -certainly paved the way for the Joint Boards subsequently set on -foot. But it ceases after 1851 to exercise any influence or play any -important part in the Trade Union Movement. - -The National Association of United Trades stands, in constitution and -objects, half-way between the revolutionary voluntaryism of 1830-4 -and the Parliamentary action of 1863-75. It may, in fact, be regarded -either as a belated “General Trades Union” of an improved type, or as -a premature and imperfect Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union -world. And although the great national Unions of the time took no -part in its proceedings, its moderate and unaggressive policy was -only one manifestation of the new spirit which now prevailed in Trade -Union councils. We see rising up in the Unions of the better-paid -artisans a keen desire to get at the facts of their industrial and -social condition. This new feeling for exact knowledge may to some -extent be attributed to the increasing share which the printing trades -were now beginning to take in the Trade Union Movement. The student -of the reports of the larger compositors’ societies, from the very -beginning of the century, will be struck, not only by the moderation, -but also by the elaborate Parliamentary formality--one might almost -say the stateliness of their proceedings. Instead of rhetorical abuse -of all employers as “the unproductive classes,” and total abstinence -from investigation of the details of disputes, we find the compositors -dealing only with concrete instances of hardship, and referring every -important question to a “Select Committee” for inquiry and report. -In 1848 the London Consolidated Society of Bookbinders, established -in 1786, used part of its funds to form a library for the benefit -of its members. By 1851 a reading-room furnished with daily and -weekly newspapers had been opened. Four years later a similar library -was established by the London Society of Compositors. In 1842, the -Journeymen Steam-Engine and Machine Makers’ Friendly Society started -a Mutual Improvement Class at Manchester. Even the Stonemasons, at -that time a rough and somewhat turbulent body, were reached by the new -desire for self-improvement. The Glasgow branch of the Scottish United -Operative Masons report with pride, in 1845, that they have “formed a -class for mutual instruction ... an association for moral, physical, -and intellectual improvement” which was setting itself to investigate -the question--“Is the present improved condition of machinery -beneficial to the working classes, or is it hurtful?”[327] But the -most effective outcome of this desire for information was the starting -by the Unions of special trade journals. The United Branches of the -Operative Potters set on foot in 1843 the _Potters’ Examiner_, a weekly -newspaper which dealt with the trade interests and technical processes -of their industry.[328] The Journeymen Steam-Engine and Machine Makers’ -Friendly Society issued the _Mechanics’ Magazine_ between 1841 and -1847. In November 1850 Dunning persuaded the London Consolidated -Society of Bookbinders to publish the _Bookbinders’ Trade Circular_, -in the pages of which he promulgated a theory of Trade Unionism, from -which McCulloch himself would scarcely have dissented,[329] and made -that humble organ of his society into a monthly magazine of useful -information on all matters connected with books and their manufacture. -But the best of these trade publications, and the only one which -has enjoyed a continuous existence down to the present day, was the -_Flint Glass Makers’ Magazine_, an octavo monthly of ninety-six pages, -established at Birmingham in 1850 by the Flint Glass Makers’ Friendly -Society,[330] which advocated “the education of every man in our trade, -beginning at the oldest and coming down to the youngest.... If you do -not wish to stand as you are and suffer more oppression,” it enjoined -its readers, “we say to you get knowledge, and in getting knowledge you -get power.... Let us earnestly advise you to educate; get intelligence -instead of alcohol--it is sweeter and more lasting.”[331] - -With increased acquaintance with industrial conditions came a reaction -against the policy of reckless aggression which marked the Owenite -inflation. Here again we find the printing trades taking the lead. -Already in 1835, when the London Compositors were reorganising their -society, the committee went out of their way to denounce the great -general Unions. “Unfortunately almost all Trades Unions hitherto -formed,” they report to their members, “have relied for success upon -extorted oaths and physical force.... The fault and the destruction -of all Trades Unions has hitherto been that they have copied the -vices which they professed to condemn. While disunited and powerless -they have stigmatised their employers as grasping taskmasters; but as -soon as they (the workmen) were united and powerful, then they became -tyrants in their turn, and unreasonably endeavoured to exact more -than the nature of their employment demanded, or than their employers -could afford to give. Hence their failure was inevitable.... Let the -Compositors of London show the Artisans of England a brighter and -better example; and casting away the aid to be derived from cunning -and brute strength, let us, when we contend with our opponents, employ -only the irresistible weapons of truth and reason.”[332] The disasters -of 1837-42 caused this spirit to spread to other trades. From this -time forth the minutes and circulars of the larger Unions abound in -impressive warnings against aggressive action. “Strikes are prolific,” -say the delegates of the Ironmoulders in council assembled; “in certain -cases they beget others.... How often have disputes been averted by -a few timely words with employers! It is surely no dishonour to -explain to your employer the nature and extent of your grievance.”[333] -The Stonemasons’ Central Committee repeatedly caution their members -“against the dangerous practice of striking.... Keep from it,” they -urge, “as you would from a ferocious animal that you know would destroy -you.... Remember what it was that made us so insignificant in 1842.... -We implore you, brethren, as you value your own existence, to avoid, in -every way possible, those useless strikes. Let us have another year of -earnest and attentive organisation; and, if that does not perfect us, -we must have another; for it is a knowledge of the disorganised state -of working men generally that stimulates the tyrant and the taskmaster -to oppress them.”[334] A few years later the Liverpool lodge invites -the support of all the members for the proposition “that our society -no longer recognise strikes, either as a means to be adopted for -improving our condition, or as a scheme to be resorted to in resisting -infringements,”[335] and suggests, as an alternative, the formation -of an Emigration Fund. The Portsmouth lodge caps this proposal by -insisting not only that strikes should cease, but also that the word -“strike” be abolished! The _Flint Glass Makers’ Magazine_, between -1850 and 1855, is full of similar denunciations. “We believe,” writes -the editor, “that strikes have been the bane of Trades Unions.”[336] -In 1854 the Flint Glass Makers, on the proposition of the Central -Committee, abolished the allowance of “strike-money” by a vote of the -whole of the members. As an alternative it was often suggested that a -bad employer should be defeated by quietly withdrawing the men one by -one, as situations could be found for them elsewhere. “As man after -man leaves, and no one [comes] to supply their place, then it is that -the proud and haughty spirit of the oppressor is brought down, and he -feels the power he cannot see.”[337] - -It was part of the same policy of restricting the use of the weapon -of the strike that the power of declaring war on the employers was, -during these years, taken away from the local branches. In the two -great societies of which we have complete records--the Ironmoulders -and the Stonemasons--we see a gradual tightening up of the control -of the central executive. The Delegate Meeting of the Ironmoulders -in 1846 vested the entire authority in the Executive Committee. “The -system,” they report, “of allowing disputes to be sanctioned by -meetings of our members, generally labouring under some excitement or -other, or misled by a plausible letter from the scene of the dispute, -is decidedly bad. Our members do not feel that responsibility on these -occasions which they ought. They are liable to be misled. A clever -speech, party feeling, a misrepresentation, or a specious letter--all -or any of these may involve a shop, or a whole branch, in a dispute, -unjustly and possibly without the least chance of obtaining their -object.... Impressed with the truth of these opinions, we have handed -over for the future the power of sanctioning disputes to the Executive -Committee alone.”[338] The Stonemasons’ Central Committee, after 1843, -peremptorily forbid lodges to strike shops, even if they do not mean -to charge the society’s funds with strike-pay. And though in this -Union, unlike the Ironmoulders, the decision to strike or not to strike -was not vested in the Executive, any lodge had to submit its demand, -through the _Fortnightly Circular_, to the vote of the whole body of -members throughout the kingdom--a procedure which involved delay and -gave the Central Committee an opportunity of using its influence in -favour of peace. - -The fact that most of the Executive Committees were, from 1845 onward, -setting their face against strikes, did not imply the abandonment of -an energetic trade policy. The leaders of the better educated trades -had accepted the economic axiom that wages must inevitably depend -upon the relation of Supply and Demand in each particular class of -labour. It seemed an obvious inference that the only means in their -power to maintain or improve their condition was to diminish the -supply. “All men of experience agree,” affirms the Delegate Meeting -of the Ironmoulders in 1847, “that wages are to be best raised by -the demand for labour.” Hence we find the denunciations of strikes -accompanied by an insistence on the limitation of apprentices, the -abolition of overtime, and the provision of an Emigration Fund. The -Flint Glass Makers declare that “the scarcity of labour was one of -the fundamental principles laid down at our first conference held in -Manchester in 1849.” “It is simply a question of supply and demand, and -we all know that if we supply a greater quantity of an article than -what is actually demanded that the cheapening of that article, whether -it be labour or any other commodity, is a natural result.”[339] In -this application of the doctrine of Supply and Demand the Flint Glass -Makers were joined by the Compositors, Bookbinders, Ironmoulders, -Potters, and, as we shall presently see, the Engineers.[340] For the -next ten years an Emigration Fund becomes a constant feature of many -of the large societies, to be abandoned only when it was discovered -that the few thousands of pounds which could be afforded for this -purpose produced no visible effect in diminishing the surplus labour. -Moreover, it was the vigorous and energetic member who applied for -his passage-money, whilst the chronically unemployed, if he could be -persuaded to go at all, frequently reappeared at the clubhouse after a -brief trip at the society’s expense.[341] - -The harmless but ineffective expedient of emigration was accompanied -by the more equivocal plan of closing the trade to new-comers. The -Flint Glass Makers, like the other sections of the glass trade, have -always been notorious for their strict limitation of the number of -apprentices. The constant refrain of their trade organ is “Look to the -rule and keep boys back; for this is the foundation of the evil, the -secret of our progress, the dial on which our society works, and the -hope of future generations.”[342] The printing trades were equally -active. Select Committees of the London Society of Compositors were -constantly inquiring into the most effective way of checking boy-labour -and regulating “turnover” apprentices. And the engineering trades, -at this time entering the Trade Union world, were basing their whole -policy on the assumption that the duly apprenticed mechanic, like the -doctor or the solicitor, had a right to exclude “illegal men” from his -occupation. - -Such was the “New Spirit” which, by 1850, was dominating the Trade -Union world. Meanwhile the steady growth of national Unions, each with -three to five thousand members, ever-increasing friendly benefits, and -a weekly contribution per member which sometimes exceeded a shilling, -involved a considerable development of Trade Union structure. The -little clubs and local societies had been managed, in the main, by men -working at their trades, and attending to their secretarial duties -in the evening. With the growth of such national organisations as -the Stonemasons, the Ironmoulders, and the Steam-Engine Makers, the -mere volume of business necessitated the appointment of one of the -members to devote his whole time to the correspondence and accounts. -But the new official, however industrious and well-meaning, found upon -his hands a task for which neither his education nor his temperament -had fitted him. The archives of these societies reveal the pathetic -struggles of inexperienced workmen to cope with the difficulties -presented by the combination of branch management and centralised -finance. The disbursement of friendly benefits by branch meetings, the -custody and remittance of the funds, the charges for local expenses -(including “committee liquor”),[343] the mysteries of bookkeeping, and -the intricacies of audit all demanded a new body of officers specially -selected for and exclusively engaged in this work. During these years -we watch a shifting of leadership in the Trade Union world from the -casual enthusiast and irresponsible agitator to a class of permanent -salaried officers expressly chosen from out of the rank and file of -Trade Unionists for their superior business capacity. But besides -the daily work of administration, the expansion of local societies -into organisations of national extent, and the transformation of -loose federations into consolidated unions, involved the difficult -process of constitution-making. The records of the Ironmoulders and -the Stonemasons show with what anxious solicitude successive Delegate -Meetings were groping after a set of rules that would work smoothly -and efficiently. One Union, however, the Journeymen Steam-Engine -and Machine Makers and Millwrights’ Friendly Society, tackled the -problems of internal organisation with peculiar ability, and eventually -produced, in the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, a “New Model” of the -utmost importance to Trade Union history. - -To understand the rise of this remarkable society, we must revert -to the earlier history of combinations which have hitherto scarcely -claimed attention in our account of the general movement. The origin -of Trade Unionism in the engineering trades is obscure. We learn -that at the close of the last century the then dominant class of -millwrights possessed strong, exclusive, and even tyrannical trade -societies, the chief of them being the “London Fellowship,” meeting at -the Bell Inn, Old Bailey.[344] The millwrights, who were originally -constructors of mill-work of every kind, both wood and iron, were, -on the introduction of the steam-engine, gradually superseded by -specialised workers in particular sections of their trade. The -introduction of what was termed “the engineer’s economy,” that is to -say, the parcelling out of the trade of the millwright among distinct -classes of workmen, and the substitution of “payment according to -merit” for the millwrights’ Standard Rate, completely disorganised -the skilled mechanics of the engineering trade. This condition was -not materially improved by the establishment, from 1822 onward, of -numerous competing Trade Friendly Societies. The Ironmoulders alone -concentrated their efforts upon maintaining one national society. -The millwrights, smiths, pattern-makers, and other skilled mechanics -engaged in engine and machine making had societies in London, -Manchester, Newcastle, Bradford, Derby, and other engineering centres. -Of these the Steam-Engine Makers (established 1824); the Journeymen -Steam-Engine and Machine Makers and Millwrights (established 1826); the -Associated Fraternity of Iron Forgers, usually called the “Old Smiths” -(established 1830); and the Boilermakers (established 1832) are known -to have been organisations of national extent, with branches in all -parts of the country, competing, not only with each other, but with -the Metropolitan and other local societies of Millwrights, Smiths, -Patternmakers, and General Engineers. This anarchic rivalry prevented -any effectual trade action, and tempted employers to give the work to -the lowest bidder, and to introduce the worst features of competitive -piecework and sub-contract. - -We are, therefore, not surprised to find that the engineers’ societies -took little part in the great upheaval of 1830-4. But the wave of -solidarity which then swept over the labour world seems to have had -considerable, though tardy, effect even in this trade. The chief -districts affected were London and Lancashire. In 1836 a London -joint committee of several of the sectional societies successfully -conducted an eight months’ strike for a shortening of the hours of -labour to sixty per week, and for extra payment for overtime. Again, -in 1844 a joint committee obtained from the London employers a further -reduction of hours. Encouraged by these successes, the members of the -Metropolitan societies and branches began to discuss the possibility -of a national amalgamation. The most prominent personality in this -movement was that of William Newton,[345] a leading member of the -Journeymen Steam-Engine and Machine Makers and Millwrights’ Friendly -Society, the association which afterwards became, as we shall see, the -parent of the amalgamation. - -William Newton had exactly the qualities needed for his task. Gifted -with remarkable eloquence, astute and conciliatory in his methods, -he was equally successful in inspiring masses of men with a large -idea, and in persuading the representatives and officials of rival -societies to agree with the details of his scheme. His influence -was augmented by his tried devotion to the cause of Trade Unionism. -In 1848 he was dismissed from a first-rate position as foreman in a -large establishment owing to his activity in trade matters, and in the -following years his business as a publican was seriously damaged by his -constant absence on society business. But though from the first he had -been an active member of his Union, and was for many years a Branch -Secretary, he was, so far as we know, at no time its full-time salaried -official. He stands, therefore, midway between the casual and amateur -leaders of the old Trade Unionism and the new class of permanent -officials, sticking closely to office work, and acquiring a detailed -experience in Trade Union organisation. - -Whilst Newton was bringing the London societies into line, the -Lancashire engineers were moving in the same direction. Already in -1839 a “committee of the engineering trades” at Bolton urged upon -their comrades the establishment of “one concentrated union”; and in -the following year, through the energy of Alexander Hutchinson, the -secretary of the Friendly United Smiths of Great Britain and Ireland, -a United Trades Association was set on foot in Lancashire, to comprise -the “Five Trades of Mechanism, viz. Mechanics, Smiths, Moulders, -Engineers, and Millwrights.” The objects of this association were -ably represented and promoted by its organ, the _Trades Journal_, -established to extend and “improve Trades Unions generally in Great -Britain and Ireland,”[346] The attempt proved, however, premature, -and it was not until the year 1844 that the Bolton men, under the -leadership of John Rowlinson, succeeded in establishing a permanent -“Protection Society,” composed of delegates from the Societies of -Smiths, Millwrights, Ironmoulders, Engineers, and Boilermakers. -Inspirited by the success of the Bolton society, which successfully -maintained a nine months’ strike (costing it £9,000) against the -“Quittance Paper” (character note, or leaving certificate) which the -employers eventually agreed to abandon, joint committees of engineering -operatives were formed between 1844 and 1850 in all the principal -Lancashire centres. These were repeatedly addressed by Rowlinson and -Hutchinson, and the ground was prepared for a systematic attempt at -national amalgamation. - -The leading part in the amalgamation was taken by the society to which -Newton belonged. The Journeymen Steam-Engine and Machine Makers and -Millwrights’ Friendly Society, with its headquarters at Manchester, -at this time far exceeded any other trade society in membership and -wealth. Established in 1826 as the Friendly Union of Mechanics, it -had absorbed in 1837 a strong Yorkshire society dating from 1822 (the -Mechanics’ Friendly Union Institution), and by 1848 it numbered seven -thousand members organised in branches all over the kingdom, and -possessed an accumulated reserve fund of £25,000. The silent growth -of this Union, the slow perfecting of its constitution by repeated -delegate meetings held at intervals during the preceding twenty years, -stand in marked contrast with the dramatic advent of the ephemeral -organisations of 1830-34. But this task of internal organisation, with -its gradual working out of the elaborate financial and administrative -system which afterwards became celebrated in the constitution of the -Amalgamated Engineers, seems to have absorbed, during the first fifteen -years of its existence, all the energy of its members. In none of the -working-class movements of this period did the society play any part, -nor do we find that it, as a whole, engaged in any important conflicts -with its members’ employers. At last, in 1843, a delegate meeting urged -the members to oppose systematic overtime, and in 1844 the society, -as we have seen, took part in the London movement for the shortening -of the hours of labour. By 1845 it seems to have felt itself strong -enough to undertake aggressive trade action by itself, and a delegate -meeting in that year attacked the employment of labourers on machines, -“the piece master system,” and systematic overtime, by stringent -resolutions upon which the Executive Committee sitting at Manchester -were directed to take early action.[347] During the following year -accordingly a simultaneous attempt appears to have been made by many -of the branches to enforce these rules. This action led, at Belfast, -Rochdale, and Newton-le-Willows, to legal proceedings by the employers, -and the officers of the society, together with over a score of its -members, found themselves in the dock indicted for conspiracy and -illegal combination.[348] The trial of the twenty-six engineers of -Newton-le-Willows, and the conviction of nine of them, including -Selsby, the General Secretary of the great mechanics’ Union, caused a -sensation in the Trade Union world, and tended to draw closer together -the rival societies in the engineering trade. - -The progressive trade policy of the Journeymen Steam-Engine and -Machine Makers’ Society greatly increased the ascendency which its -superiority in wealth and numbers gave it over the numerous other -trade friendly societies in the engineering trades. William Allan, -a young Scotchman, succeeded Selsby in the salaried post of general -secretary when the latter obtained a commercial post in 1848. A close -friend and ardent disciple of William Newton, he quickly manifested, -in the administration of his own society, the capacity and energy -which enabled him in future years to play so important a part in the -general history of the Labour Movement. The cause of amalgamation was -well served by the indefatigable missionary efforts of these two men. -The anniversary dinners and friendly social meetings of the joint -committees of the societies in the Lancashire iron trades were, as -we know from contemporary records, made the occasion of propagandist -speeches, and were doubtless used also by these astute organisers -to talk over the leading men to agreement with their proposals. The -natural jealousy felt by the great provincial centre of Trade Unionism -of the interference of the Metropolis in its concerns was allayed -by Allan’s suggestion that the Lancashire societies should call a -conference of delegates at Warrington in March 1850, for the purpose -of consultation and discussion only. At this meeting, which was -attended only by the representatives of three of the larger societies -(including the Steam-Engine Makers established at Liverpool in 1824, -and the Smiths’ Benevolent, Friendly, Sick and Burial Society, -established in 1830), Newton and Allan succeeded in getting through -the outlines of their scheme of amalgamation. During the next six -months these proposals were the subject of exhaustive discussion at -every joint committee and branch meeting. Meanwhile the leaders had -established in Manchester a weekly journal for the express purpose of -promoting amalgamation, engaging as editor, under a written contract, -Dr. John Watts, afterwards well known as one of the ablest advocates -of co-operation. This journal, the _Trades Advocate and Herald of -Progress_, stated to be “established by the Iron Trades,” discussed -the advantages of union, and incidentally taught the doctrines of Free -Trade and Co-operative Production.[349] - -Lancashire converted and conciliated, London could now go ahead. -Under Newton’s influence the London joint committee summoned a second -delegate meeting at Birmingham in September 1850, which was attended -by representatives of seven engineering societies. At this conference -the scheme of amalgamation was definitely adopted; and the Metropolitan -“Central Committee” was charged, as a “Provisional Committee,” to -complete the details of the transfer of the old organisation to the new -body. The tact and skill with which Allan and Newton carried out their -project are conspicuously shown by the way in which the act of union -was regarded by all concerned. There is no trace of suspicion on the -part of the minor societies that they were taking part in anything but -an amalgamation on equal terms. The whole Trade Union world, including -the Amalgamated Society of Engineers itself, has retained the tradition -that this great organisation was the outcome of a genuine amalgamation -of societies of fairly equivalent standing. What happened, as a -matter of fact, was that the society led by Allan and Newton absorbed -its rivals.[350] The new body took over, in its entirety, the -elaborate constitution, the scheme of benefits (with the addition -of Sick Benefit and the adoption of the innovation of an Emigration -Benefit of £6), the trade policy, and even the official staff of the -Journeymen Steam-Engine and Machine Makers and Millwrights’ Society, -which contributed more than three-fourths of the membership with which -the amalgamation started, and found itself continued, down to the -minutest details, in the rules and regulations of the new association. -An important addition was, however, the adoption of a definite -trade policy of restricting overtime and preventing piecework; the -institution of District Committees charged to carry out that policy; -and the establishment of a new Strike Pay of 15s. per week. - -The conclusions of the Birmingham delegates were not accepted without -demur. Many of the branches in Lancashire and elsewhere objected to -the position obtained by the London Committee, and stood aloof from -the amalgamation. The Manchester Committee showed signs of jealousy at -the transfer of the seat of government to the Metropolis. But the most -important defection was that of the rank and file of the members of the -Steam-Engine Makers’ Society, an association which stood in membership -and funds second only to the Journeymen Steam-Engine Makers and Machine -Makers’ Society. Newton and Allan had succeeded in persuading the whole -of the Executive to throw in their lot with the amalgamation, but the -bulk of the members revolted, and the society maintained a separate -existence down to the end of 1919, when it joined the other societies -in the creation of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Even in Newton’s -own society, in which the main principles of the amalgamation had been -carried by large majorities, a considerable number of the provincial -branches remained hostile. On January 6, 1851, when the Provisional -Committee formally assumed office as the Executive Committee of the -“Amalgamated Society of Engineers, Machinists, Smiths, Millwrights and -Patternmakers,” scarcely 5000 members out of the 10,500 represented at -the Birmingham Conference were paying to the amalgamated funds.[351] -For some months, indeed, the success of Newton’s ambitious scheme -looked doubtful. Though London had rallied to his help, only one small -society standing aloof, the provincial branches came in very slowly. -It took three months’ persuasion to raise the membership of the -amalgamation up to the level of the parent society. Delegate meetings -of the Steam-Engine Makers and the Smiths’ Societies decided against -amalgamation, though many of their branches broke away and joined the -new society. But towards the end of May the tide turned. The remaining -branches of the Journeymen Steam-Engine and Machine Makers and -Millwrights’ Society held a delegate meeting, at which it was decided -no longer to oppose the amalgamation; the Smiths’ Society of London and -several other small societies came in; and by October Newton and Allan -were at the head of a united society of 11,000 members paying 1s. per -week each, the largest and most powerful Union that had ever existed in -the engineering trades, and far exceeding in membership, and still more -in annual income, any other trade society of the time.[352] - -The successful accomplishment of the amalgamation was followed by a -conflict with the employers, which riveted the attention of the whole -Trade Union world upon the new body. The aggressive trade policy -initiated by Selsby and Allan in Lancashire and Newton in London -had been repeatedly confirmed by the delegate meetings of their -society, and was formally incorporated in the basis of the larger -organisation.[353] The more energetic branches were not slow in acting -upon it. In 1851 the men at Messrs. Hibbert & Platt’s extensive works -at Oldham made a series of demands, not only for the abolition of -overtime, but also for the exclusion of “labourers and other ‘illegal’ -men” from the machines. With these demands Messrs. Hibbert & Platt -and other employers had to comply. The private minutes of the London -Executive prove conclusively that the strike to oust labourers from -machines was not authorised by the central body;[354] but as William -Newton, now a member of the Executive, acted as the representative -of the Oldham men in submitting these demands to Messrs. Hibbert & -Platt, the employers, naturally inferring that his action was the -direct outcome of the amalgamation, formed in December 1851 the Central -Association of Employers of Operative Engineers to resist the men’s -Union. - -Meanwhile the London Executive had been consulting the whole of -the members on the proposal to abolish systematic overtime and -piecework, and had obtained an almost unanimous vote in favour of -immediate action. A manifesto was issued to the employers, in which -the Executive announced the intention of the society to put an end -to piecework and systematic overtime after December 31, 1851. The -employers replied by an imperious declaration in the _Times_ that a -strike at any one establishment would be met seven days later by a -general lock-out of the whole engineering trade. The men thereupon -offered to submit the question to arbitration, a proposal which the -employers ignored. On January 1, 1852, the members of the Amalgamated -Society refused to work overtime, and on the 10th the masters closed, -as they had threatened, every important engineering establishment in -Lancashire and the Metropolis. - -The three months’ struggle that followed interested the general public -more than any previous conflict. The details were described, and the -action of the employers and the policy of the Union was discussed in -every newspaper. The men found unexpected friends in the little group -of “Christian Socialists,” who threw themselves heartily into the fray, -and rendered excellent service, not only by liberal subscriptions,[355] -but also by letters to the newspapers, public lectures, and other -explanations of the men’s position. The masters remained obdurate, -insisting not only upon the unconditional withdrawal of the men’s -demands, but also upon their signing the well-known “document” -forswearing Trade Union membership. The capitalists, in fact, took -up the old line of absolute supremacy in their establishments, and -expressly denied the men’s right to take any collective action -whatsoever. - -Notwithstanding the subscription of £4000 by the public and £5000 by -other trade societies, the funds at the disposal of the Union soon -began to run short. The Executive had undertaken to support not only -the 3500 of its own members and the 1500 mechanics who were out, but -also the 10,000 labourers who had been made idle. Altogether over -£43,000 was dispensed during the six months in out-of-work pay. Early -in February the masters opened their workshops. By the middle of March -the issue of the struggle was plain, and during April the men resumed -work on the employers’ terms. Almost all the masters insisted on the -actual signature of the “document” by their men, and most of these, -under pressure of imminent destitution, reluctantly submitted, without, -however, carrying out their promise by abandoning the Union. Judge -Hughes, writing in 1860, describes this act of bad faith by the men as -“inexcusable,” but there is much to be said for the view taken by the -Amalgamation Executive, who declared that they held themselves “and -every man who unwillingly puts his hand to that detestable document -which is forced upon us to be as much destitute of that power of choice -which should precede a contract as if a pistol were at his head and he -had to choose between death and degradation.”[356] A promise extorted -under “duress” carries with it little legal and still less moral -obligation, and whatever discredit attaches to the transaction must be -ascribed at least as much to the masters who made the demand as to the -unfortunate victims of the labour war who unwillingly complied with -it.[357] - -It was the dramatic events of 1852 which made the establishment of the -Amalgamated Society of Engineers a turning-point in the history of the -Trade Union Movement. The complete victory gained by the employers did -not, as they had hoped, destroy the Engineers’ Union. The membership -of the society was, in fact, never seriously shaken.[358] On the other -hand, the publicity which it gained in the conflict gave it a position -of unrivalled prominence in the Trade Union world. From 1852 to 1889 -the elaborate constitution of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers -served as the model for all new national trade societies, whilst old -organisations found themselves gradually incorporating its leading -features. The place occupied in 1830-34 by the cotton-spinners and the -builders was, in fact, now taken by the iron trades. - -The “New Model” thus introduced differed, both for good and evil, from -the typical Trade Unionism of the preceding generation. The engineering -societies had to some extent inherited the exclusive policy of the -organisations of the skilled handicraftsmen of the beginning of the -century. Unlike the General Trades Unions of 1830-34 they restricted -their membership to legally apprenticed workmen. Their records bear -traces of the old idea of the legal incorporation of separate trades, -rather than of any general union of “the productive classes.” The -generous but impracticable “universalism” of the Owenite and Chartist -organisations was replaced by the principle of the protection of the -vested interests of the craftsman in his occupation. The preface to the -rules of the parent society expresses this dominant idea by a forcible -analogy: - -“The youth who has the good fortune and inclination for preparing -himself as a useful member of society by the study of physic, and who -studies that profession with success so as to obtain his diploma from -the Surgeons’ Hall or College of Surgeons, naturally expects, in some -measure, that he is entitled to privileges to which the pretending -quack can lay no claim; and if in the practice of that useful -profession he finds himself injured by such a pretender, he has the -power of instituting a course of law against him. Such are the benefits -connected with the learned professions. But the mechanic, though he may -expend nearly an equal fortune and sacrifice an equal proportion of -his life in becoming acquainted with the different branches of useful -mechanism, has no law to protect his privileges.”[359] He is therefore -urged to join the society, which aims at securing the same protection -of his trade against interlopers as is enjoyed by the learned -professions. - -This spirit of exclusiveness has had, as we shall hereafter discern, -an equivocal effect, not only on the history of the society itself, -but on that of the Trade Union Movement. But the contemporary trade -movements either did not observe or failed to realise the tendency -of this attempt to retain or reconstruct an aristocracy of skilled -workmen. What impressed the working men was not the trade policy which -had brought about the defeat of 1852, but the admirably thought-out -financial and administrative system, which enabled the Union to combine -the functions of a trade protection society with those of a permanent -insurance company, and thus attain a financial stability hitherto -undreamt of. Time proved that this constitution had its peculiar -defects. But for over twenty years no Trade Unionist questioned its -excellence, and the minute criticism and heated abuse which it evoked -from employers and their advocates seemed only another testimony to -its effectiveness. We think it worth while, therefore, at the risk of -introducing tedious detail, to describe the main features of this “New -Model.” - -In striking contrast with the Cotton-spinners’ and Builders’ Unions -of 1830-34, with their exclusively trade purposes, the societies -in the engineering trades had, like the trade organisations of the -handicraftsmen of the last century, originated as local benefit clubs. -The Journeymen Steam-Engine Makers’ Society, for instance, had from -the first provided its members with out-of-work pay, a travelling -allowance, a funeral benefit, and a lump sum in case of accidental -disablement. In 1846 it added to these benefits a small sick allowance, -and shortly afterwards an old age pension to superannuated members. -The administration of these friendly benefits was from the outset the -primary object of the organisation. As the local benefit club expanded -into a national society by the migration of its members from town to -town, the extreme difficulty of combining local autonomy with a just -and economical administration of extensive benefits became apparent. -For the society, it must be remembered, was not a federation of -independent bodies, each having its own exchequer and contributing to -the central fund its determinate quota of the expenses of the central -office: it was from the first a single association with a common -purse, into which all contributions were paid, and out of which all -expenditure, down to the stationery and ink used by a branch secretary, -was defrayed. This concentration of funds carried with it the practical -advantage of forming a considerable reserve at the disposal of the -Executive. But so long as it was combined with local autonomy, it was -open to the obvious objection that a branch might dispense benefits to -its own members with undue liberality, and thus absorb an unfair amount -of the moneys of the whole society. And hence we find that in 1838 an -attempt was made to centralise the administration, by transforming the -local officials from the servants of the branches into agents of the -central authority. The inherent love of self-government of the British -artisan defeated this proposal, which would inevitably have led to -local apathy and suspicion, if not to grosser evils. Some other method -of harmonising local autonomy with centralised finance had therefore to -be invented. - -Under the constitution which the Amalgamated Society took over from the -Journeymen Steam-Engine and Machine Makers and Millwrights, we find -this problem solved with considerable astuteness. The branch elects and -controls its own local officers, but acts in all cases within rules -which provide explicitly for every detail. Each branch retains its own -funds and administers the friendly benefits payable to its own members, -including the allowance to men out of work. The financial autonomy -of the branch is, however, more apparent than real. No penny must be -expended except in accordance with precise rules. The branch retains -its own funds, but these are the property of the whole society, and -at the end of each year the balances are “equalised” by a complicated -system of remittances from branch to branch, ordered by the Central -Executive in such a way that each branch starts the year with the same -amount of capital per member. The cumbrous plan of annual equalisation -is a device adopted in order to maintain the feeling of local -self-government under a strictly centralised financial system.[360] -From the decision of the branch any member may appeal to the Central -Executive Council. The decisions of this Council on all questions of -friendly benefits are, however, strictly limited to the interpretation -of the existing laws of the society. These rules, which include in -equal detail both the constitutional and the financial code, cannot be -altered or modified except by a specially convened meeting of delegates -from every district. Careful provision is, moreover, made against the -danger of hasty or ill-considered legislation even by this supreme -authority. No amendment may be so much as considered without having -been circulated to all the branches six weeks prior to the delegate -meeting, and having thereupon been discussed and re-discussed by the -members at two successive general meetings convened for the purpose. -Thus every delegate comes to his legislative duties charged with a -direct and even detailed mandate from his constituents. Moreover, it is -expressly provided that no friendly benefit shall be abrogated unless -the decision of the delegate meeting to that effect is ratified by a -majority of two-thirds on a vote of the members of the whole society. -As a friendly society, therefore, the Association consists of a number -of self-governing branches acting according to the provisions of a -detailed code, and amenable, in respect of its interpretation, to a -Central Executive. - -As a Trade Union, on the contrary, the Association has been from the -first a highly centralised body. The great object of the amalgamation -was to secure uniformity in trade policy, and to promote the -equalisation of what the economists call “real wages”[361] throughout -the whole country. With this view the Central Executive has always -retained the absolute power of granting or withholding strike pay. -No individual can receive strike allowance from his branch except -upon an express order of the Executive. Local knowledge, however, is -clearly needed for the decision in matters of trade policy, and on the -amalgamation “district” committees were established, consisting of the -representatives of neighbouring branches. These committees have no -concern with the administration of friendly benefits, which, as we have -seen, is the business of each branch. Their function is to guard the -local interests of the trade, to watch for encroachments, and to advise -the Executive Council in the administration of strike pay. Unlike the -branches, they possess no independent authority, and are required to -act strictly under the orders of headquarters, to which the minutes of -their proceedings are regularly sent for confirmation. - -Not less impressive than this elaborate constitution, with its system -of checks and counter-checks, was the magnitude of the financial -transactions of the new society. The high contribution of a shilling a -week, paid with unexampled regularity by a constantly increasing body -of members, provided an income which surpassed the wildest dreams of -previous Trade Union organisations, and enabled the society to meet any -local emergency without serious effort. A large portion of this income -was absorbed by the expensive friendly benefits, which were on a scale -at that time unfamiliar to the societies in other trades. And when it -was found that the contribution of a shilling a week not only met all -these requirements, but also provided an accumulating balance, which -could be drawn upon for strike pay, the indignation of the employers -knew no bounds. For many years the union of friendly benefits with -trade protection funds, now considered as the guarantee of a peaceful -Trade Union policy, was denounced as a dishonest attempt to subsidise -strikes at the expense of the innocent subscriber to a friendly society -insurance against sickness, accident, and old age.[362] - -In scarcely less marked contrast with the current tradition of Trade -Unionism was the publicity which the Amalgamated Engineers from the -first courted. Powerful societies, such as the existing Union of -Stonemasons, had between 1834 and 1850 elaborated a constitution which -proved as durable as that of the Amalgamated Engineers, though of a -slightly different type. But the old feeling of secretiveness still -dominated both the leaders and the rank and file. The _Stonemasons’ -Fortnightly Circular_, which, regularly appearing as it has done since -1834, constitutes perhaps the most valuable single record of the Trade -Union Movement, was never seen outside the branch meeting-place.[363] -At the Royal Commission of 1867-8 the employers’ witnesses bitterly -complained of their inability to get copies of this publication and of -a similar periodical circular of the Bricklayers’ Society.[364] As late -as 1871 we find the liability to publicity adduced by some Unions as an -argument against seeking recognition by the law. - -The leaders of the Engineers believed, on the contrary, in the power of -advertisement. We have already noticed the two short-lived newspapers -which Newton and Allan published in 1850 and 1851-2, for the express -purpose of making known the society and its objects. For many years -after the amalgamation it was a regular practice to forward to the -press, for publication or review, all the monthly, quarterly, and -annual reports, as well as the more important of the circulars issued -to the members. Representatives were sent to the Conference on Capital -and Labour held by the Society of Arts in 1854, and to the congresses -of the Social Science Association from 1859 onward. Newton and Allan -appear, indeed, to have eagerly seized every opportunity of writing -letters to the newspapers, reading papers, and delivering lectures -about the organisation which they had established. - -It is easy to understand the great influence which, during the next -twenty years, this “New Model” exercised upon the Trade Union world. -Its most important imitator was the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters, -which, as we shall see, arose out of the great London strike of -1859-60. The tailors in 1866 drew together into an amalgamated society, -which adopted, almost without alteration, the whole code of the -engineers, and in 1869 the London Society of Compositors appointed a -special committee to report upon “the constitution and working of the -Amalgamated Trades,” with a view to their imitation in the printing -industry--an intention which, in spite of the favourable character of -the report, was not carried out.[365] Scarcely a trade exists which -did not, between 1852 and 1875, either attempt to imitate the whole -constitution of the Amalgamated Engineers, or incorporate one or other -of its characteristic features. - -The five or six years following the collapse of the great lock-out of -1852, though constituting a period of quiet progress in particular -societies, are for the historian of the general Trade Union Movement, -almost a blank. The severe commercial depression of 1846-49 was -succeeded by seven years of steadily expanding trade, which furnished -no occasion for general reduction of wages. The reaction against the -ambitious projects of the Trade Union of 1834 continued to discourage -even federal action;[366] whilst the complete failure of the struggle -of the engineers, followed as it was in 1853 by the disastrous strike -of the Preston cotton-spinners for a ten per cent advance, by an -equally unsuccessful struggle of the Kidderminster carpet-weavers, -and by a fierce and futile conflict by the Dowlais ironworkers,[367] -increased the disinclination of the Unions to aggressive trade action -on a large scale. The disrepute into which strikes had fallen was -intensified by the spread among the more thoughtful working men of -the principles of Industrial Co-operation. This new development of -Owen’s teaching took two forms, both, it need hardly be said, differing -fundamentally from the Owenism of 1834. In Lancashire the success of -the “Rochdale Pioneers,” established in 1844, had led to the rapid -extension of the Co-operative Store, the association of consumers for -the supply of their own wants. To some extent the stalwart leaders -of the Lancashire and Yorkshire working men were diverted from the -organisation of trade combinations to the establishment of co-operative -shops and corn-mills. Meanwhile the “Christian Socialists” of London -had caught up the idea of Buchez and the Parisian projects of 1848, -and were advocating with an almost apostolic fervour the formation -of associations of producers, in which groups of working men were to -become their own employers.[368] - -The generous enthusiasm with which the “Christian Socialists” -had thrown themselves into the Engineers’ struggle, and their -obvious devotion to the interests of Labour, gave their schemes -of “Self-governing Workshops” a great vogue. Numberless small -undertakings were started by operative engineers, cabinetmakers, -tailors, bootmakers, and hatters in the Metropolis and in other large -industrial centres, and for a few years the Executives and Committees -of the various Unions vied with each other in recommending co-operative -production to their members. But it soon became apparent that this new -form of co-operation was intended, not as an adjunct or a development -of the Trade Union, but as an alternative form of industrial -organisation. For, unlike the Owenites of 1834, the Christian -Socialists had no conception of the substitution of profit-making -enterprise by the whole body of wage-earners, organised either in a -self-contained community or in a complete Trades Union. They sought -only to replace the individual capitalist by self-governing bodies of -profit-making workmen. A certain number of the ardent spirits among the -London and north country workmen became the managers and secretaries -of these undertakings, and ceased to be energetic members of their -respective Unions. “We have found,” say the Engineers’ Executive in -their annual report of 1855, “that when a few of our own members have -commenced business hitherto they have abandoned the society, and -conducted the workshops even worse than other employers.” Fortunately -for the Trade Union Movement the uniform commercial failure of these -experiments, so long, at any rate, as they retained their original -form of the self-governing workshop, soon became obvious to those -concerned. The idea of “Co-operative Production” constantly reappears -in contemporary Trade Union records, but after the failure of the -co-operative establishments of 1848-52 it ceases, for nearly twenty -years, to be a question of “practical politics” in the Trade Union -world. - -In spite of this intellectual diversion the work of Trade Union -consolidation was being steadily carried on. The Amalgamated Engineers -doubled their numbers in the ten years that followed their strike, -and by 1861 their Union had accumulated the unprecedented balance -of £73,398. The National Societies of Ironfounders and Stonemasons -grew in a similar proportion. A revival of Trade Unionism took place -among the textile operatives. The present association of Lancashire -cotton-spinners began its career in 1853, whilst the cotton-weavers -secured in the same year what has been fitly termed their Magna Charta, -the “Blackburn List” of piecework rates. But with the exception of -the building trades, Trade Unionism assumed, during these years, -a peaceful attitude. The leaders no longer declaimed against “the -idle classes,” but sought to justify the Trade Union position with -arguments based on middle-class economics. The contributions of the -Amalgamated Engineers are described “as a general voluntary rate in -aid of the Poor’s Rate.”[369] The Executive Council cannot doubt -that employers will not “regard a society like ours with disfavour. -They will begin to understand that it is not intended, nor adapted, -to damage their interests, but rather to advance them, by elevating -the character of their workmen, and proportionately lessening their -own responsibilities.” The project of substituting “Councils of -Conciliation” for strikes and lock-outs grew in favour with Trade -Union leaders. Hundreds of petitions in favour of their establishment -were got up by the National Association of United Trades, then on its -last legs. The House of Commons Committees in 1856 and 1860 found the -operatives in all trades disposed to support the principle of voluntary -submission to arbitration. For a brief period it seemed as if peace was -henceforth to prevail over the industrial world. - -The era of strikes which set in with the contraction of trade in 1857 -proved how fallacious had been these hopes. The building trades, in -particular, had remained less affected than the Engineers or the -Cotton Operatives by the change of tone. The local branches of the -Stonemasons, Bricklayers, and other building trade operatives, often -against the wish of their Central Committees, were engaged between -1853 and 1859 in an almost constant succession of little strikes -against separate firms, in which the men were generally successful in -gaining advances of wages.[370] These years were, moreover, notable -for the recognition in the provincial building trades of “working -rules,” or signed agreements between employers and workmen (usually -between the local Masters’ Associations and the Trade Unions), -specifying in minute detail the conditions of the collective bargain. -Without doubt the adoption of these rules was a step forward in the -direction of industrial peace; but, like international treaties, they -were frequently preceded by desperate conflicts in which both sides -exhausted their resources, and learnt to respect the strength of the -other party. With the depression of trade more important disputes -occurred. During 1858 fierce conflicts arose between masters and men -in the flint glass industry and in the West Yorkshire coalfield. -The introduction of the sewing-machine into the boot and shoemaking -villages of Northamptonshire led to a series of angry struggles. But -of the great disputes of 1858 to 1861, the builders’ strike in the -Metropolis in 1859-60 was by far the most important in its effect upon -the Trade Union Movement. - -The dispute of 1859 originated in the growing movement for a shortening -of the hours of labour.[371] The demand for a Nine Hours Day in the -Building Trades was first made by the Liverpool Stonemasons in 1846, -and renewed by the London Stonemasons in 1853. In neither case, -however, was the claim persisted in. Four years later the movement was -revived by the London Carpenters, whose memorial to their employers was -met, after a joint conference, by a decisive refusal. Meanwhile the -Stonemasons were seeking to obtain the Saturday half-holiday, which -the employers equally refused. This led, in the autumn of 1858, to the -formation of a Joint Committee of Carpenters, Masons, and Bricklayers, -which, on November 18, 1858, addressed a dignified memorial to the -master builders, urging that the hours of labour should be shortened -by one per day, and that future building contracts should be accepted -on this basis. At first ignored by the employers, this request was -eventually refused as decidedly as it had been in 1853 and 1857. The -Joint Committee thereupon made a renewed attempt by petitioning four -firms selected by ballot. Among these was that of Messrs. Trollope, -who promptly dismissed one of the men who had presented the memorial. -This action led to an immediate strike against Messrs. Trollope. -Within a fortnight every master builder in London employing over fifty -men had closed his establishment, and twenty-four thousand men were -peremptorily deprived of their employment. The controversy which raged -in the columns of contemporary newspapers during this pitched battle -between Capital and Labour brought out in strong relief the state of -mind of the Metropolitan employers. Uninfluenced by the progress of -public opinion, or by the new tone of respect and moderation adopted by -Trade Union leaders, the London employers took up the position of their -predecessors of 1834. They absolutely refused to recognise the claim of -the representatives of the men even to discuss with them the conditions -of employment. This attitude was combined with a determined attempt to -destroy all combination, the instrument adopted being the well-worn -Document. The Central Association of Master Builders resolved, in terms -almost identical with its predecessor of 1834, that “no member of this -Association shall engage or continue in his employment any contributor -to the funds of any Trades Union or Trades Society which practises -interference with the regulation of any establishment, the hours or -terms of labour, the contracts or agreements of employers or employed, -or the qualification or terms of service.” - -This declaration of war on Trade Unionism gained for the men on strike -the support of the whole Trade Union world. The Central Committee -of the great society of Stonemasons, which had hitherto discouraged -the Metropolitan Nine Hours Movement as premature, took up the -struggle against the Document as one of vital importance. Meetings of -delegates from the organised Metropolitan trades were held in order -to rally the forces of Trade Unionism to the cause of the builders. -The subscriptions which poured in from all parts of the kingdom -demonstrated the possession, in the hands of trade societies, of heavy -and hitherto unsuspected reserves of financial strength. The London -Pianoforte Makers contributed £300. The Flint Glass Makers, who had -just emerged from a prolonged struggle on their own account, sent a -similar sum. “Trades Committees” were formed in all the industrial -centres, and remitted large amounts. Glasgow and Manchester sent over -£800 each, and Liverpool over £500. The newly formed Yorkshire Miners’ -Association forwarded £230. The Boilermakers, Coopers, and Coachmakers’ -Societies were especially liberal in their gifts. But the sensation of -the subscription list was the grant by the Amalgamated Engineers of -three successive weekly donations of £1000 each--an event long recalled -with emotion by the survivors of the struggle. Altogether some £23,000 -were subscribed (exclusive of the payments by the societies directly -concerned), an amount far in excess of any previous strike subsidy. - -Such abundant support enabled the men to defeat the employers’ aims, -though not to secure their own demands. The Central Association of -Master Builders clung desperately to the Document, but failed to -obtain an adequate number of men willing to subscribe to its terms. -In December 1859 a suggestion was made by Lord St. Leonards that -the Document be withdrawn, a lengthy statement of the law relating -to trade combinations being hung up in all the establishments as a -substitute. The employers’ obstinacy held out for two months longer, -but finally succumbed in February 1860, when the Platonic suggestion of -Lord St. Leonards was adopted, and the embittered dispute was brought -to an end. - -This drawn battle between the forces of Capital and Labour ranks as a -leading event in Trade Union history, not only because it revived the -feeling of solidarity between different trades, but also on account -of the importance of two consolidating organisations to which it gave -birth. Out of the Building Trades Strike of 1859-60 arose the London -Trades Council (to be described in the following chapter) and the -Amalgamated Society of Carpenters, the most notable adoption by another -trade of the “New Model” introduced by Newton and Allan. - -The strike had revealed to the London carpenters the complete state of -disorganisation into which their industry had fallen. It was they, it -is true, who had initiated the Nine Hours Movement in the Metropolis, -but the committee which memorialised the employers had represented no -body of organised workmen. George Potter, who was the leader of this -movement, could draw around him only a group of delegates elected -by the men in each shop. There were, indeed, not more than about a -thousand carpenters in London who were members of any trade society -whatsoever, and these were scattered among numerous tiny benefit clubs. -The Friendly Society of Operative Carpenters, which, as we have seen, -was a militant branch of the Builders’ Union of 1830-34, had, like the -Stonemasons’ Society, maintained a continuous existence. Unlike that -society, however, it had kept the old character of a loose federation -for trade purposes only, depending for its finances upon occasional -levies. Perhaps for this reason it had lost its exclusive hold upon -the provinces, and had gained no footing in London. As a competent -observer remarks: “At the time of the 1859-60 strikes the masons alone -of the building trades were organised into a single society extending -throughout England, and providing not only for trade purposes, but for -the ordinary benefits.... The London masons locked out were supported -regularly and punctually by their society, and could have continued the -struggle for an indefinite time; but the other trades, split up into -numerous local societies, were soon reduced to extremities.”[372] The -Carpenters’ Committee saw with envy the capacity of the Stonemasons’ -Society to provide long-continued strike pay for its members, and -were profoundly impressed by the successive donations of £1000 each -made by the Amalgamated Engineers. Directly the strike was over, the -leading members of the little benefit clubs met together to discuss -the formation of a national organisation on the Engineers’ model. -William Allan lent them every assistance in adapting the rules of his -own society to the carpenters’ trade, and watched over the preliminary -proceedings. The new society started on June 4, 1860, with a few -hundred members. For the first two years its progress was slow; but in -October 1862 it had the good fortune to elect as its general secretary -a man whose ability and cautious sagacity promptly raised it to a -position of influence in the Trade Union world. Robert Applegarth, -secretary of a local Carpenters’ Union at Sheffield, had been quick to -perceive the advantages of amalgamation, and had brought his society -over with him. Under his administration the new Union advanced by leaps -and bounds, and in a few years it stood, in magnitude of financial -transactions and accumulated funds, second only to the Amalgamated -Society of Engineers itself. Moreover, Applegarth’s capacity brought -him at once into that little circle of Trade Union leaders whose -activity forms during the next ten years the central point of Trade -Union history. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[308] Between 1850 and 1874 there was (except, perhaps, during the -American Civil War) no falling off in the value of our export trade -comparable to the serious declines of 1826, 1829, 1837, 1842, and -1848. We do not pretend to account for this difference, but may remind -the reader of the coincident increase in the production of gold, the -influence of Free Trade and railways, and, as the bimetallists would -tell us, the currency arrangements which were brought to an end in 1873. - -[309] This was an elaborate national organisation with 60 branches, -grouped under five District Boards. But it enrolled only 4320 members, -and broke up in 1847, after numerous local strikes. In June 1849 most -of the provincial branches joined in the Typographical Association, -from which for some time the strong Manchester and Birmingham societies -stood aloof; whilst the London men formed the London Society of -Compositors. - -[310] _The Colliers’ Guide, showing the Necessity of the Colliers -Uniting to Protect their Labour from the Iron Hand of Oppression_, -etc., by J. B. Thompson (Bishop Wearmouth, 1843); and see many -reports in the _Northern Star_, from 1843 to 1848; _The Miners of -Northumberland and Durham_, by Richard Fynes, 1873; _A Great Labour -Leader_ [Thomas Burt], by Aaron Watson, 1908, pp. 19-23. - -[311] _Northern Star_ for 1843-4; Fynes’ _Miners of Northumberland and -Durham_, 1873, chap. viii.; _Condition of the Working Class in England -in 1844_, by Friedrich Engels, 1892, pp. 253-9. - -[312] William Prowting Roberts, the youngest son of the Rev. Thomas -Roberts, of Chelmsford, was born in 1806, and became a solicitor at -Manchester. He was an enthusiastic Chartist, and friend of Fergus -O’Connor, to whose Land Bank he acted as legal adviser. From 1843 -onwards his name appears in nearly all the legal business of the -Trade Unions. The collapse of 1848 somewhat damaged his reputation, -but he continued to be frequently retained for many years. In 1867 -he organised the defence of Allen, Larking, and O’Brien, the Irish -“Manchester Martyrs,” who were hanged for the rescue of Fenian -prisoners and the murder of a policeman. In later years Roberts retired -to a country house in the neighbourhood of “O’Connorville,” near -Rickmansworth, the scene of one of O’Connor’s colonies, where he died -on September 7, 1871. A pamphlet on the Trade Union Bill of 1871 is the -only publication of his that we have discovered, but he appears also to -have edited a report of the engineers’ trial in 1847, and reports of -some other legal proceedings. - -[313] _Flint Glass Makers’ Magazine_, October 1851. The years 1847-8 -had witnessed many strikingly vindictive prosecutions of Trade -Unionists. Besides the case of the engineers, to which we shall refer -hereafter, twenty-one stonemasons of London were indicted in 1848 for -conspiracy, but, after repeated postponements, the prosecuting employer -failed to proceed with the case. The Sheffield razor-grinders stood -in greater jeopardy. John Drury, and three other members of their -society, were tried and sentenced to ten years’ transportation at the -instance of the Sheffield Manufacturers’ Protection Association on the -random accusations of two dissolute convicts that they had incited them -to destroy machinery. This monstrous perversion of justice aroused -the greatest indignation. Public meetings were held by the National -Association of United Trades. The indictment was quashed on a technical -point, but a new one was immediately preferred against the defendants. -The local feeling was, however, so great that they were finally, after -a year’s suspense, released on their own recognisances (July 12, 1849). -A Sheffield Trade Unionist declared that “the tyranny of the employers -had been so great,” in perverting the local administration of the -law, “that the men laid their grievances before the Government. Sir -George Grey ordered an inquiry.... Twenty cases of parties who had been -convicted by the magistrates were brought before a Board of Inquiry, -seventeen of which were quashed” (_Stonemasons’ Fortnightly Circular_, -November 23, 1848). - -[314] Bill No. 58 of 1844, introduced by William Miles, M.P. (Hansard, -vols. 73 and 74.) - -[315] _Potters’ Examiner_, April 13, 1844. - -[316] Hansard, vols. 73 and 74. The Bill was lost by 54 to 97 (May 1, -1844); see _Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844_, by -Friedrich Engels, 1892, pp. 283-4. - -[317] _The Miners of Northumberland and Durham_, by Richard Fynes, -1873, chap. ix.; _The British Coal Trade_, by H. Stanley Jevons, 1915, -pp. 448-51. - -[318] _Rules and Regulations of the Association of United Trades for -the Protection of Industry_ (London, August 2, 1845). There is, as -far as we know, only one copy of these rules in existence, but full -particulars of its establishment and working are to be found in the -_Northern Star_, which it used for a time as its official organ. - -[319] Thomas Slingsby Duncombe was the aristocratic demagogue of the -period. An accomplished man of the world, with the habits of a dandy, -he nevertheless devoted himself with remarkable assiduity not only to -the Parliamentary business of the Chartists and Trade Unionists, but -also to the dry details of the committee work of the association of -which he became president. The _Life and Correspondence_ of Duncombe, -which his son published in 1868, describes him almost exclusively as -a fashionable man of the world and House of Commons politician, and -entirely ignores his more solid work for Trade Unionism during the -years 1845-8. - -[320] In this document we may perhaps trace the hand of T. J. Dunning, -one of the ablest Trade Unionists of his time. Born in 1799, he became -Secretary of the Consolidated Society of Bookbinders in 1843. In 1845 -he joined the National Association of United Trades, but left that -body after a few years. The _Bookbinders’ Circular_, which he started -in 1850, was, during the rest of his life, largely written by himself, -and contains many well-reasoned articles on Trade Union matters. In -1858 Dunning joined the celebrated Committee of Inquiry into Trade -Societies which was appointed by the Social Science Association. He -contributed a history of his own society to the Report, and frequently -took part in the subsequent annual congresses. His chief literary -production is the essay entitled, _Trades Unions and Strikes; their -philosophy and intention_ (1860, 50 pp.), which he wrote for the prize -instituted by his own Union for the best defence of the workmen’s -organisation. This essay, which no publisher would accept, and which -was printed by his society, remains, perhaps--apart from George -Howell’s historical researches in _Conflicts of Capital and Labour_, -and _Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and Labour Leaders_--the -best presentation of the Trade Union case which any manual worker has -produced. He died in harness on the 23rd of December 1873. - -[321] Report of London Committee of Trades Delegates to the National -Conference of Trades Delegates, Easter, 1845; preserved in the archives -of the Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons. - -[322] _Stonemasons’ Fortnightly Circular_, May 14, 1846. - -[323] Minutes of delegate meetings of the “Operative Cotton-spinners, -Self-acting Minders, Twiners, and Rovers,” held every other Sunday. See -July 20, August 3, and December 14, 1845. - -[324] _Times_, November 16, 1846. - -[325] The tinplate-workers of Wolverhampton had been endeavouring, -ever since they joined the Association in 1845, to obtain a uniform -list of piecework rates. By the influence of the National Association, -such a list was agreed to during 1849 by all the employers except -two. One of these treated the men with exceptional duplicity. Having, -as he thought, adequately prepared himself; he threw off the mask -in July 1850, and flatly refused to continue the negotiations. The -fierce industrial and legal conflict which ensued attracted general -attention. Many of the strikers were imprisoned for breach of contract; -and the struggle culminated in the prosecution of three members of -the committee of the National Association, together with several of -the local Unionists, for conspiracy to molest and intimidate the -employer by inducing men to leave his employment. Owing to legal -quibbles, raised first on behalf of the Crown, and then on behalf of -the defendants, the case was tried no fewer than three times, the -final judgment not being delivered until November 1851, when five of -the prisoners were sentenced to three months’, and one to one month’s -imprisonment. See R. _v._ Rowlands, 5 Cox C. C. p, 436; also Appendix A -to _The Law relating to Trade Unions_, by Sir William Erie, 1869. - -[326] Duncombe formally resigned the presidency in 1852. In 1856 its -secretary, Thomas Winters, gave evidence in favour of conciliation -before the Select Committee on Masters and Operatives (Equitable -Councils, etc.). He stated that the membership then numbered between -5,000 and 6,000, and that the central committee consisted of three -salaried members, who gave up their whole time to the work. A -subsequent secretary (E. Humphries) appeared before a similar committee -four years later, his evidence showing that the association, though -it was still in existence, had taken no part in any of the important -labour struggles of the past seven or eight years. Mr. George Howell -incidentally puts the date of its dissolution at 1860 or 1861 (see -his article “Trades Union Congresses and Social legislation” in -_Contemporary Review_ for September 1889). - -[327] _English Stonemasons’ Fortnightly Circular_, December 25, 1845. - -[328] The _Potters’ Examiner_, started December 1843, was converted, -in July 1848, into the _Potters’ Examiner and Emigrants’ Advocate_, -published at Liverpool and concerned chiefly with emigration. It ceased -to appear soon after 1851. - -[329] See especially the articles on “Wages of Labour and Trade -Societies” in the second, third, and fourth numbers (December 1850 to -February 1851), in which he assumes that the general level of wages is -irresistibly determined by Supply and Demand, but that Trade Unionism, -in providing out-of-work pay, enables the individual workman to resist -exceptional tyranny or exaction. - -[330] This journal contains a mass of useful information relating -to the trade, special reports of the Trades Union Congresses, and -well-written articles on industrial and economic problems. It is -marked throughout by moderation of tone and fairness of argument. -Unfortunately, so far as we know, it is not preserved in any public -library, and we were indebted to Mr. Haddleton, Secretary to the -Birmingham Trades Council, who, in 1893, possessed a complete set, for -our acquaintance with its contents. - -[331] Opening Address to the Glass Makers of England, Ireland, and -Scotland, No. 1. - -[332] Report of London Compositors’ Committee on Amalgamation, 1834; -Annual Report, February 2, 1835. - -[333] _Address of Delegate Meeting to the Members of the Friendly -Society of Ironmoulders of England, Ireland, and Wales_, September 26, -1846. - -[334] _Fortnightly Circular_, December 25, 1845. - -[335] _Ibid._, June 1849. - -[336] January 1855. - -[337] Letter on “The Evil Consequences of Strikes,” in _Flint Glass -Makers’ Magazine_, July 1850. The suggested alternative--the Strike in -Detail--is discussed in our _Industrial Democracy_. - -[338] _Address of the Delegate Meeting to the Members of the Friendly -Society of Ironmoulders_, 1846. - -[339] “Emigration as a Means to an End,” _Flint Glass Makers’ -Magazine_, August 1854; address of Executive, September 1857. - -[340] “Thus if in a depression you have fifty men out of work they will -receive £1,015 in a year, and at the same time be used as a whip by -the employers to bring your wages down; by sending them to Australia -at £20 per head you save £15, and send them to plenty instead of -starvation at home; you keep your own wages good by the simple act of -clearing the surplus labour out of the market” (Farewell Address of the -Secretary, _Flint Glass Makers’ Magazine_, August, 1854). “Remove the -surplus labour and oppression itself will soon be a thing of the past” -(_Ibid._). - -[341] Emigration Funds begin to appear in Trade Union Reports about -1843 (see the _Potters’ Examiner_). For thirty years the accounts of -the larger societies include, off and on, considerable appropriations -for the emigration of members. The tabular statement of expenditure -published in the Ironmoulders’ Annual Report shows, for instance, that -£4,712 was spent in this way between 1855 and 1874. In the Amalgamated -Carpenters an Emigration Benefit lingered until 1886, when it was -finally abolished by the General Council; the members resident in the -United States and Colonies strongly objecting to this use of the funds. -But it was between 1850 and 1860 that emigration found most favour as -an integral part of Trade Union policy. The Trade Unions of the United -States and the Australian Colonies addressed vigorous protests to the -officials of the English societies (see, for example, the _Stonemasons’ -Fortnightly Circular_, June 1856), a fact which co-operated with the -dying away of the “gold rush,” and the change of Trade Union opinion, -to cause the abandonment of the policy, until it was revived in 1872 -for a decade or so, by the Agricultural Labourers’ Unions. - -[342] _Flint Glass Makers’ Magazine_, September 1857. - -[343] During these years the Executive Committees of the larger -societies were waging war on the “liquor allowance.” In the reports and -financial statements of the Unions for the first half of the century, -drink was one of the largest items of expenditure, express provision -being made by the rules for the refreshment of the officers and members -at all meetings. The rules of the London Society of Woolstaplers (1813) -state that “the President shall be accommodated with his own choice -of liquors, wine only excepted.” The Friendly Society of Ironmoulders -(1809) ordains that the Marshal shall distribute the beer round the -meeting impartially, members being forbidden to drink out of turn -“except the officers at the table or a member on his first coming to -the town.” Even as late as 1837 the rules of the Steam-Engine Makers’ -Society direct one-third of the weekly contribution to be spent in -the refreshment of the members, a provision which drops out in the -revision of 1846. In that year the Delegate Meeting of the Ironmoulders -prohibited drinking and smoking at its own sittings, and followed up -this self-denying ordinance by altering the rules of the society so as -to change the allowance of beer at branch meetings to its equivalent in -money. “We believe,” they remark in their address to the members, “the -business of the society would be much better done were there no liquor -allowance. Interruption, confusion, and scenes of violence and disorder -are often the characteristic of meetings where order, calmness, and -impartiality should prevail.” By 1860 most of the larger societies -had abolished all allowance for liquor, and some had even prohibited -its consumption during business meetings. It is to be remembered that -the Unions had, at first, no other meeting place than the club-room -freely placed at their disposal by the publican, and that their -payment for drink was of the nature of rent. Meanwhile the Compositors -and Bookbinders were removing their headquarters from public-houses -to offices of their own, and the Steam-Engine Makers were allowing -branches to hire rooms for meetings so as to avoid temptation. In 1850 -the Ironmoulders report that some publicans were refusing to lend rooms -for meetings, owing to the growth of Temperance. - -[344] It was the strength of their organisation in London in 1799, -as we have seen, that led to the employers’ petition to the House of -Commons, out of which sprang the Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800. See -also the evidence given by Galloway and other employers before the 1824 -Select Committee on Artisans and Machinery; also incidental references -in the _Life of Sir William Fairbairn_, 1877, and other works. We -have been unable to discover any documents of engineering societies -prior to 1822. Sir William Fairbairn, in the preface to his _Mills and -Mill-work_, 1861, attributes the supersession of the millwright to the -changes consequent on the introduction of the steam-engine. - -[345] William Newton was born at Congleton in 1822, his father, who had -once occupied a superior position, being then a journeyman machinist. -The boy went to work in engine shops at the age of fourteen, joined the -Hanley Branch of the Journeymen Steam-Engine Makers’ Society in 1842, -soon afterwards moving to London (where he worked in the same shop -as Henry James, afterwards Lord James of Hereford, then an engineer -pupil, and later noted for his knowledge of Trade Unionism), and rose -to be foreman. After his dismissal in 1848 for his Trade Union activity -he took a public-house at Ratcliffe, and devoted himself largely to -the promotion of the amalgamation of the engineering societies. In -1852 he became, for a short period, secretary to a small insurance -company. At the General Election of 1852 he became a candidate for the -Tower Hamlets. He was opposed by both the great political parties, -but the show of hands at the hustings was in his favour. At the poll -he was unsuccessful, receiving, however, 1,095 votes. In 1860 he was -presented with a testimonial (including a sum of £300) from his A.S.E. -fellow-members. In later years he became the proprietor of a prosperous -local newspaper and was elected by the Stepney Vestry as its chairman -and also as its representative on the Metropolitan Board of Works. He -became one of the leading members of that body, on which he served -from 1862 to 1876, filling the important office of deputy chairman to -the Parliamentary, Fire Brigade, and other influential committees. In -1868 he again contested the Tower Hamlets against both Liberals and -Conservatives, receiving 2,890 votes; and in 1875 he unsuccessfully -fought a bye-election at Ipswich. He died March 9, 1876, when his -funeral, in which the Metropolitan Board of Works took part, assumed a -public character. - -[346] This journal is preserved in the Manchester Public Library (341, -P. 37). It was a well-written 16 pp. 8vo, issued, at first fortnightly -and afterwards monthly, at 2d. No. 1 is dated July 4, 1840. - -[347] Minutes of delegate meeting at Manchester, May 12, 1845. An -admirable account of this society, founded on documents no longer -extant, is given in an article by Professor Brentano in the _North -British Review_, October 1870, entitled “The Growth of a Trades Union,” -For some other particulars see the _Jubilee Souvenir History of the -Amalgamated Society of Engineers_, 1901. - -[348] Executive Circular, 1846, cited in proceedings in _R._ v. -_Selsby_. Two full accounts of the trial were published, viz. a -_Verbatim Report of the Trial for Conspiracy in R._ v. _Selsby and -others_ (Liverpool, 1847, 66 pp.), published under the “authority of -the Executive of the Steam-Engine Makers’ Society,” and a _Narrative, -etc., of the Trial, R._ v. _Selsby_ (London, 1847, 68 pp.). Both -are preserved in the Manchester Public Library, P. 2198. The legal -report is in Cox’s _Crown Cases_, vol. v. p. 496, etc. Contemporary -Trade Union reports contain many references to the proceedings. It -was noticed as an instance of the animus of the prosecution that the -indictment contained 4914 counts, and measured fifty-seven yards in -length. W. P. Roberts organised the defence, which cost the Union -£1800. The firm in whose works the dispute arose became bankrupt within -a few years. See the _Jubilee Souvenir History of the Amalgamated -Society of Engineers_, 1901. - -[349] _The Trades Advocate and Herald of Progress_ was an 8 pp. quarto -weekly, price 1d., No. 1 being dated June 1850. The volume from June -to December 1850 is preserved in the Manchester Public Library (401 -E, 18). An able article by John Burnett in the _Newcastle Weekly -Chronicle_, July 3, 1875, gives a vivid picture of the struggle for -amalgamation. - -[350] This was pointed out in Professor Brentano’s article in the -_North British Review_, already quoted. - -[351] The organ of the Executive Council was the _Operative_, a -well-written weekly journal, which was set on foot by Newton in January -1851. The price was at first 1½d., and afterwards 1d. per number. The -issues from the beginning down to July 1852, probably all that were -published, are preserved in the British Museum (P. P. 1424, a.m.). -Newton acted as editor, and contributed nearly all the articles -relating to the engineers and Trade Unions generally. - -[352] The largest and most powerful of the other Unions in 1851 were -those of the Ironfounders and the Stonemasons, which numbered between -four and five thousand members each. It must be remembered that the -previous ephemeral associations of the cotton-spinners and miners, -which often for a time counted their tens of thousands of members, were -exclusively strike organisations, with contributions of 1d. or 2d. per -week only. The huge associations of 1830-34 had usually no regular -subscription at all, and depended on irregularly paid levies. A trade -society which, like the Amalgamated Engineers, could count on a regular -income of £500 a week was without precedent. - -[353] See the resolutions of the Birmingham Delegate Meeting of the -Iron Trades, September 28, 1850, in the _Trades Union Advocate_, -November 1850. - -[354] It was resolved: “That we are prepared to assist the workmen at -Messrs. Platt to the utmost of our power, but cannot consent to the men -leaving their situations, because they may not at present be able to -obtain the working of the machines.” The best account of the struggle -is to be found in the _Jubilee Souvenir History of the A.S.E._ (1901), -pp. 34-41. - -[355] Lord Goderich, afterwards the Marquis of Ripon, gave the -Executive a cheque for £500 to enable the strike pay to be kept up on -a temporary emergency; one of many generous efforts, during a long -lifetime, to assist the wage-earning class. - -[356] Executive Circular of April 26, 1852, in _Operative_, May 1, -1852. A number of the men refused to sign, and many emigrated. E. -Vansittart Neale advanced £1030 to members for this purpose, the whole -of which was repaid by the borrowers. - -[357] Among the abundant literature on this great struggle may be -mentioned the _Account_, by Thomas (afterwards Judge) Hughes, in the -_Report on Trade Societies_, by the Social Science Association, 1860; -J. M. Ludlow’s lectures, entitled _The Master Engineers and their -Workmen_, 1852; a pamphlet, _May I not do what I will with my own?_ by -E. Vansittart Neale; _Jubilee Souvenir History of the A.S.E._, 1901; -and the evidence given by William Newton (for the men) and Sidney -Smith (for the employers) before the Select Committee on Masters -and Operatives (Equitable Councils, etc.) in 1856. The employers’ -manifestoes will be found in the _Times_ from December 1851 to April -1852; the men’s documents and reports of their meetings in the -_Operative_ (edited by Newton), and in the _Northern Star_, then at its -last gasp. - -[358] It ended the struggle with £700 in hand. Its membership at the -end of 1852 had fallen from 11,829 to 9737, but even then it had a -balance in hand of £5382, and within three years the members had -increased to 12,553, and the accumulated funds to the unprecedented -total of £35,695. And unlike all previous trade societies, its record -from 1852 down to the present time has been one of continued growth -and prosperity, the membership at the end of 1919 being 320,000, with -accumulated funds not far short of three million pounds, being greater -in aggregate amount than the possessions of any other Trade Union -organisation of this or any other country. - -[359] Preface to Rules of the Journeymen Steam-Engine, Machine Makers, -and Millwrights’ Friendly Society, edition of 1845. - -[360] This plan of “equalisation” is, so far as we know, peculiar to -Trade Unions, though we understand from Dr. Baernreither’s _English -Associations of Working Men_, pp. 283-84, that a few branches of some -of the Friendly Societies adopted a somewhat similar system. Its origin -is unknown to us, but the device is traditionally ascribed to the -Journeymen Steam-Engine and Machine Makers and Millwrights’ Society, -established in 1826. It was also in early use by the Steam-Engine -Makers’ Society, established in 1824. Until the Trade Union Act of 1871 -it had a positive use. Depending, as Trade Unions were obliged to do, -upon the integrity of their officers, there were great advantages in -the wide distribution of the funds and the local responsibility of each -branch for the safe keeping of its share. - -[361] That is to say, local differences in the cost of living have -always been taken into account. - -[362] Such protests were frequent in the evidence before the Royal -Commission of 1867-68, and form the staple of the innumerable -criticisms on Trade Unionism between 1852 and 1879. A good vindication -of the Trade Union position is contained in Professor Beesly’s article -in the _Fortnightly Review_, 1867, which was republished as a pamphlet, -_The Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners_, 1867, 20 pp. - -[363] The unique collection of these circulars, containing not only -statistical and other information of the society, but also frequent -references to the building trades and the general movement, was -generously placed at our disposal for the purpose of this work, and we -have found it of the utmost value. - -[364] See, for instance, the evidence of Mault, Questions 3980 in -Second Report and 4086 in Third Report. - -[365] Report of Special Committee, 1869. - -[366] The National Association of United Trades continued, as we have -already seen, in nominal existence until 1860 or 1861, but after 1852 -it sank to a membership of a few thousands, and played practically no -part in the Trade Union world. - -[367] _Times_, June to December 1853. - -[368] A more detailed account of these developments will be found -in _The Co-operative Movement in Great Britain_ (1891; second -edition, 1893), by Beatrice Potter (Mrs. Sidney Webb); _Co-operative -Production_, by Benjamin Jones, 1894; and in the Report of the Fabian -Research Department on Co-operative Production, published as a -supplement to _The New Statesman_, February 14, 1914. - -[369] _Address of the Executive Council of the Amalgamated Society of -Engineers to their Fellow-Workmen_, 1855. - -[370] See _The Strikes, their Extent, Evils, and Remedy, being a -Description of the General Movement of the Mass of the Building -Operatives throughout the United Kingdom_, by Vindex (1853), 56 pp. One -consequence of this renewed outburst of strikes was the appointment -in 1858 by the newly formed National Association for the Promotion -of Social Science of a Committee to inquire into trade societies and -disputes. This inquiry, conducted by able and zealous investigators, -resulted in 1860 in the publication of a volume which contains the -best collection of Trade Union material and the most impartial account -of Trade Union action that has ever been issued. As a source of -history and economic illustration this _Report on Trade Societies and -Strikes_ (1860, 651 pp.) is far superior to the Parliamentary Blue -Books of 1824, 1825, 1838, and 1867-68. Among the contributors were -Godfrey Lushington (afterwards Under-Secretary of State for the Home -Department), J. M. Ludlow (afterwards Registrar of Friendly Societies), -Thomas (afterwards Judge) Hughes, Q.C., Mr. G. Shaw-Lefevre (afterwards -Lord Eversley), F. D. Longe, and Frank Hill. The Committee was presided -over by the late Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth, and amongst its other -members may be mentioned W. E. Forster, Henry Fawcett, R. H. Hutton, -Rev. F. D. Maurice, Dr. William Farr, and one Trade Union secretary, T. -J. Dunning, of the London Bookbinders. - -[371] See the account of it in _Labour Legislation, Labour Movements, -and Labour Leaders_, by G. Howell, 1902. - -[372] Prof. E. S. Beesly, _Fortnightly Review_, 1867. - - - - -CHAPTER V - -THE JUNTA AND THEIR ALLIES - - -Many influences had during the preceding years been co-operating to -form what may almost be described as a cabinet of the Trade Union -Movement. The establishment of such great trade friendly societies as -the Amalgamated Engineers had created, in some sense, a new school -of Trade Union officials, face to face with intricate problems of -administration and finance. The presence in London of the headquarters -of these societies brought their salaried officers into close personal -intimacy with each other. And it so happened that during these years -the little circle of secretaries included men of marked character and -ability, who were, both by experience and by temperament, admirably -fitted to guide the movement through the acute crisis which we shall -presently describe. - -Foremost in this little group--which we shall hereafter call the -Junta--were the general secretaries of the two amalgamated societies -of Engineers and Carpenters, William Allan and Robert Applegarth, -whose success in building up these powerful organisations had given -them great influence in Trade Union councils. Bound to these in close -personal friendship were Daniel Guile, the general secretary of the old -and important national society of Ironfounders, Edwin Coulson, general -secretary of the “London Order” of Bricklayers, and George Odger, a -prominent member of a small union of highly skilled makers of ladies’ -shoes, and an influential leader of London working-class Radicalism. - -William Allan was the originator of the “New Unionism” of his -time.[373] We have already described how, with the aid of William -Newton, he had gathered up the scattered fragments of organisation in -the engineering trade, and had adapted the elaborate constitution and -financial system of an old-established society to the needs of a great -national amalgamation. In long hours of patient labour in the office -he had built up an extremely methodical, if somewhat cumbrous, system -of financial checks and trade reports, by which the exact position of -each of his tens of thousands of members was at all times recorded in -his official pigeonholes. The permanence of his system is the best -testimony to its worth. Even to-day the Engineers’ head office retains -throughout the impress of Allan’s tireless and methodical industry. -Excessive caution, red-tape precision, an almost miserly solicitude -for the increase of the society’s funds, were among Allan’s defects. -But at a time when working men “agitators” were universally credited -with looseness in money matters and incapacity for strenuous and -regular mental effort, these defects, however equivocal may have been -their ultimate effect on the policy and development of the Amalgamated -Society of Engineers, produced a favourable impression on the public. -Allan, moreover, though not a brilliant speaker, or a man of wide -general interests, was a keen working-class politician, whose temper -and judgement could always be depended on. And he has left behind him -the tradition, not only of absolute integrity and abnormal industry, -but also of a singular freedom from personal vanity or ambition. - -Whilst Allan aimed at transforming the “paid agitator” into the -trusted officer of a great financial corporation, Robert Applegarth -sought to win for the Trade Union organisation a recognised social -and political status. Astute and lawyer-like in temperament, he -instinctively made use of those arguments which were best fitted to -overcome the prejudices and disarm the criticisms of middle-class -opponents. Nor did he limit himself to justifying the ways of Trade -Unionists to the world at large. He made persistent attempts to enlarge -the mental horizon of the rank and file of his own movement, opening -out to those whose vision had hitherto been limited to the strike -and the tap-room, whole vistas of social and political problems in -which they as working men were primarily concerned. Hence we find -him, during his career as general secretary, a leading member of the -famous “International,”[374] and an energetic promoter of the Labour -Representation League, the National Education League, and various -philanthropic and political associations. Political reformers became -eager to secure his adhesion to their projects: he was, for instance, -specially invited to attend the important conferences of the National -Education League at Birmingham as the special representative of the -working classes; and it was owing to his reputation as a social -reformer that he was in 1870 selected to sit on the Royal Commission -upon the Contagious Diseases Acts, thus becoming the first working -man to be styled by his Sovereign “Our Trusty and Well-beloved.” -Open-minded, alert, and conciliatory, he formed an ideal representative -of the English Labour Movement in the political world.[375] - -The permanent officials of the Ironfounders and the London Bricklayers -were men of less originality than Allan or Applegarth. Guile was a man -of attractive personality and winning manner, gifted with a certain -rugged eloquence. Coulson is described by an opponent as being “stolid -and obstinate,” and again as “bricky and stodgy”; but the expansion, -under his influence, of the little London Society of Bricklayers into -a powerful Union of national scope, proves him to have possessed -administrative ability of no mean order. The special distinction of -all four alike was their business capacity, shown by the persistency -and success with which they pursued, each in his own trade, the policy -originated by Newton and Allan, of basing Trade Union organisation -upon an insurance company of national extent. George Odger brought to -the Junta quite other qualities than the cautious industry of Allan -or the lawyer-like capacity of Applegarth. Of the five men we have -mentioned he was the only one who continued to work at his trade, and -who retained to the last the full flavour of a working-class leader. An -orator of remarkable power, he swayed popular meetings at his will, and -was the idol of Metropolitan Radicalism. But he was no mere demagogue. -Beneath his brilliant rhetoric and emotional fervour there lay a large -measure of political shrewdness, and he shared with his colleagues the -capacity for deliberately concerted action and personal subordination. -His dilatory and unbusinesslike habits made him incapable of building -up a great organisation. Had he stood alone, he would have added little -to the strength of Trade Unionism; as the loyal adherent of the great -officials and their popular mouth-piece to the working-class world, -Unionist and non-Unionist alike, he gave the movement a wider basis, -and attracted into its ranks every ardent reformer belonging to the -artisan class.[376] - -It is difficult to-day to convey any adequate idea of the extraordinary -personal influence exercised by these five men, not only on their -immediate associates, but also as interpreters of the Trade Union -Movement, upon the public and the governing classes. For the first time -in the century the working-class movement came under the direction, -not of middle and upper class sympathisers like Place, Owen, Roberts, -O’Connor, or Duncombe, but of genuine workmen specially trained for the -position. For the first time, moreover, the leaders of working-class -politics stood together in a compact group, united by a close personal -friendship, and absolutely free from any trace of that suspiciousness -or disloyalty which have so often marred popular movements. They -brought to their task, it is true, no consistent economic theory or -political philosophy. They subscribed with equal satisfaction to the -crude Collectivism of the “International,” and the dogmatic industrial -Individualism of the English Radicals. This absence of a definite basis -to their political activity accounts, we think, for the drying up of -Trade Union politics after their withdrawal. We shall have occasion -hereafter to notice other “defects of their qualities,” and the way in -which these subsequently stunted the further development of their own -movement. But it was largely their very limitations which made them, -at this particular crisis, such valuable representatives of the Trade -Union Movement. They accepted, with perfect good faith, the economic -Individualism of their middle-class opponents, and claimed only that -freedom to combine which the more enlightened members of that class -were willing to concede to them. Their genuine if somewhat restrained -enthusiasm for political and industrial freedom gave them a persistency -and determination which no check could discourage. Their understanding -of the middle-class point of view, and their appreciation of the -practical difficulties of the situation, saved them from being mere -demagogues. For the next ten years, when it was all-important to obtain -a legal status for trade societies and to obliterate the unfortunate -impression created by the Sheffield outrages, their qualities exactly -suited the emergency. The possession of good manners, though it -may seem a trivial detail, was not the least of their advantages. -To perfect self-respect and integrity they added correctness of -expression, habits of personal propriety, and a remarkable freedom -from all that savoured of the tap-room. In Allan and Applegarth, Guile, -Coulson, and Odger, the traducers of Trade Unionism found themselves -confronted with a combination of high personal character, exceptional -business capacity, and a large share of that official decorum which the -English middle class find so impressive. - -Round these central personalities grouped themselves in London a number -of men of like temperament and aims. We have already had occasion to -mention T. J. Dunning, of the Bookbinders, grown old in the service of -Trade Unionism. The building trades contributed a younger generation, -John Prior, George Howell, Henry Broadhurst, and George Shipton. The -whole group were in touch with certain provincial leaders, who adhered -to the new views, and acted in close concert with the Junta. Of these, -the most noteworthy were Alexander Macdonald, then busily organising -the Miners’ National Union, John Kane,[377] of the North of England -Ironworkers, William Dronfield, the Sheffield compositor, and Alexander -Campbell, the leading spirit of the Glasgow Trades Council. - -The distinctive policy of the Junta was the combination of extreme -caution in trade matters and energetic agitation for political -reforms. It is indeed somewhat doubtful how far Allan and Applegarth, -Coulson and Guile shared the popular belief that trade combinations -could effect a general rise of wages or resist a general reduction -in a falling market. They had more faith in the moral force of great -reserve funds, by the aid of which, dispensed in liberal out-of-work -donations, one capitalist, or even a whole group of capitalists, might -be effectually prevented from obtaining labour at anything but the -standard conditions. Their trade policy was, in fact, restricted to -securing for every workman those terms which the best employers were -willing voluntarily to grant. For this reason they were constantly -accused of apathy by those hotter spirits whose idea of successful -Trade Unionism was a series of general strikes for advances or against -reductions. The Junta were really looking in another direction for the -emancipation of the worker. They believed that a levelling down of all -political privileges, and the opening out of educational and social -opportunities to all classes of the community, would bring in its train -a large measure of economic equality. Under the influence of these -leaders the London Unions, and eventually those of the provinces, were -drawn into a whole series of political agitations, for the Franchise, -for amendment of the Master and Servant law, for new Mines Regulation -Acts, for National Education, and finally for the full legalisation of -Trade Unions themselves. - -Practical difficulties hampered the complete execution of the Junta’s -policy. The use of the Trade Union organisation for Parliamentary -agitation, on which Macdonald, Applegarth, and Odger based all their -expectations of progress, came as a new idea to the Trade Union -world. The rank and file of Trade Unionists, still excluded from the -franchise, took practically no interest in any social or political -reform, and regarded their trade combinations exclusively as means of -extorting a rise of wages or of compelling their fellow-workmen to -join their clubs. This was especially the case with the provincial -organisations, where the officials usually shared the obscurantism -of their members. The “Manchester Order” of Bricklayers and the -General Union of Carpenters (headquarters, Manchester) were, like the -Midland Brickmakers and the Sheffield Cutlers, still wedded to the -old ideas of secrecy and coercion, whilst the powerful society of -Masons, then centred at Leeds, held aloof from the general movement. -But this resistance was not confined to the older societies, nor to -those of any particular locality. All the Unions of that time, even -those of the Metropolis, retained a strong traditional repugnance to -political action. In many cases the rules expressly forbade all mention -of politics in their meetings. And although the societies could be -occasionally induced to take joint action of a political character -in defence of Trade Unionism itself, not even the great influence of -the Junta upon their own Unions sufficed to persuade the members to -turn their organisations to account for legislative reform. The Junta -turned, therefore, to the newly established Trades Councils and made -these the political organs of the Trade Union world. - -The formation between 1858 and 1867 of permanent Trades Councils in the -leading industrial centres was an important step in the consolidation -of the Trade Union Movement. Local delegate meetings, summoned to -deal with particular emergencies, had been a feature of Trade Union -organisation, at any rate since the beginning of the nineteenth -century. In early times every important strike had its committee of -sympathisers from other trade societies, who collected subscriptions -and rendered what personal aid they could. But the most notable of -these committees were those which started up in all the centres of -Trade Unionism when the movement was threatened by some particular -legal or Parliamentary danger. Such joint committees had in 1825 -contributed powerfully to defeat the re-enactment of the Combination -Laws, in 1834 to arouse public feeling in the case of the Dorchester -labourers, and in 1838 to conduct the Trade Union case before the -Parliamentary Committee of that year. But these earlier committees were -formed only for particular emergencies, and had, so far as we know, no -continuous existence. By 1860 permanent councils were in existence in -Glasgow, Sheffield, Liverpool, and Edinburgh, and their example was, in -1861, followed by the London trades.[378] - -Like many provincial organisations, the London Trades Council -originated in a “Strike Committee.” During the winter of 1859-60 -weekly meetings of delegates from the Metropolitan trades had been -held to support the Building Operatives in their resistance to the -“document.” “At the termination of that memorable struggle,” states the -Second Annual Report of the London Trades Council, “it was felt that -something should be done to establish a general trades committee so -as to be able on emergency to call the trades together with despatch -for the purpose of rendering each other advice or assistance as the -circumstances required.”[379] In March 1860 the provisional committee -formed with this object issued an “Address” to the trades, which -resulted, on July 10, 1860, in the first meeting of the present London -Trades Council. - -It is interesting to notice that the Council, at the outset, was -composed mainly of the representatives of the smaller societies. The -Executive Committee elected at its first meeting included no delegates -from the engineers, compositors, masons, bricklayers, or ironfounders, -who were then the most influential of the London Trade Societies. The -first action of the young Council affords a significant indication -of the feeling of isolation which led to its formation. In order to -facilitate communications with other trade societies throughout the -kingdom it resolved to compile a _General Trades Union Directory_, -containing the names and addresses of all Trade Union secretaries. -This praiseworthy enterprise took up all the attention of the new -body for the first year, and the printing of two thousand copies of -the result of its work crippled its finances for long afterwards. For, -unfortunately, the _General Trades Union Directory_, published at one -shilling per copy, did not sell and was, we fear, soon consigned to -the pulping mill, as we have, after exhaustive search, been able to -discover only two copies in existence.[380] - -But the direction of the Council was falling into abler hands. In 1861 -George Howell became secretary, to be succeeded in the following year -by George Odger, who for the next ten years remained its most prominent -member. The Amalgamated Society of Engineers joined in 1861, and the -veteran Dunning brought over the old-established Union of Bookbinders. -By 1864, at any rate, the new organisation was entirely dominated by -the Junta. The two “amalgamated” societies of Engineers and Carpenters -supplied, in some years, half its income. The great trade friendly -society of Ironfounders and the growing “London Order” of Bricklayers -sent their general secretaries to its meetings. The Council became, -in effect, a joint committee of the officers of the large national -societies. In the meetings at the old Bell Inn, under the shadow of -Newgate, we have the beginnings of an informal cabinet of the Trade -Union world. - -Meanwhile war had again broken out between the master builders and -their operatives, caused partly by a renewed agitation for the Nine -Hours Day, and partly by the employers’ desire to substitute payment -by the hour for the previous custom of payment by the day.[381] For -the historian of the general movement the dispute is chiefly important -as furnishing the occasion of the first intervention of the talented -group of young barristers and literary men who, from this time forth, -became the trusted legal experts and political advisers of the leaders -of the Trade Union Movement. The workmen had totally failed to make -clear their objection to the Hour System, or even to obtain a hearing -of their case. Their position was, for the first time, intelligibly -explained in two brilliant letters addressed to the newspapers by eight -Positivists and Christian Socialists, which did much to bring about the -tacit compromise in which the struggle ended.[382] - -Of more immediate interest to us is the action taken by the newly -formed London Trades Council. Among the building operations suspended -by the dispute was the construction, by a large contractor, of the -new Chelsea barracks. The War Department saw no harm in permitting him -to engage the sappers of the Royal Engineers to take the place of the -men on strike. A similar course had been taken by the Government in -strikes of 1825 and 1834. But the Trade Unions were now too powerful -to allow of any such interference in their battles. A delegate meeting -of the London trades, comprising representatives of fifty industries -and fifty thousand operatives, sent a deputation to the War Office. -Sir George Cornwall Lewis returned at first an equivocal answer, but -the new Trades Council proved the efficacy of Parliamentary agitation -by getting questions put to the Minister in the House of Commons, and -stirring up enough feeling to compel him to withdraw the troops. - -The minute-books of the London Trades Council from 1860 to 1867 present -a mirror of the Trade Union history of this period. Odger had the fare -gift of making his minutes interesting, and he describes, in his terse -but graphic English, all the varied events of the Labour Movement as -they were brought before the Council. In 1861-62, for instance, we see -the Council trying vainly to settle the difficult problem of “overlap” -between the trades of the shipwrights and the iron-shipbuilders; we -notice the shadow cast by the Lancashire cotton famine, and we read -indignant resolutions condemning the Sheffield outrages of those years. -But the special interest of these minutes lies in their unconscious -revelation of the way in which the Council became the instrument of -the new policy of participation in general politics. Under Odger’s -influence the Council took a prominent part in organising the popular -welcome to Garibaldi, and in 1862 it held a great meeting in St. -James’s Hall in support of the struggle of the Northern States against -negro slavery, at which John Bright was the principal speaker. In -1864 the Junta placed itself definitely in opposition to the “Old -Unionists,” who objected to all connection between the Government and -the concerns of working men. W. E. Gladstone, who was then Chancellor -of the Exchequer, had introduced a Bill enabling the Post Office to -sell Government Annuities for small amounts. Against this harmless -project George Potter, the leading opponent of the Junta, summoned -great public meetings of the London trades, enlisted on his side -the Operative Stonemasons and other provincial organisations, and -vehemently denounced the Bill as an insidious attempt to divert the -savings of working men from their Trade Unions and benefit societies -into an exchequer controlled by the governing classes. The London -Trades Council sent an influential deputation to Gladstone publicly -to disavow the action of Potter, and to welcome the proposal of the -Government to utilise the administrative organisation for the advantage -of the working class. Of more significance was the alteration of the -Council’s policy with regard to political reform. The early members -had set themselves against the introduction of politics in any guise -whatsoever, and during the years 1861-62 Howell and Odger strove in -vain to enlist the Council in the agitation for a new Reform Bill. -But in 1866, under the influence of Odger and Applegarth, Allan -and Coulson, the Council enthusiastically threw itself into the -demonstration in favour of the Reform Bill brought in by the Liberal -Government, and took a leading part in the agitation which resulted -in the enfranchisement of the town artisan.[383] In the same year the -Council agreed to co-operate with the “International” in demanding -Democratic Reform from all European Governments. - -The widely advertised public action of the London Trades Council -excited considerable interest in provincial centres of Trade Unionism. -We see the Council in frequent correspondence with similar bodies at -Glasgow, Nottingham, Sheffield, and other provincial towns, and often -exercising a kind of informal leadership in general movements. But it -would be unfair to ascribe the whole initiative in legislative reform -to the London officials. Under the brilliant leadership of Alexander -Macdonald, whose work we shall hereafter describe, the force of the -coal-miners was being marshalled for Parliamentary agitation; and -Macdonald’s friend, Alexander Campbell, was bringing the Glasgow Trades -Council round to the new policy. And it was Campbell and Macdonald, -working through these organisations, who carried through the most -important Trade Union achievement of the next few years, the amendment -of the law relating to master and servant. - -It is difficult in these days, when equality of treatment before the -law has become an axiom, to understand how the flagrant injustice -of the old Master and Servant Acts seemed justifiable even to a -middle-class Parliament. If an employer broke a contract of service, -even wilfully and without excuse, he was liable only to be sued for -damages, or, in the case of wages under £10, to be summoned before a -court of summary jurisdiction, which could order payment of the amount -due. The workman, on the other hand, who wilfully broke his contract -of service, either by absenting himself from his employment, or by -leaving his work, was liable to be proceeded against for a criminal -offence, and punished by three months’ imprisonment. This inequality -of treatment was, moreover, aggravated by various other anomalies. It -followed by the general law of evidence that, whilst a master sued by -a servant could be witness in his own favour, the servant prosecuted -by his employer could not give evidence on his own behalf; and it -frequently happened that no other evidence than the employer’s could -be produced. It was in the power of a single justice of the peace, on -an information on oath, to issue a warrant for the summary arrest of -the workman, who thus found himself, when a dispute occurred, suddenly -seized, even in his bed,[384] and haled to prison at the discretion of -a magistrate, who was in many cases himself an employer of labour. The -case was heard before a single justice of the peace, and the hearing -might take place at his private house. The only punishment that could -be inflicted was imprisonment, the law not allowing the alternative of -a fine or the payment of damages. From the decision of the justice, -however arbitrary, there was no appeal. Finally, it must be added, the -sentence of imprisonment was no discharge for a debt, so that a workman -was liable to be imprisoned over and over again for the same breach of -contract.[385] - -Early in 1863 Alexander Campbell[386] brought the Master and Servant -Law under the notice of the Glasgow Trades Council. A Parliamentary -Return was obtained showing that the enormous number of 10,339 cases -of breach of contract of service came before the courts in a single -year. A committee was formed to agitate for the amendment of the law, -and communication was opened up, not only with the London leaders, but -also with sympathisers in other provincial towns. The Trades Councils -of London, Bristol, Sheffield, Nottingham, Newcastle, and Edinburgh -were formally invited to unite in a combined movement. In Leeds and -elsewhere local Trades Councils were established for the express -purpose of forwarding the agitation; and 15,000 copies of a “Memorial -of Information intended for the use of such workmen as fall under -the provisions of the Statute 4 Geo. IV. c. 34”[387] were circulated -to all the leading workmen throughout the country. At the instance -of Campbell and Macdonald, the Glasgow Trades Council convened a -conference of Trade Union representatives to consider how the object of -the agitation could best be secured. This Conference, which was held -in London during four days of May 1864, marks an epoch in Trade Union -history. For the first time a national meeting of Trade Union delegates -was spontaneously convened by a Trade Union organisation to discuss -a purely workman’s question, in the presence of working men alone. -The number of delegates did not exceed twenty, but these included the -leading officials of all the great national and amalgamated Unions.[388] - -The transactions of the Conference were thoroughly businesslike. -Three members of the Government were asked to receive deputations; a -large number of members of Parliament were “lobbied” on the subject -of an immediate amending Bill; and finally a successful meeting of -legislators was held in the “tea-room” of the House of Commons itself, -at which the delegates impressed their desires upon all the friendly -members. The terms of the draft Bill were settled; Cobbett agreed to -introduce it in the House of Commons, and the Glasgow Trades’ Committee -was authorised to support it by an agitation on behalf of all the Trade -Unions of the kingdom. - -The Bill introduced by Cobbett never became law; but a vigorous -agitation kept the matter under the notice of Parliament, and in 1866 -a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject. Upon -its report Lord Elcho[389] succeeded, in 1867, in carrying through -Parliament a Bill which remedied the grossest injustice of the law. -The Master and Servant Act of 1867 (30 & 31 Vic. c. 141), the first -positive success of the Trade Unions in the legislative field, did much -to increase their confidence in Parliamentary agitation. - -But whilst the Junta and their allies were, by the capture of the -Trades Councils, using the Trade Union organisation for an active -political campaign, their steady discouragement of aggressive strikes -was bringing down upon them the wrath of the “Old Unionists” of the -time. It was one of the principal functions of the London Trades -Council to grant “credentials” to trade societies having disputes on -hand, recommending them for the support of workmen in other trades. -As these credentials were not confined to London disputes, the custom -placed the Council under the invidious necessity of either giving -its sanction to, or withholding approval from, practically every -important strike in the kingdom--an arrangement which quickly brought -the Council into conflict with the more aggressive societies. In two -cases especially the divergence of policy raised serious and heated -discussions. A building trades strike had broken out in the Midlands -at the beginning of 1864, initiated by the old Friendly Society (now -styled the General Union) of Operative Carpenters. The men’s action was -strongly disapproved by Applegarth and the Executive of the Amalgamated -Society of Carpenters. The London Trades Council unhesitatingly took -Applegarth’s view, thereby alienating whole sections of the building -trades, whose local trade clubs and provincial societies had retained -much of the spirit of the Builders’ Union of 1834. But the internal -dissension arising from the carpenters’ dispute fell far short of -that brought about by the strike of the Staffordshire puddlers. It is -unnecessary to go into the details of this angry struggle against a 10 -per cent reduction. The conduct of the men in refusing the arbitration -offered by the Earl of Lichfield met with the disapproval of the -London Trades Council. The hotter spirits were greatly incensed at -the Council’s moderation. George Potter, in particular, distinguished -himself by addressing excited meetings of the men on strike, advising -them to stand firm. - -Potter, who figures largely in the newspapers of this time, was in -fact endeavouring to work up a formidable opposition to the policy of -the Junta. After the building trades disputes of 1859-60, in which -he had taken a leading part, he had started the _Beehive_, a weekly -organ of the Trade Union world. Himself a member of a tiny trade club -of London carpenters, he was bitterly opposed to Applegarth and the -Amalgamated Society, and from 1864 onward we find him at the head of -every outbreak of disaffection. An expert in the arts of agitation -and of advertisement, Potter occasionally cut a remarkable figure, so -that the unwary reader, not of the _Beehive_ only, but also of the -_Times_, might easily believe him to have been the most influential -leader of the working-class movement. As a matter of fact, he at no -time represented any genuine trade organisation, the “Working Men’s -Association,” of which he was president, being an unimportant society -of nondescript persons. However, from 1864 to 1867 we find him calling -frequent meetings of delegates of the London trades to denounce the -Junta, and their instrument, the London Trades Council. The minutes of -the latter body contain abundant evidence of the bitter feelings caused -by these attacks, and make clear the essential difference between -the two policies. At a special meeting called to condemn Potter’s -action, Howell, Allan, Coulson, and Applegarth enlarged upon the evil -consequences of irresponsible agitation in trade disputes; and Danter, -the outspoken president of the Amalgamated Engineers, emphatically -declared that Potter “had become the aider and abettor of strikes. He -thought of nothing else; he followed no other business; strikes were -his bread-and-cheese; in short, he was a strike-jobber, and he made -the _Beehive_ newspaper his instrument for pushing his nose into every -unfortunate dispute that sprang up.”[390] - -Responsible and cautious leadership of the Trade Union Movement was -becoming increasingly necessary. The growth of the great national -Unions, alike in wealth and in membership, and the manner in which -they subscribed in aid of each other’s battles, had aroused the active -enmity of the employers. To counteract the men’s renewed strength, the -employers once more banded themselves into powerful associations, and -made use of a new weapon. The old expedient of the “document” had, -since its failure to break down the Amalgamated Engineers in 1852, -and to subdue the building operatives in 1859, fallen somewhat into -discredit. It was now reinforced by the general “lock-out” of all the -men in a particular industry, even those who accepted the employer’s -terms, in order to reduce to subjection the recalcitrant employees of -one or two firms only.[391] The South Yorkshire coal-owners especially -distinguished themselves during those years by their frequent use of -the “lock-out.” One Yorkshire miner complained in 1866 that he had been -“locked out about twenty-four months in six years.”[392] During the -year 1865 it seemed as if the lock-outs were about to become a feature -of every large industry, the most notable instances being those of -the Staffordshire ironworkers, to which we have already alluded, and -the shipbuilding operatives on the Clyde. In both these cases large -sections of the men were willing to work at the employers’ terms, but -were either known to belong to a Union or suspected of contributing to -the men on strike. But though this practice of “locking out” created -great excitement among working men, it did not achieve the employers’ -aim of breaking up the Unions. Nothing but absolute suppression by law -appeared open to those who regarded trade combinations as “a poisonous -plant” and an “anomalous anachronism,” and who were vainly looking -to “the happy period,” both for masters and men, when the questions, -“What is the price of a quarter of wheat?” and “What is the price of a -workman’s day wage?” shall be settled on the same principles.[393] - -Nor were the employers the only people who began to talk once more of -putting down Trade Unions by law. The industrial dislocation which the -lock-outs, far more than the strikes, produced occasioned widespread -loss and public inconvenience. The quarrels of employer and employed -came to be vaguely regarded as matters of more than private concern. -Unfortunately a handle was given to the enemies of Trade Unionism by -the continuance of outrages, committed in the interest of Trade Unions, -which began to be widely advertised by the press. Isolated cases of -violence and intimidation, restricted, as we shall hereafter see, to -certain trades and localities, were magnified by press rumours into a -systematic attempt on the part of the Trade Unions generally to obtain -their ends by deliberate physical violence. In the general fear and -disapproval the public failed to discriminate between the petty trade -clubs of Sheffield and such great associations as the Amalgamated -Engineers and Carpenters. The commercial objection to industrial -disputes became confused with the feeling of abhorrence created by -the idea of vast combinations of men sticking at neither violence -nor murder to achieve their ends. The “terrorism of Trade Unions” -became a nightmare. “On one side,” says a writer who represents the -public feeling of the time, “is arrayed the great mass of the talent, -knowledge, virtue, and wealth of the country, and, on the other, a -number of unscrupulous men, leading a half-idle life, and feeding on -the contributions of their dupes, and on a tax levied on such of the -intelligent artisans as are forced into their ranks, but who would be -only too happy to throw off their thraldom and join the supporters of -law and justice, did these but offer them adequate protection.”[394] - -The Trade Unions world seems to have been quite unconscious of the -gathering storm. In June 1866 138 delegates, representing all the great -Unions, and a total membership of about 200,000, met at Sheffield to -devise some defence against the constant use of the lock-out. The -student of the proceedings of this conference will contrast with wonder -the actual conduct of the Trade Union leaders with the denunciations -to which these “few unscrupulous men” were at this time exposed. -Nothing could be more worthy, even from the middle-class point of -view, than the discussions of these representative workmen, who -denounced with equal energy the readiness with which their impetuous -followers came out on strike and the arbitrary lock-out of the masters, -and whose resolutions express their desire for the establishment -of Councils of Conciliation and the general resort to arbitration -in industrial disputes.[395] Meanwhile, in order to meet the great -federations of employers, they formed “The United Kingdom Alliance -of Organised Trades,” to support the members of any trade who should -find themselves “locked out” by their employers.[396] Unfortunately -the conference utterly failed to decide what constituted a “lock-out,” -as distinguished from a strike; and the “Judicial Council” of the -Alliance, consisting of one delegate from each of the nine districts -into which the kingdom was divided, found itself continually at -issue with its constituents as to the disputes to be supported. This -friction co-operated with the increasing depression of trade in causing -the calls for funds to be very unwillingly responded to; and the -Executive Committee, sitting at Sheffield, had seldom any cash at its -command. The Alliance lingered on until about the end of 1870, when -the defection of its last important Unions brought it absolutely to -an end.[397] In 1866, however, the Alliance was young and hopeful. -It received its first blow in October of this year, when it and the -Trade Union Conference were forgotten in the sensation produced by the -explosion of a can of gunpowder in a workman’s house in New Hereford -Street, Sheffield. - -This outrage was only one of a class of crimes for which Sheffield was -already notorious. But in the state of public irritation against Trade -Unionism, which had been growing during the past few years of lock-outs -and strikes, the news served to precipitate events. On all sides -there arose a cry for a searching investigation into Trade Unionism. -The Trade Unions themselves joined in the demand. As no clue to the -perpetrators of the last crime could be discovered by the local police, -the leaders of the Sheffield trade clubs united with the Town Council -and the local Employers’ Association in pressing for a Government -inquiry. The London Trades Council and the Executive of the Amalgamated -Engineers sent a joint deputation to Sheffield to investigate the case. -The deputation discovered no more than the local police had done about -the perpetrators of the crime, and therefore innocently reported that -there was no evidence of Trade Union complicity; but they accompanied -this report by a strong condemnation of “the abominable practice of -rattening, which is calculated to demoralise those who are concerned -in it, and to bring disgrace on all trade combinations.”[398] Public -meetings of Trade Unionists were held throughout the country, at -which the leaders expressed their indignation both at the outrage -itself and at the common assumption that it was a usual and necessary -incident of Trade Unionism. These meetings invariably concluded with a -demand on behalf of the Trade Unionists to be allowed an opportunity -of refuting the accusations of the enemies of the movement. Robert -Applegarth saw the Home Secretary on the subject, and suggested a -Commission of Inquiry. The appointment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry -was officially announced in the Queen’s Speech of February 1867. That -the Government meant business was proved by the prompt introduction -of a Bill empowering the Commission to pursue its investigations by -exceptional means. The inquiry was to extend to all outrages during -the past ten years, whether in Sheffield or elsewhere. Not only were -accomplices in criminal acts promised an indemnity, provided that -they gave evidence, but the same privilege was extended to the -actual perpetrators of the crimes. The investigation, moreover, was -not restricted to the supposed criminal practices of particular trade -clubs, but was to embrace the whole subject of Trade Unionism and its -effects. - -The Trade Union movement thus found itself for the third time at the -bar of a Parliamentary inquiry at a moment when public opinion, as -well as the enmity of employers, had been strongly excited against it. -At the very height of this crisis, which had been brought about by -the violence of some of the old-fashioned Unions, the new Amalgamated -Societies themselves received a serious check from a decision of the -Court of Queen’s Bench. - -The formation of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, with its large -accumulated funds, had renewed the anxiety of the Trade Union officials -as to the extent to which a trade society enjoyed the protection of the -law. Although the Act of 1825 had made trade societies, as such, no -longer unlawful, nothing had been done to give them any legal status, -or to enable them to take proceedings as corporate entities. But in -1855 a “Metropolitan Trades Committee” succeeded in getting a clause -intended to relate to Trade Unions inserted in the Friendly Societies -Act of that year. By the 44th section of this Act it was provided -that a society established for any purpose not illegal might, by -depositing its rules with the Registrar of Friendly Societies, enjoy -the privilege of having disputes among its own members summarily dealt -with by the magistrates. Under this provision several of the larger -societies had deposited their rules, believing, with the concurrence -of the Registrar, that this secured to them the power to proceed -summarily against any member who should, in his capacity of secretary -or treasurer, detain or make away with the society’s funds.[399] So -thoroughly has the legality of their position been accepted by all -concerned, that on the establishment by Gladstone of the Post Office -Savings Banks in 1861, he had, at the request of the Trade Union -leaders, expressly conceded to the Unions, equally with the Friendly -Societies, the privilege of making use of the new banks. - -This feeling of security was, in 1867, completely shattered. The -Boilermakers’ Society had occasion to proceed against the treasurer -of their Bradford branch for wrongfully withholding the sum of £24; -but the magistrates, to the general surprise of all concerned, held -that the society could not proceed under the Friendly Societies Act, -being, as a Trade Union, outside the scope of that measure. The case -was thereupon carried to the Court of Queen’s Bench, where four judges, -headed by the Lord Chief Justice, confirmed the decision, giving the -additional reason that the objects of the Union, if not, since 1825, -actually criminal, were yet so far in restraint of trade as to render -the society an illegal association. Thus the officers of the great -national Trade Unions found their societies deprived of the legal -status which they imagined they had acquired, and saw themselves once -more destitute of any legal protection for their accumulated funds. - -The grounds of the decision went a great deal further than the decision -itself. As was pointed out to the workmen by Frederic Harrison, “the -judgement lays down not merely that certain societies have failed -to bring themselves within the letter of a certain Act, but that -Trade Unions, of whatever sort, are in their nature contrary to -public policy, and that their object in itself will vitiate every -association and every transaction into which it enters.... In a word, -Unionism becomes (if not according to the suggestion of the learned -judge--criminal) at any rate something like betting and gambling, -public nuisances and immoral considerations--things condemned and -suppressed by the law.”[400] - -Trade Unionism was now at bay, assailed on both sides. It was easy to -foresee that the employers and their allies would make a determined -attempt to use the Royal Commission and the Sheffield outrages to -suppress Trade Unionism by the criminal law. On the other hand, the -hard-earned accumulations of the larger societies, by this time -amounting to an aggregate of over a quarter of a million sterling, were -at the mercy of their whole army of branch secretaries and treasurers, -any one of whom might embezzle the funds with impunity. - -The crisis was too serious to be dealt with by the excited delegate -meetings of the London Trades Council. For over four years we hear of -only occasional and purely formal meetings of this body. Immediately -on the publication of the decision of the judges in January 1867 -Applegarth convened what was called a “Conference of Amalgamated -Trades,” but what consisted in reality of weekly private meetings -of the five leaders and a few other friends. From 1867 to 1871 this -“conference” acted as the effective cabinet of the Trade Union -Movement. Its private minute-book, kept by Applegarth, reveals to the -student the whole political life of the Trade Union world. - -The first action of the Junta was to call to their councils those -middle-class allies upon whose assistance and advice they had learned -to rely. We have already noticed the adhesion of the “Christian -Socialists” to the Amalgamated Engineers in 1852, and the intervention -of the Positivists in the Building Trades disputes of 1859-61. Frederic -Harrison and E. S. Beesly were now rendering specially valuable -services as the apologists for Trade Unionism in the public press. -“Tom Hughes” was in Parliament, almost the only spokesman of the men’s -whole claim. Henry Crompton was bringing his acute judgement and his -detailed experience of the actual working of the law to bear upon the -dangers which beset the Unions in the Courts of Justice. Applegarth’s -minutes show how frequently all four were ready to spend hours in -private conference at the Engineers’ office in Stamford Street, and how -unreservedly they, in this crisis, placed their professional skill -at the disposal of the Trade Union leaders. It would be difficult to -exaggerate the zeal and patient devotion of these friends of Trade -Unionism, or the service which they rendered to the cause in its hour -of trial.[401] - -It is obvious from the private transactions of the conference that the -main object of the Junta was to gain for Trade Unionism that legal -status which was necessary alike to the security of the funds and -to the recognition of the Trade Union organisation as a constituent -part of the State. But the first thing to be done was to defeat -the employers in their endeavour to use the Royal Commission as an -instrument for suppressing Trade Unionism by direct penal enactment. -The Junta had therefore not only to dissociate themselves from the -ignorant turbulence of the old-fashioned Unions, but also to prove that -the bulk of their own members were enlightened and respectable. It was, -moreover, of the utmost importance to persuade the public that the -Junta and their friends, not the strike-jobbers or the outrage-mongers, -were the authorised and typical representatives of the Trade Union -Movement. All this it was necessary to bring out in the inquiry by the -Royal Commission before which Trade Unionism was presently to stand on -its defence. The composition of the Commission was accordingly a matter -of the greatest concern for the Junta. The Government had resolved -to select, as Commissioners, not representatives of each view, but -persons presumably impartial, with Sir William Erle, who had lately -retired from the Lord Chief Justiceship of the Common Pleas, as their -chairman. In this arrangement representatives of the employers were to -be excluded; and the appointment of working men was not dreamed of. The -Commission was to be made up chiefly from the ranks of high officials, -with four members from the two Houses of Parliament, and the chairman -of a great industrial undertaking. The active part which Thomas Hughes -had taken in the debates secured him a seat on the Commission, though -he felt that single-handed he could do little for his friends. All -possible pressure was accordingly brought to bear on the Government -with a view to the appointment of a Trade Unionist member; but the idea -of a working-man Royal Commissioner was inconsistent with official -traditions. The utmost that could be obtained was that the workmen and -the employers should each suggest a special representative to be added. -For the workmen a wise and extremely fortunate choice was made in the -person of Frederic Harrison, the Junta obtaining also permission for -representative Trade Unionists to be present during the examination of -the witnesses.[402] - -The actual conduct of the Trade Unionist case was undertaken by -Harrison and Hughes, in consultation with Applegarth, whom the Junta -deputed to attend the sittings on their behalf. The ground of defence -was chosen with considerable shrewdness. The policy of the Junta and -their allies was to focus the attention of the Commissioners upon the -great trade friendly societies in contradistinction to the innumerable -little local trade clubs of the old type. The evidence of Applegarth, -who was the first witness examined, did much to dispel the grosser -prejudices against the Unions. The General Secretary of the Amalgamated -Society of Carpenters was able to show that his society, then standing -third in financial magnitude in the Trade Union world, far from -fomenting strikes, was mainly occupied in the work of an insurance -company. He was in a position to lay effective stress on the total -absence of secrecy or coercion in its proceedings. He disclaimed, on -behalf of its members, all objection to machinery, foreign imports, -piecework, overtime, or the free employment of apprentices. The -fundamental position upon which he entrenched his Trade Unionism was -the maintenance, at all hazards, of the Standard Rate of Wages and the -Standard Hours of Labour, to be secured by the accumulation of such a -fund as would enable every member of the Union effectually to set a -reserve-price on his labour. William Allan, who came up on the third -day, followed Applegarth’s lead, though with some reservations; and the -evidence of these two officers of what were primarily national friendly -societies made a marked impression on the Commission. - -The employers were not as well served as the men. It is true that -they succeeded, in spite of Applegarth’s disclaimers, in persuading -the Commission that some of the most powerful Unions strenuously -objected to piecework and sub-contract in any form whatsoever, and -in some instances even to machinery. In other cases it was proved -that attempts were made to enforce a rigid limitation of apprentices. -Owing to the energy of the Central Association of Master Builders, -the restrictive policy of the older Unions in the building trades was -brought well to the front; and this fact accounts, even to-day, for -most of the current impression of Trade Unionism among the middle -and upper classes. But the employers did not discriminate in their -attack. Almost with one accord they objected to the whole principle -of Trade Unionism. They reiterated with a curious impenetrability the -old argument of the “individual bargain,” and protested against any -kind of industrial organisation on the part of their employees. All -attempts by the men to claim collectively any share in regulating the -conditions of labour were denounced as “unwarrantable encroachments on -their rights as employers.” The number of apprentices, like indeed -the whole administration of industry, was claimed as of private -concern, the settlement of which “exclusively belongs to the employer -himself; a matter in which no other party, much less the operatives, -have got anything to do.” And they objected even more to the centrally -administered national society with extensive reserve funds than to the -isolated local clubs whose spasmodic outbursts they could afford to -disregard. But the confusion between the small local bodies with their -narrow policy of outrage and violence, and the amalgamated societies -with their far-reaching power and accumulated wealth, effective as it -had been in alarming the public, proved disastrous to the employers -when their case was subjected to the acute cross-examination of -Frederic Harrison. The masters, by directing their attack mainly on the -great Amalgamated Societies and the newly-formed local Trades Councils, -played, in fact, directly into the hands of the Junta. It was easy for -Allan and Applegarth to show that the influence of central Executive -Councils and the formation of a public opinion among trade societies -tended to restrain the more aggressive action of men embittered by a -local quarrel. The combination of friendly benefits with trade objects -was destined to be hotly attacked twenty years later by the more ardent -spirits in the Trade Union world, as leading to inertia and supineness -in respect of wages, hours, and conditions of labour. The evidence -adduced in 1867-8, read in the light of later events, reveals that this -tendency had already begun; and it was impossible for the Commissioners -to resist the conclusion that they had, in the Amalgamated Engineers -and Carpenters, types of a far less aggressive Trade Unionism than -such survivals as the purely trade societies of the brickmakers or the -Sheffield industries. - -Foiled in this attempt the employers fell back upon an indictment of -the Amalgamated Unions considered as friendly societies. The leading -actuaries were called to prove that neither the Amalgamated Engineers -nor the Amalgamated Carpenters could possibly meet their accumulating -liabilities, and that these must, in a few years, inevitably bring -both societies to bankruptcy. The whole of this evidence is a striking -instance of the untrustworthiness of expert witnesses off their own -ground. Neither Finlaison nor Tucker, who were called as actuaries -on behalf of the employers, ever realised that a Trade Union, unlike -a Friendly Society, possesses and constantly exercises an unlimited -power to raise funds by special levies, or by increased contributions, -whenever it may seem good to the majority of the members. But even had -the actuarial indictment been completely warranted, it was a mistake -in tactics on the part of the employers. The Commissioners found -themselves shunted into an inquiry, not into the results of Trade -Unionism upon the common weal, but into the arithmetical soundness of -the financial arrangements which particular groups of workmen chose to -make among themselves. - -Meanwhile the primary business of the Commission, the investigation -into the Sheffield outrages, had been remitted to special “examiners,” -whose local inquiry attracted far less attention than the proceedings -of the main body. At first the investigation elicited little that was -new; but in June 1867 the country was startled by dramatic confessions -on the part of Broadhead and other members of the grinders’ trade -clubs, unravelling a series of savage crimes instigated by them, and -paid for out of Club funds. For a short time it looked as if all the -vague accusations hurled at Trade Unionism at large were about to be -justified; but the examiners reported that four-fifths of the societies -even of the Sheffield trades were free from outrages, and that these -had been most prevalent from 1839 to 1861, and had since declined. The -only other place in which the Commissioners thought it necessary to -make inquiry into outrages was Manchester, where the Brickmakers’ Union -had committed many crimes, but where no complicity on the part of other -trades was shown. It was made evident to all candid students that -these criminal acts were not chargeable to Trade Unionism as a whole. -They represented, in fact, the survival among such rough and isolated -trades as the brickmakers and grinders of the barbarous usages of a -time when working men felt themselves outside the law, and oppressed by -tyranny.[403] - -The success with which the case of the Trade Unionists had been -presented to the Commission was reflected in a changed attitude on -the part of the governing class, a change expressly attributed to -the “greater knowledge and wider experience” of Trade Unions which -had been gained through the Royal Commission. “True statesmanship,” -declared the _Times_, “will seek neither to augment nor to reduce -their influence, but, accepting it as a fact, will give it free scope -for legitimate development.”[404] Thus the official report of the -Commission, from which the enemies of Trade Unionism had hoped so much, -contained no recommendation which would have made the position of any -single Union worse than it was before. An inconclusive and somewhat -inconsistent document, it argued that trade combination could be of no -real economic advantage to the workman, but nevertheless recommended -the legalisation of the Unions under certain conditions. Whereas the -Act of 1825 had excepted from the common illegality only combinations -in respect of wages or hours of labour, the Commissioners recommended -that no combination should henceforth be liable to prosecution for -restraint of trade, except those formed “to do acts which involved -breach of contract,” and to refuse to work with any particular person. -But the privilege of registration, carrying with it the power to obtain -legal protection for the society’s funds, was to be conferred only on -Unions whose rules were free from certain restrictive clauses, such -as the limitation of apprentices or of the use of machinery, and the -prohibition of piecework and sub-contract. The employers’ influence on -the Commission was further shown in a special refusal of the privilege -of registration to societies whose rules authorised the support of the -disputes of other trades. - -So far the result of the Commission was purely negative. No hostile -legislation was even suggested. On the other hand, it was obvious that -no Trade Union would accept “legalisation” on the proposed conditions. -But Harrison and Hughes had not restricted themselves to casting out -all dangerous proposals from the majority report. Their minority -report, which was signed also by the Earl of Lichfield, exposed in -terse paragraphs the futility of the suggestions made by the majority, -and laid down in general terms the principles upon which all future -legislation should proceed. It advocated the removal of all special -legislation relating to labour contracts, on the principle, first, -that no act should be illegal if committed by a workman unless it was -equally illegal if committed by any other person; and secondly, that -no act by a combination of men should be regarded as criminal if it -would not have been criminal in a single person. To this was appended -a detailed statement, drafted by Frederic Harrison, in which the -character and objects of Trade Unionism, as revealed in the voluminous -evidence taken by the Commission, were explained and defended with -consummate skill. What was perhaps of even greater service to the -Trade Union world was a precise and detailed exposition of the various -amendments required to bring the law into accordance with the general -principles referred to. We have here a striking instance of the -advantage to a Labour Movement of expert professional advice. The Junta -had been demanding the complete legalisation of their Unions in the -same manner as ordinary Friendly Societies. They had failed to realise -that such a legalisation would have exposed the Amalgamated Society of -Engineers to be sued by one of its members who might be excluded for -“blacklegging,” or otherwise working contrary to the interests of the -trade. The whole efficacy, from a Trade Union point of view, of the -amalgamation of trade and friendly benefits would have been destroyed. -The bare legalisation would have brought the Trades Unions under the -general law, and subjected them to constant and harassing interference -by Courts of Justice. They had grown up in despite of the law and the -lawyers; which as regards the spirit of the one and the prejudices of -the other were, and still are, alien and hostile to the purposes and -collective action of the Trades Societies. The danger of any member -having power to take legal proceedings, to worry them by litigation and -cripple them by legal expenses, or to bring a society within the scope -of the insolvency and bankruptcy law, became very apparent. The Junta -easily realised, when their advisers explained the position, that mere -legalisation would place the most formidable weapon in the hands of -unscrupulous employers. To avoid this difficulty Harrison proposed the -ingenious plan of bringing the Trade Union under the Friendly Societies -Acts, so far as regards the protection of its funds against theft or -fraud, whilst retaining to the full the exceptional legal privilege -of being incapable of being sued or otherwise proceeded against as -a corporate entity. Had a Trade Union official been selected as the -sole representative of the Unions on the Commission, such detailed and -ingenious amendments of the law would not have been devised and made -part of an authoritative official report. The complete charter of Trade -Union liberty, which Harrison and his friends had elaborated, became -for seven years the political programme of the Trade Unionists. And it -is a part of the curious irony of English party politics that whilst -the formation of this programme, and the agitation by which it was -pressed on successive Parliaments, were both of them exclusively the -work of a group of Radicals it was, as we shall see, a Conservative -Cabinet which eventually passed it into law.[405] - -The effective though informal leadership of the movement which the -Junta had assumed during the sittings of the Royal Commission had -not gone entirely unquestioned. Those who are interested in the -cross-currents of personal intrigues and jealousies which detract from -the force of popular movements can read in the pages of the _Beehive_ -full accounts of the machinations of George Potter. The _Beehive_ -summoned a Trade Union Conference at St. Martin’s Hall in March 1867, -which was attended by over one hundred delegates from provincial -societies, Trades Councils, and the minor London clubs.[406] The Junta, -perhaps rather unwisely, refused to have anything to do with a meeting -held under Potter’s auspices. But many of their provincial allies came -up without any suspicion of the sectional character of the conference, -and found themselves in the anomalous position of countenancing -what was really an attempt to seduce the London Trades from their -allegiance to the Junta and the London Trades Council. The Conference -sat for four days, and made, owing to Potter’s energy, no little stir. -A committee was appointed to conduct the Trade Union case before the -Commission, and Conolly, the President of the Operative Stonemasons, -was deputed to attend the sittings. But although special prominence -was given by the _Beehive_ to all the proceedings of this committee, -we have failed to discover with what it actually concerned itself. An -indiscreet speech by Conolly quickly led to his exclusion from the -sittings of the Commission; and the management of the Trade Union case -remained in the hands of Applegarth and the Junta. - -Apart, however, from jealousy and personal intrigue, there was some -genuine opposition to the policy of the Junta. The great mass of -Trade Unionists were not yet converted to the necessity of obtaining -for their societies a recognised legal status. There were even many -experienced officials, especially in the provincial organisations -of the older type, who deprecated the action that was being taken -by the London leaders, on the express ground that they objected to -legalisation. “The less working men have to do with the law in any -shape the better,” was the constant note of the old Unionists. This -view found abundant expression at the Congresses convened in 1868 by -the Manchester Trades Council, and in 1869 by that of Birmingham. But -in spite of the absence of the Junta from the Manchester Congress, -their friend, John Kane, of the North of England Ironworkers’ -Association, succeeded in inducing the delegates to pass a resolution -expressing full confidence in the policy and action of the Conference -of Amalgamated Trades.[407] And at the Congress of 1869, Odger and -Howell, as representatives of the Junta, managed to get adopted a -series of resolutions embodying Frederic Harrison’s proposals.[408] - -Meanwhile a change had come over the political situation. At the -outset of the crisis Frederic Harrison had urged upon the Trade Union -world the necessity of turning to the polling booth for redress. -“Nothing,” he writes in January, 1867, “will force the governing -classes to recognise [the workmen’s] claims and judge them fairly, -until they find them wresting into their own hands real political -power. Unionists who, till now, have been content with their Unions, -and have shrunk from political action, may see the pass to which this -abstinence from political movements has brought them.”[409] Within a -few months of this advice the Reform Bill of 1867 had enfranchised the -working man in the boroughs. The Trade Union leaders were not slow to -use the advantage thus given to them. The Junta, under the convenient -cloak of the Conference of Amalgamated Trades, issued, in July, 1868, -a circular urging upon Trade Unionists the importance of registering -their names as electors, and of pressing on every candidate the -question in which they were primarily interested. The Trades Councils -throughout the country followed suit; and we find the Junta’s electoral -tactics adopted even by societies which were traditionally opposed to -all political action. The Central Committee of the Stonemasons, for -instance, strongly urged their members to vote at the ensuing election -only for candidates who would support Trade Union demands.[410] - -By the beginning of 1869 Frederic Harrison had drafted a comprehensive -Bill, embodying all the legislative proposals of his minority report. -This was introduced by Mundella and Hughes, and although its provisions -were received with denunciations by the employers,[411] it gained some -support among the newly elected members, and was strongly backed up -outside the House. The Liberal Government of that day, and nearly all -the members of the House of Commons, were still covertly hostile to -the very principles of Trade Unionism, and every attempt was made to -burke the measure.[412] But the Junta were determined to make felt -their new political power. From every part of the country pressure -was put upon members of Parliament. A great demonstration of workmen -was held at Exeter Hall, at which Mundella and Hughes declared their -intention of forcing the House and the Ministry to vote upon the hated -measure. Finding evasion no longer possible, the Government abandoned -its attitude of hostility and agreed to a formal second reading, upon -the understanding that the Cabinet would next year bring in a Bill of -its own. A provisional measure giving temporary protection to Trade -Union funds was accordingly hurried through Parliament at the end of -the session pending the introduction of a complete Bill.[413] The Junta -had gained the first victory of their political campaign. - -The next session found the Government reluctant to fulfil its promise -in the matter. But the Trade Unionists were not disposed to let the -question sleep, and after much pressure Henry Bruce (afterwards Lord -Aberdare), who was then Home Secretary, produced, in 1871, a Bill which -was eagerly scanned by the Trade Union world. The Government proposed -to concede all the points on which it had been specially pressed by the -Junta. No Trade Union, however wide its objects, was henceforth to be -illegal merely because it was “in restraint of trade.” Every Union was -to be entitled to be registered, if its rules were not expressly in -contravention of the criminal law. And, finally, the registration which -gave the Unions complete protection for their funds was so devised as -to leave untouched their internal organisation and arrangements, and to -prevent their being sued or proceeded against in a court of law. - -The employers vehemently attacked the Government for conceding, as -they said, practically all the Trade Union demands.[414] But from the -men’s point of view this “complete charter legalising Unions” had a -serious drawback. The Bill, as was complained, “while repealing the -Combination Laws, substituted another penal law against workmen” as -such. A lengthy clause provided that any violent threat or molestation -for the purpose of coercing either employers or employed should be -severely punished. All the terms of the old Combination Laws, “molest,” -“obstruct,” “threaten,” “intimidate,” and so forth, were used without -any definition or limitation, and picketing, moreover, was expressly -included in molestation or obstruction by a comprehensive prohibition -of “persistently following” any person, or “watching or besetting” the -premises in which he was, or the approach to such premises. The Act -of 1859, which had expressly legalised peaceful persuasion to join -legal combinations, was repealed.[415] It seemed only too probable -that the Government measure would make it a criminal offence for two -Trade Unionists to stand quietly in the street opposite the works of -an employer against whom they had struck, in order to communicate -peacefully the fact of the strike to any workmen who might be ignorant -of it. - -It does not appear that Bruce’s fiercely resented “Third Clause” -was intended to effect any alteration in the law. Its comprehensive -prohibition of violence, threats, intimidation, molestation, and -obstruction did no more than sum up and codify the various judicial -decisions of past years under which the Trade Unionists had suffered. -But the law had hitherto been obscure and conflicting; both the -statutes and the judicial decisions had proceeded largely from a -presumption against the very existence of Trade Unionism which was -now passing away; and the workmen and their advisers not unreasonably -feared the consequences of an explicit re-enactment of provisions which -practically made criminal all the usual methods of trade combination. A -recent decision had brought the danger home to the minds of the Trade -Union leaders and their legal friends. In July 1867 a great strike had -broken out among the London tailors, in which the masters’ shops had -been carefully “picketed.”[416] Druitt, Shorrocks, and other officers -of the Union were thereupon indicted, not for personal violence or -actual molestation, but for the vague crime of conspiracy. The Judge -(Baron, afterwards Lord, Bramwell) held that pickets, if acting in -combination, were guilty of “molestation” if they gave annoyance only -by black looks, or even by their presence in large numbers, without any -acts or gestures of violence, and that if two or more persons combined -to do anything unpleasant and annoying to another person they were -guilty of a common law offence. The Tailors’ officers and committeemen -were found guilty merely of organising peaceful picketing, and it -became evident that, if the elastic law of conspiracy could thus be -brought to bear on Trade Union disputes, practically every incident -of strike management might become a crime.[417] Nor did Druitt’s case -stand alone. Within the memory of the Junta men had been sent to prison -for the simple act of striking, or even for a simple agreement to -strike.[418] Indeed, merely giving notice of a projected strike, even -in the most courteous and peaceful manner, had frequently been held -to be an act of intimidation punishable as a crime.[419] In 1851 the -posting up of placards announcing a strike was held to be intimidation -of the employers.[420] The Government Bill, far from accepting Frederic -Harrison’s proposed repeal of all criminal legislation specially -applying to workmen, left these judicial decisions untouched, and, -by re-enacting them in a codified form, proposed even to make their -operation more uniform and effectual. - -There was, accordingly, some ground for the assertion of the Trade -Unionists that the Government was withdrawing with one hand what it was -giving with the other. It seemed of little use to declare the existence -of trade societies to be legal if the criminal law was so stretched -as to include the ordinary peaceful methods by which these societies -attained their ends. Above all, the Trade Unionists angrily resented -the idea that any act should be made criminal if done by them, or in -furtherance of their Unions, that was not equally a crime if committed -by any other person, or in pursuance of the objects of any other kind -of association. - -A storm of indignation arose in the Trade Union world. The Junta sat -in anxious consultation with their legal advisers, who all counselled -the utmost resistance to this most dangerous re-enactment of the law. A -delegate meeting of the London trades was summoned to protest against -the criminal clauses of Bruce’s Bill. But it was necessary to attack -the House of Commons from a wider area than the Metropolis. With this -view the Junta determined to follow the example set by the Manchester -and Birmingham Trades Councils in 1868 and 1869 by calling together a -national Trade Union Congress.[421] - -The meeting of the Congress was fixed for March 1871, by which time -it was rightly calculated that the obnoxious Bill would be actually -under discussion in the House of Commons. The delegates spent most of -their time in denouncing the criminal clauses of the Bill, and came -very near to opposing the whole measure. But it was ultimately agreed -to accept the legalising part of the Bill, whilst using every effort -to throw out the Third Section. A deputation was sent to the Home -Secretary. Protest after protest was despatched to the legislators, and -the Congress adjourned at half-past four each day, in order, as it was -expressly declared, that delegates might “devote the evening to waiting -upon Members of Parliament.” But neither the Government nor the House -of Commons was disposed to show any favour to Trade Union action in -restraint of that “free competition” and individual bargaining which -had so long been the creed of the employers. The utmost concession that -could be obtained was that the Bill should be divided into two, so -that the law legalising the existence of trade societies might stand -by itself, whilst the criminal clauses restraining their action were -embodied in a separate “Criminal Law Amendment Bill.” This illusory -concession sufficed to detach from the opposition many of those who had -at the General Election professed friendship to the Unions. In the main -debate Thomas Hughes and A. J. Mundella stood almost alone in pressing -the Trade Unionists’ full demands; and though a few other members were -inclined to help to some extent, the second reading was agreed to -without a division. The other stages were rapidly run through without -serious opposition. In the House of Lords the provisions against -picketing were made even more stringent, “watching and besetting” by a -single individual being made as criminal as “watching and besetting” -by a multitude. In this unsatisfactory shape the two Bills passed -into law.[422] Trade Societies became, for the first time, legally -recognised and fully protected associations; whilst, on the other -hand, the legislative prohibition of Trade Union action was expressly -reaffirmed, and even increased in stringency. - -In the eyes of the Trade Unions this result amounted to a defeat; and -the conduct of the Government caused the bitterest resentment.[423] -The Secretaries of the Amalgamated Societies, especially Allan and -Applegarth, had, indeed, attained the object which they personally had -most at heart. The great organisations for mutual succour, which had -been built up by their patient sagacity, were now, for the first time, -assured of complete legal protection. A number of the larger societies -promptly availed themselves of the Trade Union Act, by registering -their rules in accordance with its provisions;[424] and in September -1871 the Conference of Amalgamated Trades “having,” as its final -minutes declared, “discharged the duties for which it was organised,” -formally dissolved itself. - -The wider issue which remained to be fought required a more -representative organisation. In struggling for legal recognition -the Junta had, as we have seen, represented the more enlightened -of the Trade Unionists rather than the whole movement. But, by the -Criminal Law Amendment Act, the Government had deliberately struck -a blow against the methods of all trade societies at all periods. -The growing strength of the organisations of the coalminers and -cotton-spinners, and the rapid expansion of Trade Unionism which marked -this period of commercial prosperity, had for some time been tending -towards the development of the informal meetings of the Junta into a -more representative executive. The dissolution of the Conference of -Amalgamated Trades left the field open; and the leadership of the Trade -Union Movement was assumed by the Parliamentary Committee which had -been appointed at the Trades Union Congress in the previous March, and -which included all the principal leaders of the chief metropolitan and -provincial societies of the time. - -The agitation which was immediately begun to secure the repeal of -the Criminal Law Amendment Act became during the next four years the -most significant feature of the Trade Union world. Throughout all -the various struggles of these years the Trade Union leaders kept -steadily in view the definite aim of getting rid of a law which they -regarded, not only as hampering their efforts for better conditions -of employment, but also as an indignity and an insult to the hundreds -of thousands of intelligent artisans whom they represented. The -whole history of this agitation proves how completely the governing -classes were out of touch with the recently enfranchised artisans. The -legislation of 1871 was regarded by the Government and the House of -Commons as the full and final solution of a long-standing problem. “The -judges, however, declared,” as Henry Crompton points out, “that the -only effect of the legislation of 1871 was to make the trade object -of the strike not illegal. A strike was perfectly legal; but if the -means employed were calculated to coerce the employer they were illegal -means, and a combination to do a legal act by illegal means was a -criminal conspiracy. In other words, a strike was lawful, but anything -done in pursuance of a strike was criminal. Thus the judges tore up the -remedial statute, and each fresh decision went further and developed -new dangers.”[425] But Gladstone’s Cabinet steadfastly refused, right -down to its fall in 1874, even to consider the possibility of altering -the Criminal Law Amendment Act. It was in vain that deputation after -deputation pointed out that men were being sent to prison under this -law for such acts as peacefully accosting a workman in the street. -In 1871 seven women were imprisoned in South Wales merely for saying -“Bah” to one blackleg. Innumerable convictions took place for the -use of bad language. Almost any action taken by Trade Unionists to -induce a man not to accept employment at a struck shop resulted, -under the new Act, in imprisonment with hard labour. The intolerable -injustice of this state of things was made more glaring by the freedom -allowed to the employers to make all possible use of “black-lists” and -“character notes,” by which obnoxious men were prevented from getting -work. No prosecution ever took place for this form of molestation or -obstruction. No employer was ever placed in the dock under the law -which professedly applied to both parties. In short, boycotting by the -employers was freely permitted; boycotting by the men was put down by -the police. - -The irritation caused by these petty prosecutions was, in December -1872, deepened into anger by the sentence of twelve months’ -imprisonment passed upon the London gas-stokers. These men were found -guilty of “conspiracy” to coerce or molest their employers by merely -preparing for a simultaneous withdrawal of their labour. The vindictive -sentence inflicted by Lord Justice Brett was justified by the governing -classes on the ground of the danger to the community which a strike of -gas-stokers might involve; and the Home Secretary refused to listen -to any appeal on behalf of the men.[426] The Trade Union leaders did -not fail to perceive that no legal distinction could, under the law as -it then stood, be drawn between a gas-stoker and any other workmen. -If preparing for a strike was punishable, under “the elastic and -inexplicable law of conspiracy,” by twelve months’ imprisonment, it was -obvious that the whole fabric of Trade Unionism might be overthrown by -any band of employers who chose to put the law in force. The London -Trades Council accordingly summoned a delegate meeting “to consider -the critical legal position of all trade societies and their officers -consequent upon the recent conviction of the London gas-stokers.” -Representation after representation was made to the Government and to -members of Parliament; and the movement for the repeal of the Criminal -Law Amendment Act of 1871 was widened into a determined attempt to get -rid of all penal legislation bearing on trade disputes.[427] - -Rarely has political agitation been begun in such apparently -unpromising circumstances, and carried so rapidly to a triumphant -issue. The Liberal administration of these years, like the majority -of both parties in the House of Commons, was entirely dominated by -the antagonism felt by the manufacturers to any effective collective -bargaining on the part of the men. The representations of the -Parliamentary Committee found no sympathy either with Henry Bruce or -with Robert Lowe, who succeeded him as Home Secretary. Gladstone, as -Prime Minister, refused in 1872 to admit that there was any necessity -for further legislation, and utterly declined to take the matter -up;[428] and during that session the Parliamentary Committee were -unable to find any member willing to introduce a Bill for the repeal of -the Criminal Law Amendment Act. - -The Trade Union leaders, however, did not relax their efforts. -Allan, Guile, Odger, and Howell were strongly reinforced by the -representatives of the miners, cotton-spinners, and ironworkers. -Alexander Macdonald and John Kane, themselves men of remarkable -ability, had behind them thousands of sturdy politicians in all the -industrial centres. The agitation was fanned by the publication of -details of the prosecutions under the new Act. Effective _Tracts for -Trade Unionists_ were written by Henry Crompton and Frederic Harrison. -Congresses at Nottingham in 1872, at Leeds in 1873, at Sheffield -in 1874 kept up the fire, and passed judgment on those members of -Parliament who treated the Parliamentary Committee with contumely. As -the time of the General Election drew near, the pressure on the two -great political parties was increased. Lists of questions to candidates -were prepared embodying the legislative claims of labour; and it was -made clear that no candidate would receive Trade Union support unless -his answers were satisfactory. - -It will be a question for the historian of English politics whether -the unexpected rout of the Liberal party at the election of 1874 was -not due more to the active hostility of the Trade Unionists than to -the sullen abstention of the Nonconformists. The time happened to be a -high-water mark of Trade Unionism. In these years of good trade every -society had been rapidly increasing its membership. The miners, the -agricultural labourers, and the textile operatives in particular had -swarmed into organisation in a manner which recalls the rush of 1834. -The Trades Union Congress at Sheffield, held just before the General -Election of 1874, claimed to represent over 1,100,000 organised -workmen, including a quarter of a million of coal-miners, as many -cotton operatives, and a hundred thousand agricultural labourers. -The proceedings of this Congress reveal the feeling of bitter anger -which had been created by the obtuseness to the claims of labour of -the Liberal leaders of that day. Not content with turning a deaf ear -to all the representatives of the workmen, they had, with blundering -ignorance, retained as Secretary of the Liberal Association of the City -of London the Sidney Smith who had, since 1851, been the principal -officer of the various associations of employers in the engineering and -iron trades.[429] As such he had proved himself a bitter and implacable -enemy of Trade Unionism. We may imagine what would be the result to-day -if either political party were to face a General Election with Mr. -Laws, the organiser of the Shipping Federation, as its chief of the -staff. And whilst the Liberal party was treating the new electorate -with contumely, the Conservative candidates were listening blandly to -the workmen’s claims, and pledging themselves to repeal the obnoxious -law. - -Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the old idea of -Trade Union abstention from politics gave way to a determined attempt -at organised political action. Nor were the Trade Unionists content -with merely pressing the organised political parties in the House of -Commons. The running of independent Labour candidates against both -parties alike was a most significant symptom of the new feeling in -Labour politics. The Labour Representation League, composed mainly -of prominent Trade Unionists, had for some years been endeavouring -to secure the election of working men to the House of Commons; and -the independent candidatures of George Odger during 1869 and 1870 had -provoked considerable feeling.[430] At a bye-election at Greenwich -in 1873, a third candidate was run with working-class support against -both the great parties, with the result that Boord, the Conservative, -gained the seat. In what spirit this was regarded by the organised -workmen and their trusted advisers may be judged from the following -leading article which Professor E. S. Beesly wrote for the _Beehive_, -then at the height of its influence: “The result of the Greenwich -election is highly satisfactory.... The workman has at length come to -the conclusion that the difference between Liberal and Tory is pretty -much that between upper and nether millstone. The quality of the two is -essentially the same. They are sections of the wealth-possessing class, -and on all Parliamentary questions affecting the interests of labour -they play into one another’s hands so systematically and imperturbably -that one would suppose they thought workmen never read a newspaper or -hear a speech.... The last hours of the Session were marked by the -failure of two Bills about which workmen cared infinitely more than -about all the measures put together for which Mr. Gladstone takes -credit since his accession to office--I mean Mr. Harcourt’s Conspiracy -Bill and Mr. Mundella’s Nine Hours Bill. As for Mr. Mundella’s Bill -for repealing the Criminal Law Amendment Act, it has never had a -chance. For the failure of all these Bills the Ministry must be held -responsible.... - -“This being the case, it is simply silly for Liberal newspapers to -mourn over the Greenwich Election as an unfortunate mistake.... There -was no mistake at all at Greenwich. There was a ‘third party’ in the -field knowing perfectly well what it wanted, and regarding Mr. Boord -and Mr. Angerstein with impartial hostility. I trust that such a third -party will appear in every large town in England at the next General -Election, even though the result should be a Parliament of six hundred -and fifty Boords. Everything must have a beginning, and workmen have -waited so long for justice that seven years of Tory government will -seem a trifling addition to the sum total of their endurance if it is a -necessary preliminary to an enforcement of their claims.”[431] - -The movement for direct electoral action remained without official -support from Trade Unions as such until at the 1874 Congress Broadhurst -was able to report that the miners, ironworkers, and some other -societies had actually voted money for Parliamentary candidatures. -At the General Election which ensued no fewer than thirteen “Labour -candidates” went to the poll. In most cases both Liberal and -Conservative candidates were run against them, with the result that -the Conservatives gained the seats.[432] But at Stafford and Morpeth -the official Liberals accepted what they were powerless to prevent; -and Alexander Macdonald and Thomas Burt, the two leading officials of -the National Union of Miners, became the first “Labour members” of the -House of Commons. - -It is significant of the electioneering attitude of the Conservative -leaders that, with the advent of the new Conservative Government, -the Trade Unionists appear to have assumed that the Criminal Law -Amendment Act would be instantly repealed. Great was the disappointment -when it was announced that a Royal Commission was to be appointed -to inquire into the operation of the whole of the so-called “Labour -Laws.” This was regarded as nothing more than a device for shelving -the question, and the Trade Union leaders refused either to become -members of the Commission or to give evidence before it. Thomas Burt -absolutely refused a seat on the Commission. It needed the most -specific assurances by the Home Secretary that the Government really -intended the earliest possible legislation to induce any working man -to have anything to do with the Commission. Ultimately Alexander -Macdonald, M.P., allowed himself to be persuaded to serve, together -with Tom Hughes; and George Shipton, the Secretary of the London Trades -Council, Andrew Boa, the Secretary of the Glasgow Trades Council, and -a prominent Birmingham Trade Unionist gave evidence. The investigation -of the Commission was perfunctory, and the report inconclusive. But -the Government were too fully alive to the new-found political power -of the Unions to attempt to play with the question. At the beginning -of 1875 the imprisonment of five cabinetmakers employed at Messrs. -Jackson & Graham, a well-known London firm, roused considerable -public feeling, and led to many questions in Parliament.[433] In -June the Home Secretary, in an appreciative and conciliatory speech, -introduced two Bills for altering respectively the civil and criminal -law. As amended in Committee by the efforts of Mundella and others, -these measures resulted in Acts which completely satisfied the Trade -Union demands. The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871 was formally -and unconditionally repealed. By the Conspiracy and Protection of -Property Act (38 and 39 Vic. c. 86), definite and reasonable limits -were set to the application of the law of conspiracy to trade disputes. -The Master and Servant Act of 1867 was replaced by an Employers and -Workmen Act (38 and 39 Vic. c. 90), a change of nomenclature which -expressed a fundamental revolution in the law. Henceforth master and -servant became, as employer and employee, two equal parties to a civil -contract. Imprisonment for breach of engagement was abolished. The -legalisation of Trade Unions was completed by the legal recognition -of their methods. Peaceful picketing was expressly permitted. The old -words “coerce” and “molest,” which had, in the hands of prejudiced -magistrates, proved such instruments of oppression, were omitted from -the new law, and violence and intimidation were dealt with as part of -the general criminal code. No act committed by a group of workmen was -henceforth to be punishable unless the same act by an individual was -itself a criminal offence. Collective bargaining, in short, with all -its necessary accompaniments, was, after fifty years of legislative -struggle, finally recognised by the law of the land.[434] - -The paramount importance of the legal and Parliamentary struggle -from 1867 to 1875 has compelled us to relegate to the next chapter -all mention of striking contemporary events in Trade Union history. -The sustained efforts of this decade, too often ignored by a younger -generation of Trade Unionists, are even now referred to by the -survivors as constituting the finest period of Trade Union activity. -For over eight years the Unions had been subjected to the strain of a -prolonged and acute crisis, during which their very existence was at -stake. Out of this crisis they emerged, as we have seen, triumphantly -successful, “liberated,” to use George Howell’s words, “from the last -vestige of the criminal laws specially appertaining to labour.”[435] - -This tangible victory was not the only result of the struggle. In order -to gain their immediate end the Trade Union leaders had adopted the -arguments of their opponents, and had been led to take up a position -which, whilst it departed from the Trade Union traditions of the past, -proved in the future a serious impediment to their further theoretic -progress. To understand the intellectual attitude of the Junta and -their friends, we must consider in some detail the position which they -had to attack. From the very beginning of the century the employers -had persistently asserted their right to make any kind of bargain with -the individual workman, irrespective of its effect on the Standard of -Life. They had, accordingly, adopted the principle, as against both -the Trade Unionists and the Factory Act philanthropists, of perfect -freedom of contract and complete competition between both workers and -employers. In order to secure absolute freedom of competition between -individuals it was necessary to penalise any attempt on the part of the -workmen to regulate, by combination, the conditions of the bargain. -But this involved, in reality, a departure from the principle of legal -freedom of contract. One form of contract, that of the collective -bargain, was, in effect, made a criminal offence, on the plea that, -however beneficial it might seem to the workmen, it cut at the root of -national prosperity. It will be obvious that in urging this contention -the employers were taking up an inconsistent position. Their pecuniary -interest in complete competition outweighed, in fact, their faith in -freedom of contract. - -Meanwhile the astute workmen who led the movement were gradually -concentrating their forces upon the only position from which they -could hope to be victorious. They had, it must be remembered, no means -of imposing their own view upon the community. Even after 1867 their -followers formed but a small minority of the electorate, whilst the -whole machinery of politics was in the hands of the middle class. -Powerless to coerce or even to intimidate the governing classes, they -could win only by persuasion. It was, however, hopeless to dream -of converting the middle class to the essential principle of Trade -Unionism, the compulsory maintenance of the Standard of Life. In the -then state of Political Economy the Trade Unionists saw against them, -on this point, the whole mass of educated opinion in the country. -John Bright, for instance, did but express the common view of the -progressive party of that time when he solemnly assured the working man -that “combinations, in the long run, must be as injurious to himself as -to the employer against whom he is contending.”[436] Lord Shaftesbury, -the lifelong advocate of factory legislation, was praying that “the -working people may be emancipated from the tightest thraldom they have -ever yet endured. All the single despots, and all the aristocracies -that ever were or ever will be, are as puffs of wind compared with -these tornadoes, the Trade Unions.”[437] The Sheffield and other -outrages, the rumours of constant persecution of non-Unionists, the -hand-workers’ perpetual objection to machinery, the restrictions on -piecework and apprenticeship--all these real and fancied crimes had -created a mass of prejudice against which it was hopeless for the Trade -Unionists to struggle. - -The Union leaders, therefore, wisely left this part of their case -in the background. They avoided arguing whether Trade Unionism was, -in principle, useful or detrimental, right or wrong. They insisted -only on the right of every Englishman to bargain for the sale of his -labour in the manner he thought most conducive to his own interests. -What they demanded was perfect freedom for a workman to substitute -collective for individual bargaining, if he imagined such a course to -be for his own advantage. Freedom of association in matters of contract -became, therefore, their rejoinder to the employers’ cry of freedom of -competition. - -It is clear that the Trade Unionists had the best of the argument. -It was manifestly unreasonable for the employers to insist on the -principle of non-interference of the State in industry whenever they -were pushed by the advocates of factory legislation, and at the same -time to clamour for the assistance of the police to put down peaceful -and voluntary combinations of their workmen. The capitalists were, in -short, committed to the principle of _laissez-faire_ in every phase -of industrial life, from “Free Trade in Corn” to the unlimited use of -labour of either sex at any age and under any conditions; and what the -workmen demanded was only the application of this principle to the wage -contract. “The Trade Union question,” writes, in 1869, their chosen -representative and most powerful advocate, “is another and the latest -example of the truth, that the sphere of legislation is strictly and -curiously limited. After legislating about labour for centuries, each -change producing its own evils, we have slowly come to see the truth, -that we must cease to legislate for it at all. The public mind has been -of late conscious of serious embarrassment, and eagerly expecting some -legislative solution, some heaven-born discoverer to arise, with a new -Parliamentary nostrum. As usual in such cases, it now turns out that -there is no legislative solution at all; and that the true solution -requires, as its condition, the removal of the mischievous meddling -of the past.”[438] This doctrine “that all men may lawfully agree to -work or not to work, to employ or not to employ, on any terms that -they think fit,” forms the whole burden of the speeches and petitions -of the Trade Union leaders throughout this controversy. “We do not,” -say the official representatives of Trade Unionism in their memorial -to the Home Secretary in April 1875, “seek to interfere with the free -competition of the individual in the exercise of his craft in his own -way; but we reserve to ourselves the right either to work for, or to -refuse to work for, an employer according to the circumstances of the -case, just as the master has the right to discharge a workman, or -workmen; and we deny that the individual right is in any way interfered -with when it is done in concert.” - -The working men had, in fact, picked up the weapon of their opponents -and left these without defence. But in so doing the leading Trade -Unionists of the time drifted into a position no less inconsistent than -that of the employers. When they contended that the Union should be as -free to bargain as the individual, they had not the slightest intention -of permitting the individual to bargain freely if they could prevent -him. Though Allan and Applegarth were able conscientiously to inform -the Royal Commission that the members of their societies did not refuse -to work with non-society men, they must have been perfectly aware -that this convenient fact was only true in those places and at those -periods in which society men were not in a sufficiently large majority -to do otherwise. The trades to which Henry Broadhurst and George -Howell belonged were notorious for the success with which the Unions -had maintained their practice of excluding non-society men from their -jobs. The coal-miners of Northumberland and Durham habitually refused -to descend the shaft in company with a non-Unionist.[439] - -We have shown, in our _Industrial Democracy_, that this universal -aspiration of Trade Unionism--the enforcement of membership--stands, -in our opinion, on the same footing as the enforcement of citizenship. -But, however this may be, it is evident that the refusal of the -Northumberland miners to “ride” with non-society men is, in effect, -as coercive on the dissentient minority as the Mines Regulation Act -or an Eight Hours Bill. The insistence upon the Englishman’s right -to freedom of contract was, in fact, in the mouths of staunch Trade -Unionists, perilously near cant; and we find Frederic Harrison himself, -when dealing with other legislation, warning them that it would be -suicidal for working men to adopt as their own the capitalist cry of -“non-interference.”[440] The force of this caution must have been -evident to the Junta, who had had too much experience of the workings -of modern industry not to realise the need for a compulsory maintenance -of the Standard of Life. No Trade Unionist can deny that, without some -method of enforcing the decision of the majority, effective trade -combination is impossible. - -It must not be inferred from the above criticism of the theoretic -position taken by the men who steered the Trade Union Movement through -its great crisis that they were conscious of their inconsistency with -regard to State intervention, or that they deliberately set to work to -win their case upon false premises. No one can study the history of -their leadership without being impressed by their devotion, sagacity, -and high personal worth. We must regard their inconsistency as a -striking instance of the danger which besets a party formed without any -clear idea of the social state at which it is aiming. In the struggle -of these years we watch the English Trade Unionists driven from their -Utopian aspirations into an inconsistent opportunism, from which they -drifted during the next generation into the crude “self-help” of -an “aristocracy of labour.” During the whole of this process there -was no moment at which the incompatibility of their Individualist -and Collectivist views was perceived. Applegarth and Odger, for -instance, saw no inconsistency in becoming leading officials of the -“International” on a programme drafted by Karl Marx, and at the same -time supporting the current Radical demand for a widespread peasant -proprietorship. But it was inevitable that the exclusive insistence -upon the Individualist arguments, through which alone the victory of -1875 could be won, should impress the Individualist ideal upon the -minds of those who stood round the leaders. Other influences, moreover, -promoted the acceptance by the Trade Unionists of the economic -shibboleths of the middle class. The failure of the crude experiments -of Owen and O’Connor, the striking success of the policy of Free Trade, -the growing participation of working men in the Liberal politics of the -time, and, above all, the close intimacy which many of them enjoyed -with able and fertile thinkers of the middle class, all tended to -create a new school of Trade Unionists. In a subsequent chapter we -shall describe the results of this intellectual conversion upon the -Trade Union Movement. First, however, we must turn to the internal -development of these years, which our description of the Parliamentary -struggles of 1867-75 has forced us temporarily to ignore.[441] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[373] William Allan was born of Scotch parents at Carrickfergus, -Ulster, in 1813. His father, who was manager of a cotton-spinning mill, -removed to a mill near Glasgow, and William became in 1825 a piecer in -a cotton factory at Gateside. Three years later he left the mill to be -bound apprentice to Messrs. Holdsworth, a large engineering firm at -Anderston, Glasgow. At the age of nineteen, before his apprenticeship -was completed, he married the niece of one of the partners. In 1835 he -went to work as a journeyman engineer at Liverpool, moving thence, with -the railway works, to their new centre at Crewe, where he joined his -Union. On the imprisonment of Selsby, in 1847, he became its general -secretary, retaining this office when, in 1851, the society became -merged in the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. For over twenty years -he was annually re-elected secretary of this vast organisation, dying -at last in office in 1874. - -[374] The celebrated “International Association of Working Men,” which -loomed so large in the eyes of Governments and the governing classes -about 1869-70, had arisen out of the visit of two French delegates to -London in 1863, to concert joint action on behalf of Poland. It was -formally established at a meeting in London on September 28, 1864, at -which an address prepared by Karl Marx was read. Its fundamental aim -was the union of working men of all countries for the emancipation of -labour; and its principles went on to declare that “the subjection -of the man of labour to the man of capital lies at the bottom of all -servitude, all social misery, and all political dependence.” Between -1864 and 1870, branches were established in nearly all European -countries, as well as in the United States, the majority of trade -societies in some European countries joining in a body. The central -administration was entrusted to a General Council of fifty-five -members sitting in London, which was composed of London residents of -various nationalities, elected by the branches in the countries to -which they belonged. The General Council had, however, no legislative -or other control over the branches, and in practice served as little -more than a means of communication between them, each country managing -its own affairs in its own way. The principles and programme of the -Association underwent a steady development in the succession of annual -international congresses attended by delegates from the various -branches. The extent to which English working men really participated -in its fundamental objects is not clear. In 1870 Odger was president -and Applegarth chairman of the General Council, which included Benjamin -Lucraft, afterwards a member of the London School Board, and other -well-known working-men politicians. But few English Trade Unions (among -them being the Bootmakers and Curriers) joined in their corporate -capacity; and when, in October 1866, the General Council invited the -London Trades Council to join, or, that failing, to give permission -for a representative of the International to attend its meetings, with -a view of promptly reporting all Continental strikes, the Council’s -minutes show that both requests were refused. The London Trades Council -declined indeed to recognise the International even as the authorised -medium of communication with trade societies abroad, and decided to -communicate with these directly. Applegarth attended several of the -Continental congresses as a delegate from England, and elaborately -explained the aims and principles of the Association in an interview -published in the _New York World_ of May 21 1870. After the suppression -of the Commune the branches in France were crushed out of existence; -and the membership in England and other countries fell away. The annual -Congress held in 1872 at The Hague decided to transfer the General -Council to New York, and the “International” ceased to play any part -in the English Labour Movement. An interesting account of its Trade -Unionist action appeared in the _Fortnightly Review_ for November 1870, -by Professor E. S. Beesly. - -[375] Robert Applegarth, the son of a quartermaster in the Royal Navy, -was born at Hull on January 23, 1833. At the age of eleven he went to -work as errand boy, eventually drifting into the shop of a joiner and -cabinetmaker, where, unapprenticed, he picked up the trade as best he -could. In 1852 he moved to Sheffield; but in 1855, on the death of his -parents, he emigrated to the United States, returning to Sheffield -in the following year, as the health of his wife did not allow her -to follow him to the land of promise. Joining the local Carpenters’ -Union, he quickly became its most prominent member, and brought it -over in a body when the formation in 1861 of the Amalgamated Society -of Carpenters and Joiners offered a prospect of more efficient trade -action. Elected general secretary in 1862, he retained the office -until 1871, when, in consequence of various personal disputes in the -society, he voluntarily resigned. In 1870, on the formation of the -London School Board, he stood as a candidate for the Lambeth division, -but was unsuccessful, though he received 7600 votes. In the same year -he was invited to become a candidate for Parliament for the borough of -Maidstone, but he retired in favour of Sir John Lubbock. In 1871 he was -appointed a member of the Royal Commission on the Contagious Diseases -Act. On resigning his secretaryship he turned for a time to journalism, -and acted as war correspondent in France for an American newspaper. -Shortly afterwards he became foreman to a firm of manufacturers of -engineering and diving apparatus, eventually becoming the proprietor -of this flourishing business and retiring with a small competence. -Mr. Applegarth, who is (1920) the sole survivor of the “Junta” of -1867-71, still retains his membership of the Amalgamated Society of -Carpenters and his interest in Trade Unionism, about which he has -given us valuable documents and reminiscences. See _The Life of Robert -Applegarth_, by A. W. Humphrey, 1915. - -[376] Daniel Guile was born at Liverpool, October 21, 1814, the son of -a shoemaker. Bound apprentice to an ironfounder in 1827, he joined the -Union in June 1834. In 1863 he became its corresponding secretary, a -position he retained until his retirement at the end of 1881. He was -a member of the Parliamentary Committee, 1871-5, and died December 7, -1883. - -George Odger, the son of a Cornish miner, was born in 1820, at -Rouborough, near Tavistock, South Devon, and became a shoemaker at -an early age. Tramping about the country, as was then customary, he -eventually settled in London, becoming a prominent member of the -Ladies’ Shoemakers’ Society. His first important public action was -in connection with the meetings of delegates of London trades on the -building trades lock-out in 1859. On the formation of the London -Trades Council in 1860 he became one of its leading members, and from -1862 until the reconstruction of the Council in 1872 he acted as its -secretary. As one of the leaders of London working-class Radicalism he -made five attempts to get into Parliament, but was each time baulked by -the opposition of the official Liberal party. At Chelsea in 1868, at -Stratford in 1869, and at Bristol in 1870 he retired rather than split -the vote, but at Southwark in 1870 he went to the poll, and failed of -success only by 304 votes, the official Liberal, Sir Sidney Waterlow, -being at the bottom with 2966 votes as against 4382 given for Odger. At -the General Election of 1874 he again stood, to be once more opposed -by both Liberals and Conservatives with the same result as before. He -died in 1877, his funeral, which was attended by Professor E. Beesly, -Professor Fawcett, and Sir Charles Dilke, being made the occasion of a -remarkable demonstration by the London working men. An eulogy of him -by Professor Beesly appeared in the _Weekly Despatch_, March 11, 1877. -A brief biographical sketch was published under the title of _The Life -and Labour of George Odger_, 1877. - -[377] John Kane was born at Alnwick, Northumberland, in 1819. Sent -to work at seven, he served in various capacities until the age of -fifteen, when he moved to Newcastle-on-Tyne, and entered the ironworks -of Messrs. Hawke at Gateshead. Here he took part in the Chartist and -other progressive movements, making a vain attempt in 1842 to form a -Union in his trade. Not until 1863 was a durable society established, -and when in 1868 the Amalgamated Ironworkers’ Association was formed -on a national basis, John Kane became general secretary, a position he -retained until his death in March 1876. - -[378] The first permanent committee of the nature of a Trades Council -appears to have been, according to our information, the Liverpool -“Trades Guardian Association,” which was established in 1848 with the -object of protecting Trade Unions from suppression by the employers’ -use of the criminal law. From its printed report and balance sheet -for 1848, and the references in the _Fortnightly Circular_ of the -Stonemasons’ Society for November 23, 1848, we gather that it took -vigorous action to protect the Sheffield razor-grinders from malicious -prosecution, and to help the Liverpool masons who had been indicted -for conspiracy. Of its activity from 1850 to 1857 we possess no -records, but in August 1857 it subscribed £400 in aid of the Liverpool -cabinetmakers, and in 1861 it was assisting the London bricklayers’ -strike. In July of that year it was merged in a “United Trades -Protection Association,” formed upon the model of the newly established -London Trades Council. In Glasgow there appears to have been, since -1825, an almost continuous series of joint committees of delegates for -particular purposes. An attempt was made in 1851 to place these on a -permanent footing, but the trades soon ceased to send delegates. A -renewed attempt in 1858, made at the instance of Alexander Campbell, -met with greater success; and the Council then established, composed -principally of the building trades, was in 1860 enjoying a vigorous -life. Sheffield, too, had long had ephemeral federations of the local -trades, which came near having a continuous existence. One of these, -the “Association of Organised Trades,” established in 1857 with the -special object of assisting the Sheffield Typographical Society in -defending a libel action, became the permanent Trades Council. Other -towns, such as Dublin and Bristol, had almost constantly some kind of -Council of the local trades. An appeal of the Trade Defence Association -of Manchester, signed by representatives of nine thousand operatives on -behalf of the dyers’ strike, occurs in the _Stonemasons’ Fortnightly -Circular_ for 1854. In London, as may be gathered from George Odger’s -evidence before the Master and Servant Law Committee in 1867, the -meetings of “Metropolitan Trades Delegates” had been particularly -frequent since 1848. In 1852, for instance, as we discover from the -_Bookbinders’ Trade Circular_ (November 1853), a committee of the -London trades took the case of the Wolverhampton tinplate workers out -of the hands of the somewhat decrepit National Association of United -Trades, and bore the whole cost of these expensive legal proceedings. -No sooner had the task of this committee been completed, when another -committed was formed to assist the strike of the Preston cotton -operatives. It was to this committee, sitting at the Bell Inn, Old -Bailey, the historic meeting-place of London Trade Unionism, that Lloyd -Jones, in March 1855, communicated his fears that a certain Friendly -Societies’ Bill, then before the House of Commons, would make the legal -position of trade societies even more equivocal than it then was. A -“Metropolitan Trades Committee on the Friendly Societies’ Bill” was -accordingly formed, the printed report of which is reviewed by Dunning -in his _Circular_ for December 1855. From this we learn that it was -presided over by William Allan, and that it included his old friend -William Newton, as well as the general secretaries of the Stonemasons’ -and Bricklayers’ Societies, and representatives of the Compositors and -Bookbinders. It was supported by eighty-seven different Trade Unions -with forty-eight thousand members, who contributed a halfpenny per -member to cover the expenses. Its Parliamentary action seems, to have -been vigorous and effective. The objectionable clauses were, by skilful -Parliamentary lobbying, dropped out of the Bill, and what seemed at the -time to be an important step towards the legislation of trade societies -was, through the help of Thomas Hughes and Lord Goderich, secured. -Between 1858 and 1867 Trades Councils were established in about a -dozen of the largest towns. The Trade Union expansion of 1870-73 saw -their number doubled. But their great increase was one of the effects -of the great wave of Trade Union organisation which swept over the -country in 1889-91, when over sixty new councils were established, and -those already in existence were reorganised and greatly increased in -membership. - -[379] Second Annual Report of London Trades Council, March 31, 1862. - -[380] No copy is preserved in the British Museum nor among the archives -of the Trades Council itself. Mr. Robert Applegarth kindly presented us -with a copy, which is now in the British Library of Political Science -at the London School of Economics. The only other one known to us is in -the Goldsmiths’ Library at the University of London. - -[381] On receipt of a memorial from the operatives asking for the -introduction of the Nine Hours Day, three of the principal London -builders gave notice that henceforth they would engage their workmen, -not by the day, but by the hour. “This arrangement,” they added, “of -payment by the hour will enable any workman employed by us to work any -number of hours he may think proper.” This specious proposal involved -a total abandonment of the principle of Collective Bargaining. What -the master builders proposed was, in effect, to do away with the -very conception of a normal day, and to revert, as far as the hours -were concerned, to separate contracts with each individual workman. -The workmen realised, what they failed clearly to explain, that -the proffered freedom was illusory. In the modern organisation of -industry on a large scale there can be no freedom for the individual -workman to drop his tools at whatever moment he chooses. Without a -concerted normal day, each workman must inevitably find his task -continue as long as the engines are going or the works are open. The -real question at issue was how the common hours of labour should be -fixed. The master builders of 1861 rightly calculated that if each -man was really free to earn as many hours’ wages in the day as they -chose to offer him, the hours during which the whole body would work -would, in effect, be governed, not by the general convenience, but -by the desire and capacity of those willing to work the longest day. -On this, the essential issue, the men maintained their position. The -normal day in the London building trades was tacitly fixed according -to the prevailing custom, and has since been repeatedly regulated and -reduced by formal collective agreement until the average working week -throughout the year consists of less than 48 hours. The minor point of -the unit of remuneration was gradually conceded by the men, and the -Hour System, guarded by strict limitation of the working day, has come -to be preferred by both parties. - -[382] The letters were drawn up by Frederic Harrison and Godfrey -Lushington, after personal investigation and inquiry, and were signed -also by T. Hughes, J. M. Ludlow, E. S. Beesly, R. H. Hutton, R. B -Litchfield, and T. R. Bennett. They appeared in July 1861. - -[383] Many of the local Birmingham Trade Unions became directly -affiliated to the National Reform League. But with the exception of two -small clubs at Wolverhampton, and the West End Cabinetmakers (London), -no other Trade Union appears to have joined the League in a corporate -capacity, though its Council included Allan, Applegarth, Coulson, -Cremer, Odger, Potter, and Conolly. - -[384] The obligation to proceed by warrant was at first universal, as -the Act of 1824, 4 Geo. IV. c. 34, gave the magistrate no discretion. -By that act the master was to be served with a summons at the instance -of the workman, whilst the workman was to be arrested on a warrant on -the complaint upon oath of the master. But, in 1848, Jervis’s Act, 11 & -12 Vic. c. 43, gave justices power in all cases to issue a summons in -the first instance. The practice was accordingly gradually introduced -in England of summoning the workman; and the issue of a warrant was in -general confined to cases in which the workman had gone away, or had -failed to appear to a summons. Jervis’s Act, however, did not apply -to Scotland, so that summary arrests of workmen on warrants continued -until 1867; and this was one of the principal grievances adduced by the -Glasgow representatives. Even in England warrants were occasionally -granted by vindictive magistrates. In 1863 a dispute took place at a -Durham colliery, and the employer proceeded against the miners under -the Master and Servant Law. “In the middle of the next night twelve of -them were taken out of their beds by the police and lodged in Durham -lock-up, on the charge of deserting their work without notice” (Letter -by Professor E. S. Beesly in _Spectator_, December 12, 1863). - -[385] See Question 864, Master and Servant Law Select Committee, 1866; -Unwin _v._ Clarke, 1 Law Reports, Queen’s Bench, p. 417; and Second -Report of Labour Laws Commission, c. 1157 (1875), p. 7. - -The enactments rendering the workman liable to imprisonment for simple -breach of a contract of service are historically to be traced to the -period when the law denied to the labourer the right to withhold his -service or to bargain as to his wages. Any neglect or abandonment -of his work was, therefore, like a simple refusal to work at all, a -breach, not so much of contract, as of a duty arising out of status -and enforced by statute. The law on the subject dates, indeed, back to -the celebrated Statute of Labourers of 1349 (23 Ed. III.), the primary -object of which was to enforce service at the rates of hiring that -existed prior to the Black Death. The second section of this law enacts -that if a workman or servant depart from service before the time agreed -upon he shall be imprisoned. The same principle was asserted in the -Statute of Apprentices in 1563 (5 Eliz. c. 4), which consolidated the -law relating to all artificers and labourers, and expressly applied it -to workers by the piece, who were rendered liable to imprisonment if -they left before completing their job. During the eighteenth century, -which abounded, as we have seen, in enactments dealing with particular -trades, a long series of statutes made the provisions of law more -definite and stringent in the industries in question. The principal -English Acts were 7 Geo. I. st. 1, c. 13 (tailors); 9 Geo. I. c. 27 -(shoemakers); 13 Geo. II. c. 8 (all leather trades); 20 Geo. II. c. 19; -27 Geo. II. c. 6; 31 Geo. II. c. 11 (various trades); 6 Geo. III. c. 25 -(agreements for a term); 17 Geo. III. c. 56 (textiles, etc.); 39 & 40 -Geo. III. c. 77 (coal and iron); 4 Geo. IV. c. 34 (all trades); 10 Geo. -IV. c. 52 (general); 6 & 7 Vic. c. 40 (textiles). - -The intolerable oppression which these laws enabled unscrupulous -employers to commit was, at the beginning of the century, scarcely -inferior to that brought about by the Combination Laws. This was -strongly urged by the authors of _A few Remarks on the State of the -Laws at present in existence for regulating Masters and Workpeople_ -(preserved among the Place MSS. 27804), which George White, the -prompter of Peter Moore, M.P., published in 1823. The pieceworker -clause of the Statute of Apprentices was particularly oppressive. “This -clause,” says White, “has been much abused, as in many businesses -they never finish their work, as the nature of the employment is such -that they are compelled to begin one before they finish another, as -wheelwrights, japanners, and an infinite number of trades; therefore -if any dispute ariseth respecting the amount of wages, and a strike -or turn-out commences, or men leave their work, having words, the -master prosecutes them for leaving their work unfinished. Very few -prosecutions have been made to effect under the Combination Acts, but -hundreds have been made under this law, and the labourer or workman -can never be free, unless this law is modified. The Combination Act -is nothing: it is the law which regards the finishing of work which -masters employ to harass and keep down the wages of their workpeople; -unless this is modified nothing is done, and by repealing the -Combination Acts you leave the workman in ninety-nine cases out of a -hundred in the same state you found him--at the mercy of his master” -(p. 51). But, in spite of this somewhat exaggerated protest, neither -Place nor Hume took up the amendment of the law relating to contracts -of service. Their paramount concern was to secure for the workman -freedom to enter into a contract, and oppressive punishment for its -breach attracted, for the moment, little attention. - -Besides White’s Manual, the following may be referred to for the -history of the law, and of its amendment: _Report of Conference on the -Law of Master and Workman under the Contract of Service_ (Glasgow, -1864); the Reports of the Select Committee on the Law of Master and -Servant, 1866, and of the Royal Commission on the Labour Laws, 1875; -_The Labour Laws_, by James Edward Davis (1875); and Stephen’s _History -of the Criminal Law_, vol. iii. - -[386] Alexander Campbell, who had been a prominent disciple of Robert -Owen, and whom we have already seen as secretary to the little -Glasgow Carpenters’ Union of 1834, was, in 1863, editing the _Glasgow -Sentinel_, which became the chief organ of Macdonald and his National -Association of Miners. Campbell is described as having been, in 1858, -the virtual founder of the Glasgow Trades Council. - -[387] The Memorial, which contains an exact statement of the law and -suggestions for its amendment, is preserved in the _Flint Glass Makers’ -Magazine_, December 1863. - -[388] Among those present were Robert Applegarth, George Odger, Daniel -Guile, T. J. Dunning, Alexander Macdonald, William Dronfield, Alexander -Campbell, Edwin Coulson, and George Potter. The societies represented -included the London Trades Council, Glasgow Trades Committee, -Sheffield Association of Organised Trades, Liverpool United Trades -Protection Society, Nottingham Association of Organised Trades, and the -Northumberland and Durham United Trades and Labourers; the Amalgamated -Societies of Engineers and Carpenters, the National Societies of -Bricklayers, Masons, Ironfounders, Miners, and Bookbinders, the London -Society of Compositors, the Scottish Bakers, Sheffield Sawmakers, etc. - -[389] Afterwards Earl of Wemyss. - -[390] Minutes of meeting of London Trades Council, March 1864. - -[391] It must not be supposed that the lock-out was a new invention. -Place describes its use by the master breeches-makers at the end of -the last century: _Life of Francis Place_, by Professor Graham Wallas -(1918). - -[392] _Report of Conference of Trade Delegates at Sheffield_ (June -1866), p. 22. - -[393] “An Ironmaster’s View of Strikes,” by W. R. Hopper, _Fortnightly -Review_ (August 1, 1865). - -[394] “Measures for Putting an End to the Abuses of Trades Unions,” by -Frederic Hill, Barrister-at-Law: Paper in Sessional Proceedings of the -National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, 1867-68, p. -24. The popular middle-class sentiment is reflected in Charles Reade’s -novel, _Put Yourself in his Place_ (1871). - -[395] See, for instance, the speech of George Newton, the secretary -of the Glasgow Trades Committee: “A great many strikes, and perhaps -lock-outs, too, have arisen from a stubborn refusal on the part of -both sides to look the question honestly and fairly in the face.... -Let us examine ourselves and see if there be any wicked way in us that -contributes to this unsatisfactory state of things, and if we discover -that we are not blameless, then we ought, first of all, to set our own -house in order.... Then let us examine the opposite side of the camp -and see how they stand, and if we find that they have not done all that -they ought to have done with a view to prevent these serious evils, -let us undisguisedly and in plain language point out where we consider -they have erred, and by increasing public opinion in a healthy way -against tyranny--some people call it, but perhaps a milder word would -be better--against the unwise policy used, it will do much to repress -it in future” (_Conference Report_, Sheffield, 1866). - -[396] Rules adopted at Manchester Conference, 1867 (Sheffield, 1867, 12 -pp.). - -[397] The Alliance was always administered by an executive elected -by the Sheffield trades, the leading men amongst which had been -active in its formation. The veteran secretary of the Typographical -Society, William Dronfield, was the first general secretary. Among the -trades represented were the South Yorkshire and Nottingham Miners, -the Amalgamated Tailors, Boilermakers, Cotton-spinners, Scottish -Associated Carpenters, Yorkshire Glass-bottle Makers, North of England -Ironworkers, and the trades of Wolverhampton. The minute books from -1867 to 1870, and its printed _Monthly Statement_, show that the -Alliance at first supported the men in numerous lock-outs, especially -among the tailors, miners, and ironworkers, but that there were -constant complaints of unpaid levies. Dronfield informed us that the -Judicial Committee and the Executive experienced great difficulties -from the absence of any control over the constituent Unions, and the -impossibility of accurately defining a lock-out. The first conference -of the Alliance was held at Manchester from the 1st to the 4th of -January 1867, when fifty-three trades had been enrolled, numbering -59,750 members. The “Rules” adopted at this conference contain an -interesting address by Dronfield upon the principles and objects of -the federation. The next conference was at Preston in September 1867, -when the membership had fallen to 23,580, in forty-seven trades, -the Boilermakers, among others, formally withdrawing (_Minutes of -Conference at Preston_, Sheffield, 1867, 16 pp.). - -[398] The town of Sheffield had long been noted for the custom of -“rattening,” that is, the temporary abstraction of the wheelbands or -tools of a workman whose subscription to his club was in arrear. This -had become the recognised method of enforcing, not merely the payment -of contributions, but also compliance with the trade regulations -of the club. The lawless summary jurisdiction thus usurped by the -Sheffield clubs easily passed into more serious acts of lynch law -if mere rattening proved ineffectual. Recalcitrant workmen were -terrorised by explosions of cans of gunpowder in the troughs of their -grinding wheels, or thrown down their chimneys; and in some cases -these explosions caused serious injury. The various Grinders’ Unions -(saw, file, sickle, fork, and fender) enjoyed an unhappy notoriety -for outrages of this nature, which had, from time to time, aroused -the spasmodic indignation of the local press, notably in 1843-4. -An attempt, in 1861, to blow up a small warehouse in Acorn Street -provoked a special outburst of public disapproval; and the minutes of -the London Trades Council record that already on this occasion the -Council publicly expressed its abhorrence of such criminal violence. -After this date there was for three or four years a diminution in the -number of serious acts of violence committed; but the years 1865-6 saw -a renewal of the evil practices, especially in connection with the -Saw-Grinders’ Union. The explosion in New Hereford Street in October -1866 was afterwards proved to have been instigated by this Union in -order to terrorise a certain Thomas Fernehough, who had twice deserted -the society, and was at the time working for a firm against whom the -saw-handle makers, as well as the saw-grinders, had struck. - -[399] Among other societies, the Amalgamated Engineers and Carpenters -and the national Unions of Boilermakers and Ironfounders appear to have -deposited their rules. - -[400] _Beehive_, January 26, 1867. - -[401] Along with these, in helping and advising the Trade Unions at -this time, were Vernon Lushington, Godfrey Lushington (afterwards -Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department), J. M. -Ludlow (afterwards Registrar of Friendly Societies), Neate (formerly -Professor of Political Economy and then M.P. for Oxford), Sir T. Fowell -Buxton, M.P., and A. J. Mundella. - -[402] The Junta did not, however, confine its efforts to action before -the Commission. One of the taunts constantly thrown by the press at -the Trade Union leaders was that they did not themselves know what -they wanted. Partly as a reply to this, but also as a manifesto to -consolidate the Unionist forces, in the autumn of 1867 a Bill was -prepared by Henry Crompton and laid before the Junta, and after -considerable discussion adopted by them and by a delegate meeting -of Trades held at the Bell Inn. It was introduced into the House of -Commons early in the following session, and served as basis of the -Trade Union demand at some of the elections in 1868, notably that of -Sheffield when A. J. Mundella first was candidate. - -[403] The Broadhead disclosures created a great stir, and Professor -Beesly, who had ventured to point out “that a trades union murder was -neither better nor worse than any other murder,” was denounced as an -apologist for crime, and nearly lost his professorship at University -College, London, for his sturdy defence of the principle of Trade -Unionism. See his pamphlet, _The Sheffield Outrages and the Meeting -at Exeter Hall_, 1867, 16 pp.; and that by Richard Congreve, _Mr. -Broadhead and the Anonymous Press_, 1867, 16 pp. - -[404] _Times_ leader, July 8, 1869. The occasion was the epoch-marking -speech of Mr. (afterwards Lord) Brassey, in which, speaking as the son -of a great contractor, he declared himself on the side of the Trade -Unions, and asserted that, by exercising a beneficial influence on the -character of the workmen, they tended to lower rather than to raise the -cost of labour (Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, July 7, 1869). The -speech was afterwards republished, with some additions, under the title -of _Trade Unions and the Cost of Labour_, by T. Brassey, 1870, 64 pp. - -[405] The Sheffield Outrages and the Royal Commission produced a large -crop of literature, most of which is of little value. The Commission -itself presented no fewer than eleven reports, with voluminous evidence -and appendices. The Examiners appointed to investigate the outrages at -Sheffield and Manchester presented separate reports, which were laid -before Parliament. The mass of detailed information about strikes and -other proceedings of Trade Societies contained in these reports has -been the main source of all subsequent writings on the subject. _The -Trade Unions of England_, by the Comte de Paris, 1869, 246 pp., and -_The Trade Unions_, by Robert Somers (Edinburgh, 1876, 232 pp.), are, -for instance, little better than summaries, the former friendly, the -latter unfriendly, of the evidence before the Commission. The chapters -relating to Trade Unionism in W. T. Thornton’s work _On Labour_, 1870, -which made so permanent an impression on the economic world, are -entirely based upon the same testimony. Among other publications may -be mentioned _Trades Unions Defended_, by W. R. Callender (Manchester, -1870, 16 pp.); and _Measures for Putting an End to the Abuses of Trades -Unions_, by Frederic Hill, 1868, 16 pp. - -[406] _Report of the Trades Conference_, 1867, 32 pp. - -[407] _Beehive_, June 13, 1868. - -[408] _Ibid._, August 28, 1869. - -[409] _Beehive_, January 26, 1867. - -[410] _Fortnightly Circular_, June 1868. - -[411] See, for instance, _Some opinions on Trade Unions and the Bill -of 1869_, by Edmund Potter, M.P., 1869, 45 pp.; also the _Observations -upon the Law of Combinations and Trades Unions, and upon the Trades -Unions Bill_, by a Barrister, 1869, 64 pp. - -[412] In his _Letters to the Working Classes_, 1870, Professor Beesly -gives a graphic account of the shuffling of the Government, and advises -political action. The annual report of the General Union of House -Painters (the “Manchester Alliance”) for 1871 shows how eagerly the -advice was received: “Away with the cry of no politics in our Unions; -this foolish neutrality has left us without power or influence.” See -also, for the whole episode, _Robert Applegarth_, by A. W. Humphrey, -1912, pp. 138-170; _Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and Labour -Leaders_, by G. Howell, 1902, pp. 156-172. - -[413] 32 and 33 Vic. c. 61 (1869). This provisional measure was -bitterly opposed in the House of Lords by Earl Cairns, who argued that -its universal protection of the funds of all Unions alike, without -requiring the abandonment of their objectionable rules, was in direct -opposition to the majority report of the Royal Commission. No such -surrender to the Trade Unions was, in his opinion, necessary, as -their funds had, in the previous year, been incidentally protected -by an “Act to amend the law relating to larceny and embezzlement” -(31 and 32 Vic. c. 116), passed at the instance of Russell Gurney, -the Recorder of London. This act had no reference to Trade Unions -as such, but it enabled members of a co-partnership to be convicted -for stealing or embezzling the funds of their co-partnership. Its -possible application to defaulting Trade Union officials was perceived -by Messrs. Shaen, Roscoe & Co., who have for three generations acted -as solicitors of the leading Unions. At their instance a case was -submitted to the Attorney-General of the time (Sir John Karslake), -who advised that a Trade Union could now prosecute in its character -of a partnership. Criminal proceedings were accordingly taken by the -Operative Bricklayers’ Society against a defaulting officer who had set -the Executive at defiance, with the result that the prisoner was, in -December 1868, sentenced to six months’ hard labour. This successful -prosecution was widely advertised throughout the Trade Union world, -and was frequently quoted as showing that no further legislation was -needed. But, as was forcibly pointed out by Frederic Harrison and -other advisers of the Junta, Russell Gurney’s Act, though it enabled -Trade Unions to put defaulting officials in prison, gave them no power -to recover the sums due, or to take any civil proceedings whatever, -and did not remove the illegality of any combinations of workmen “in -restraint of trade.” See Harrison’s article, “The Trades Union Bill,” -in _Fortnightly Review_, July 1, 1869, and the leaflet published by the -Amalgamated Society of Engineers, on Russell Gurney’s Act, December, -1868. - -[414] See, for instance, the report of the Leeds meeting of the Master -Builders’ Association to object to the Bill, _Beehive_, March 11, 1871. - -[415] A short Act had been passed in 1859 (22 Vic. c. 34) which -excluded from the definition of “molestation” or “obstruction” the -mere agreement to obtain an alteration of wages or hours, and also -the peaceful persuasion of others without threat or intimidation to -cease or abstain from work in order to obtain the wages or hours aimed -at. The Act was passed without discussion or comment, probably with -reference to some recent judicial decisions, but its actual origin -is not clear. The Stonemasons’ Society refused to have anything to -do with it, and referred sneeringly to its promoters as busybodies. -Alexander Macdonald alluded to it in his speech on the Employers and -Workmen Bill on June 28, 1875 (Hansard, vol. 225, pp. 66-7), as having -been enacted at the instance of himself and others in order to permit -men to persuade others to join combinations, and that it had had a -most beneficial effect. An obscure pamphlet, entitled _Letters to -the Trades Unionists and the Working Classes_, by Charles Sturgeon, -1868, 8 pp., gives the only account of its origin that we have seen. -“Some of the judges had decided that the liberty to combine was only -during the period he was not in the employ of any master (_i.e._ while -on tramp). So obvious a misreading, under which the working men were -getting imprisoned, while their masters combined at their pleasure, -created numerous petitions for relief, which lay as usual on the table; -however, the Executive of the National Association of United Trades -assembled in my rooms in Abingdon Street, and we drew a little Bill of -nine lines in length to explain to the judges how they had failed to -explain the views of the legislator.... I introduced our friends to the -late Henry Drummond, Thomas Duncombe, and Joseph Hume, two Radicals and -an honest Tory, and, strange to say, they worked well together when in -pursuit of justice. After fighting hard against the great Liberal Party -for four or five years, we passed our little Bill (22 Vic. c. 34), to -the great joy of the working classes and chagrin of the Manchester -Radicals.” But the decision of the R. _v._ Druitt and R. _v._ Bailey in -1867 showed that it did not serve to protect pickets from prosecution. - -[416] Henry Crompton gives the following account of the practice of -picketing:--“Picketing is generally much misunderstood. It occurs in -a strike when war has begun. The struggle, of course, consists in the -employer trying to get fresh men, and the men on strike trying to -prevent this. They naturally do their best to induce all others to -join them. Very often the country is scoured by the employers, and men -brought long distances who never would have come if they had known -there was a strike. Men do not wish to undersell their fellows. A man -is posted as a picket, to give information of the grievances complained -of, and to urge the fresh comers not to defeat the strike that is going -on. - -“Not only is this justifiable, but it is far better that this should be -legal and practised in full publicity than that it should be illegal -and done secretly, for, if done secretly, then bad practices are sure -to arise. No doubt it is done with a view to coerce the employers, just -as the lock-out is with a view to coerce the employed. - -“Picketing has other uses and effects. It enables those on strike to -know whether the employers are getting men, and what probability there -is of the strike being successful, to check any fraudulent claims for -strike pay. Besides this, the publicity which the system of picketing -gives does, doubtless, exercise a considerable influence upon men’s -conduct. Those on strike naturally regard any one acting contrary -to the general interests of the trade with disfavour, just as an -unpatriotic man is condemned by those imbued with a higher sense of -national duty. Picketing is justified on these grounds by the workmen, -but all physical molestation or intimidation is condemned. The workmen -have never urged that such proceedings should not be repressed by penal -law.” (See _The Labour Law Commission_, by Henry Crompton, adopted and -published by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress.) - -[417] Baron Bramwell’s view of the law excited much animadversion even -among lawyers. See Stephen’s _History of the Criminal Law_, vol. iii. -pp. 221-2. R. _v._ Druitt is reported in 10 Cox, 600. - -[418] R. _v._ Hewitt, 5 Cox, 162 (1851). Compare also the observations -of Mr. Justice Hannam as to the mere act of striking being in itself -sometimes criminal, in Farrer _v._ Close, 4 L.R.Q.B. 612 (1869). - -[419] R. _v._ Hewitt, 5 Cox, C.C. 163 (1851). - -[420] See Walsby _v._ Anley, 30 L.J.M.C. 121 (1861); Skinner _v._ -Kitch, 10 Cox, 493 (1867); O’Neil _v._ Kruger, 4 Best and Smith, -389 (1863); Wood _v._ Bowron, 2 Law Report, Q.B. 21 (1866); R. _v._ -Rowlands, 5 Cox, C.C. 493 (1851). - -Compare on the whole subject the Appendix to our _Industrial -Democracy_, 1897; _The Law of Criminal Conspiracies and Agreements_, -by R. S. (afterwards Mr. Justice) Wright (1873); Sir William Erle’s -_Law Relating to Trade Unions_ (1873); and Stephen’s _History of the -Criminal Law_, vol. iii. chap. xxx. - -[421] Whilst the constant meetings of the Junta, the informal cabinet -of the movement, grew out of the great Amalgamated Societies, the -Trades Union Congress, or “Parliament of Labour,” took its rise in -the Trades Councils. We have already described the special Conference -held in London in 1864, on the Master and Servant Law, which was -convened by the Glasgow Trades Council, and its successor, summoned by -the Sheffield Trades Council in 1867 to concert measures of defence -against lock-outs. But the credit of initiating the idea of an Annual -Conference to deal with all subjects of interest to the Trade Union -world belongs to the Manchester and Salford Trades Council, who issued -in April 1868 a circular (fortunately preserved in the _Ironworkers’ -Journal_ for May 1868, and printed at the end of this volume) -convening a Congress to be held in Manchester during Whit-week, 1868. -This Congress was attended by thirty-four delegates, who claimed to -represent about 118,000 Trade Unionists. The place of meeting of the -next Congress was fixed at Birmingham, and the delegates were in due -course convened by the Birmingham Trades Council. This second Congress, -which met in August 1869, included forty-eight delegates from forty -separate societies, having, it was said, 250,000 members. But although -these general congresses were attended by some of the most prominent -of the provincial Trade Unionists, they were rather frowned on by the -London Junta. The thirty-four delegates at the Manchester Congress -included indeed hardly any Metropolitan delegates other than George -Potter. Half a dozen representatives from London societies went to -the Birmingham Congress, including Odger and George Howell, but when -a Parliamentary Committee was appointed Odger refused to serve upon -it, regarding it apparently as an unnecessary rival of the Conference -of Amalgamated Trades. The next Congress was appointed for London in -1870, but the London leaders took no steps to convene it, until it -became necessary, as we have seen, to call up all forces to oppose -the projected legislation of 1871. The London Congress of March 1871 -was, in fact, the first in which the real leaders of the movement took -part, and the Parliamentary Committee which it appointed, acting at -first in conjunction with Applegarth’s Conference, naturally took the -place of this on its dissolution. The 1872 Congress at Nottingham was -attended by seventy-seven delegates, representing 375,000 members. -Reports of the earliest four congresses must be sought in the _Beehive_ -and (as regards those of Manchester, Birmingham, and Nottingham) in -the contemporary local newspapers. From 1873 onward the Congress has -issued an authorised report of its proceedings. A useful chronological -record has now been published by W. J. Davis, entitled _A History of -the British Trades Union Congress_, vol. i. 1910; vol. ii. 1916. - -[422] 34 and 35 Vic. c. 31 (Trade Union Act), and 34 and 35 Vic. c. 32 -(Criminal Law Amendment Act). - -[423] See, for instance, the article by Henry Crompton in the -_Beehive_, September 2, 1871. - -[424] The Operative Bricklayers’ Society (London), of which Coulson was -general secretary, stands No. 1 on the Register. - -[425] _Digest of the Labour Laws_, signed by F. Harrison and H. -Crompton, and issued by the Trades Union Congress Parliamentary -Committees, September 1875. - -[426] They were, however, eventually released after a few months’ -imprisonment; see _Henry Broadhurst, the Story of His Life_, by -himself, 1901, pp. 59-64; _Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and -Labour Leaders_, by G. Howell, 1902, pp. 237-53. - -[427] See letter to _Beehive_, January 11, 1873. - -[428] Hansard, vol. 212, p. 1132, July 15, 1872. - -[429] This formed the subject of bitter comment in the _Beehive_, -January 1874, just before the General Election. - -[430] The following letter, addressed to Odger by John Stuart Mill, -will be of interest in connection with the perennial question of the -expediency of “independent” candidatures. It will be found in the -_Beehive_ for February 13, 1875:-- - -“Avignon, _February 19, 1871_. - -“Dear Mr. Odger,--Although you have not been successful, I congratulate -you on the result of the polling in Southwark, as it proves that you -have the majority of the Liberal party with you, and that you have -called out an increased amount of political feeling in the borough. It -is plain that the Whigs intend to monopolise political power as long -as they can without coalescing in any degree with the Radicals. The -working men are quite right in allowing Tories to get into the House -to defeat this exclusive feeling of the Whigs, and may do it without -sacrificing any principle. The working men’s policy is to insist upon -their own representation, and in default of success to permit Tories to -be sent into the House until the Whig majority is seriously threatened, -when, of course, the Whigs will be happy to compromise, and allow a few -working men representatives in the House. - -John Stuart Mill.” - -[431] _Beehive_, August 9, 1873; see also that of August 30. - -[432] Halliday, the Secretary of the Amalgamated Association of Miners, -offered himself as Labour candidate for Merthyr Tydvil. A fortnight -before the polling day he was indicted at Burnley for conspiracy in -connection with a local miners’ strike, but nevertheless went to the -poll, receiving the large total of 4912 votes (_Beehive_, January 31, -1874). Among the other “third candidates” were Broadhurst (Wycombe), -Howell (Aylesbury), Cremer (Warwick), Lucraft (Finsbury), Potter -(Peterborough), Bradlaugh (Northampton), Kane (Middlesborough), Odger -(Southwark), Mottershead (Preston), and Walton (Stoke). See _History of -Labour Representation_, by A. W. Humphrey, 1912. - -[433] See House of Commons Returns, No. 237 of the 2nd, and No. 273 of -the 23rd of June 1875. - -[434] It is not surprising that this sweeping Parliamentary triumph -evoked great enthusiasm in the Trade Union ranks. At the Trade Union -Congress in October 1875, such ardent Radicals as Odger, Guile, and -George Howell joined in the warmest eulogies of J. K. (afterwards -Viscount) Cross, whose sympathetic attitude had surpassed their utmost -hopes. “The best friends they had in Parliament,” said Howell, “with -one or two exceptions, never declared for the repeal of the Criminal -Law Amendment Act. He, with some friends, was under the gallery of the -House of Commons when the measure was under discussion, and they could -scarcely believe their ears when they heard Mr. Cross declare for the -total repeal of the Act.” And Odger paid testimony to the “immense -singleness of purpose” with which the Home Secretary “had attended -to every proposition that had been placed before him,” and accorded -them “the greatest boon ever given to the sons of toil.” An amendment -deprecating such “fulsome recognition of the action of the Conservative -party” received only four votes (Report of Glasgow Congress, 1875). -Some minor amendments of the law relating to the registration and -friendly benefits of Trade Unions were embodied in the Trade Union Act -Amendment Act of 1876 (39 and 40 Vic. c. 22). See the _Handybook of -the Labour Laws_, by George Howell, 1876, and his _Labour Legislation, -Labour Movements and Labour Leaders_, 1902, pp. 156-72. - -[435] Speech at Trades Union Congress, Glasgow, October 1875. - -[436] In his letter to a Blackburn millowner, November 3, 1860. _Public -Letters of John Bright_, collected and edited by H. J. Leech, 1885, p. -80. - -[437] Letter to Colonel Maude, quoted by Professor Beesly in his -address to the London Trades Council, 1869, reported in _Bricklayers’ -Circular_, March 1870. - -[438] _Fortnightly Review_, July 1, 1869. “The Trades Union Bill,” by -Frederic Harrison. - -[439] William Crawford, the trusted leader of the Durham miners, -and a steadfast opponent of the Eight Hours Bill, in a well-known -letter of later date (of which we have had a copy), emphatically -urges the complete ostracism of non-society men. “You should at least -be consistent. In numberless cases you refuse to descend and ascend -with non-Unionists. The right or wrong of such action I will not now -discuss; but what is the actual state of things found in many parts of -the country? While you refuse to descend and ascend with these men, you -walk to and from the pit, walk in and out bye with them--nay, sometimes -work with them. You mingle with them at home over your glass of beer, -in your chapels, and side by side you pray with them in your prayer -meeting. The time has come when there must be plain speaking on this -matter. It is no use playing at shuttlecock in this important portion -of our social life. Either mingle with these men in the shaft, as you -do in every other place, or let them be ostracised at all times and -in every place. Regard them as unfit companions for yourselves and -your sons, and unfit husbands for your daughters. Let them be branded, -as it were, with the curse of Cain, as unfit to mingle in ordinary, -honest, and respectable society. Until you make up your minds to thus -completely and absolutely ostracise these goats of mankind, cease to -complain as to any results that may arise from their action.” Compare -_A Great Labour Leader_ [Thomas Burt], by Aaron Watson, 1908. - -[440] See his letter on the Government Annuities Bill, 1864: “Lastly, -we are told of Government dictation and interference. I cannot believe -men of sense will say this twice seriously.... Leave it to the -political economists to complain.... Let working men remember that -whenever a measure in their interest is proposed to Parliament, or -suggested in the country--whether it be to limit excessive hours of -labour, to protect women and children, to regulate unhealthy labour, -to provide them with the means of health, cleanliness, or recreation, -to save them from the exactions of unscrupulous employers--it is -universally met with opposition from one quarter, that of unrestricted -competition; and opposed on one ground, that of absolute freedom of -private enterprise. We all know--at least, we all explain--how selfish -and shallow this cry is in the mouth of unscrupulous capitalists who -resist the Truck System Bill or the Ten Hours Bill. Is it not suicidal -in working men to raise a cry which has ever been, and still will -be, the great resource of those who strive to set obstacles to their -welfare? The next time working men promote a Short Time Bill of any -kind they will be told to stick to their principle of non-interference -with private capital” (_Beehive_, March 19, 1864). - -[441] From 1861 to 1877 the principal working-class organ was the -_Beehive_, established by a group of Trade Unionists who formed a -company in which over a hundred Unions are said to have taken shares. -The editor and virtual proprietor during its whole life appears to -have been George Potter, who was assisted by a Consulting Committee, -on which appeared, at some time or another, the names of all the -leading London Trade Unionists. Potter, as we have already mentioned, -was a man of equivocal character and conduct, who at no time held any -important position in the Trade Union world, though his London Working -Men’s Association made a useful start of the movement for Trade Union -representation in the House of Commons. Under his editorship the -_Beehive_ became the best Labour newspaper which has yet appeared. This -was due to the persistent support of Frederic Harrison, Henry Crompton, -E. S. Beesly, Lloyd Jones, and other friends of Trade Unionism who, -for fifteen years, contributed innumerable articles, whilst such Trade -Union leaders as Applegarth, Howell, and Shipton frequently appeared in -its columns. These contributions make it of the greatest possible value -to the student of Trade Union history. Unfortunately, the most complete -file in any public library--that in the British Museum--begins only in -1869. Mr. John Burns possesses a unique set beginning in 1863, which -he kindly placed at our disposal. In 1877 it was converted into the -_Industrial Review_, which came to an end in 1879. - -The place of the _Beehive_ was, in 1881, to some extent taken by the -_Labour Standard_, a penny weekly established by George Shipton, the -Secretary of the London Trades Council. It ran from May 7, 1881, to -April 29, 1882, and contained articles by Henry Crompton and Professor -E. S. Beesly, together with much Trade Union information. - - - - -CHAPTER VI - -SECTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS - -[1863-1885] - - -From 1851 to 1863 all the effective forces in the Trade Union Movement -were centred in London. Between 1863 and 1867, as we described in the -course of the last chapter, provincial organisations, such as the -Glasgow and Sheffield Trades Councils, and provincial leaders such as -Alexander Macdonald and John Kane, began to play an important part in -the general movement. The dramatic crisis of 1867, and the subsequent -political struggle, compelled us to break off our description of the -growth of the movement in order to follow the Parliamentary action of -the London leaders. But whilst the Junta and their allies were winning -their great victories at Westminster, the centre of gravity of the -Trade Union world was being insensibly shifted from London to the -industrial districts north of the Humber. This was primarily due to the -rapid growth of two great provincial organisations, the federations of -Coal-miners and Cotton Operatives. - -The Miners, now one of the most powerful contingents of the Trade Union -forces, were, until 1863, without any effective organisation. The -Miners’ Association of Great Britain, which, as we have seen, sprang -in 1841-43 into a vigorous existence, collapsed in 1848. An energetic -attempt made by Martin Jude to re-establish a National Association -in 1850, when a conference was held at Newcastle, was, in consequence -of the continued depression in the coal trade, entirely unsuccessful. -For the next few years “the fragments of union that existed got less -by degrees and more minute till, at the close of 1855, it might be -said that union among the miners in the whole country had almost died -out.”[442] The revival which took place between 1858 and 1863 was due, -in the main, to the persistent work of the able man who became for -fifteen years their trusted leader. - -Alexander Macdonald, to whose lifelong devotion the miners owe their -present position in the Trade Union world, stands, like William Newton, -midway between the casual and amateur leaders of the old Trade Unionism -and the paid officials of the new type. Himself originally a miner and -the son of a miner, the education and independent means which he had -acquired enabled him, from 1857 onwards, to apply himself continuously -to the miners’ cause. A florid style, and somewhat flashy personality, -did him no harm with the rough and uneducated workmen whom he had to -marshal. The main source of his effectiveness lay, however, neither -in his oratory nor in his powers of organisation, but in his exact -appreciation of the particular changes that would remedy the miners’ -grievances, and in the tactical skill with which he embodied these -changes in legislative form. Like his friends, Allan and Applegarth, -he relied almost exclusively on Parliamentary agitation as a means for -securing his ends. But whilst the Junta were contenting themselves -with securing political freedom for Trade Unionists, Macdonald from -the first persistently pressed for the legislative regulation of the -conditions of labour. And though, like his London allies, he consorted -largely with the middle-class friends of Trade Unionism, and freely -utilised their help in the House of Commons, he proved his superior -originality and tenacity of mind by never in the slightest degree -abandoning the fundamental principle of Trade Unionism--the compulsory -maintenance of the workman’s Standard of Life. - -“It was in 1856,” said Macdonald on a later occasion, “that I crossed -the Border first to advocate a better Mines Act, true weighing, the -education of the young, the restriction of the age till twelve years, -the reduction of the working hours to eight in every twenty-four, the -training of managers, the payment of wages weekly in the current coin -of the realm, no truck, and many other useful things too numerous to -mention here. Shortly after that, bone began to come to bone, and by -1858 we were in full action for better laws.”[443] The pit clubs and -informal committees that pressed these demands upon the legislature -became centres of local organisation, with which Macdonald kept up an -incessant correspondence. An arbitrary lock-out of several thousand -men by the South Yorkshire coal-owners in 1858 welded the miners -of that coalfield into a compact district association, and enabled -Macdonald, in the same year, to get together a national conference at -Ashton-under-Lyne, at which, however, the delegates could claim to -represent only four thousand men in union. In 1860, when the Mines -Regulation Act was being passed into law, Macdonald was able to score -a success in the “checkweigher” clause, to which we shall again refer. -Not until the end of 1863, however, can the Miners’ National Union -be said to have been effectively established; and the proceedings of -the Leeds Conference of that year strike the note of the policy which -Macdonald, to the day of his death, never ceased to press upon the -miners, and to which the great majority of them have now, after a -temporary digression, once more returned. - -The Miners’ Conference at Leeds was in many respects a notable -gathering. Instead of the formless interchange of talk which had marked -the previous conference, Macdonald induced the fifty-one delegates -who sat from the 9th to the 14th of November 1863 at the People’s -Co-operative Hall to organise their meeting on the model of the -National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, and divide -themselves into three sections, on Law, on Grievances, and on Social -Organisation, each of which reported to the whole conference.[444] The -proceedings of the day were opened with prayer by the “Chaplain to -the Conference,” the Rev. Joseph Rayner Stephens, celebrated as the -opponent of the New Poor Law and the advocate of factory legislation -and Chartism.[445] In the reports of the sections and the numerous -resolutions of the conference we find all the points of Macdonald’s -programme. The paramount importance of securing the Standard of Life by -means of legislative regulation of the conditions of work is embodied -in a lengthy series of proposals which have nearly all since been -inserted in the detailed code of mining law. In contradistinction to -the view which would make wages depend upon prices, the principle -of controlling industry in such a way as to prevent encroachments -on the workman’s standard maintenance is clearly foreshadowed. -“Overtoil,” says the report, “produces over-supply; low prices and low -wages follow; bad habits and bad health follow, of course; and then -diminished production and profits are inevitable. Reduction of toil, -and consequent improved bodily health, increases production in the -sense of profit; and limits it so as to avoid overstocking; better -wages induce better habits, and economy of working follows.... The -evil of overtoil and over-supply upon wages, and upon the labourer, is -therefore a fair subject of complaint; and, we submit, as far as these -are human by conventional arrangements, are a fair and proper subject -of regulation. Regulations must, of course, be twofold. Part can be -legislated for by compulsory laws; but the principle (_sic_) must be -the subject of voluntary agreement.”[446] The restriction of labour in -mines to a maximum of eight hours per day was strongly urged; but at -Macdonald’s instance it was astutely resolved not to ask for a legal -regulation of the hours of adult men, but to confine the Parliamentary -proposal to a Bill for boys. And it is interesting to observe already -at this time the beginning of the deep cleavage between the miners of -Northumberland and Durham and their fellow-workers elsewhere. The close -connection between the legal regulation of the hours of boys and the -fixing of the men’s day is brought out by William Crawford; the future -leader of the Durham men. The general feeling of the conference was -in favour of a drastic legal prohibition of boys being kept in the -mine for more than eight hours, but Crawford declared that “an eight -hours bill could not be carried out in his district. He wanted the boys -to work ten hours a day, and the men six hours.”[447] He therefore -proposed a legal Ten Hours Day for the boys. The conference, however, -declined to depart from the principle of Eight Hours; and the Bill -drafted in this sense was eventually adopted without dissent. - -Another reform advocated by Macdonald has had far-reaching though -unforeseen effect upon the miners’ organisation. The arbitrary -confiscation of the miners’ pay for any tubs or hutches which were -declared to be improperly filled had long been a source of extreme -irritation. It had become a regular practice of unscrupulous -coal-owners to condemn a considerable percentage of the men’s -hutches, and thus escape payment for part of the coal hewn. The -grievance was aggravated by the absolute dependence of the miner, -working underground, upon the honesty and accuracy of the agent of -the employer on the surface, who recorded the amount of his work. A -demand was accordingly made by the men for permission to have their own -representative at the pit-bank, who should check the weight to be paid -for. During the year 1859 great contests took place in South Yorkshire, -in which, after embittered resistance, the employers in several -collieries conceded this boon. A determined attempt was then made by -the South Yorkshire Miners’ Union, aided by Macdonald, to insert a -clause in the Mines Regulation Bill, making it compulsory to weigh the -coal, and to allow a representative of the men to check the weight. -A great Parliamentary fight took place on the men’s amendment, with -the result that the Act of 1860 empowered the miners of each pit to -appoint a checkweigher, but confined their choice to persons actually -in employment at the particular mine.[448] This important victory was -long rendered nugatory by the evasions of the coal-owners. At Barnsley, -for instance, Normansell, appointed checkweigher, was promptly -dismissed from employment and refused access to the pit’s mouth. When -the employer was fined for this breach of the law he appealed to the -Queen’s Bench; and it cost the Union two years of costly litigation -to enforce the reinstatement of the men’s agent.[449] The next twenty -years are full of attempts by coal-owners to avoid compliance with -this law. Where the men could not be persuaded or terrified into -forgoing their right to appoint a checkweigher, every device was used -to hamper his work. Sometimes he was excluded from close access to the -weighing-machine. In other pits the weights were fenced up so that -he could not clearly see them. His calculations were hotly disputed, -and his interference bitterly resented. The Miners’ Unions, however, -steadily fought their way to perfect independence for the checkweigher. -The Mines Regulation Act of 1872 slightly strengthened his position. -Finally the Act of 1887, confirmed by that of 1911, made clear the -right of the men, by a decision of the majority of those employed in -any pit, to have, at the expense of the whole pit, a checkweigher with -full power to keep an accurate and independent record of each man’s -work. - -It would be interesting to trace to what extent the special -characteristics of the miners’ organisations are due to the influence -of this one legislative reform. Its recognition and promotion -of collective action by the men has been a direct incitement to -combination. The compulsory levy, upon the whole pit, of the cost of -maintaining the agent whom a bare majority could decide to appoint -has practically found, for each colliery, a branch secretary free -of expense to the Union. But the result upon the character of the -officials has been even more important. The checkweigher has to be -a man of character insensible to the bullying or blandishments of -manager or employers. He must be of strictly regular habits, accurate -and business-like in mind, and quick at figures. The ranks of the -checkweighers serve thus as an admirable recruiting ground from which a -practically inexhaustible supply of efficient Trade Union secretaries -or labour representatives can be drawn. - -The Leeds Conference of 1863 was the first of a series of yearly -or half-yearly gatherings of miners’ delegates which did much to -consolidate their organisation. The powerful aid brought by Macdonald -to the movement for the Master and Servant Act of 1867 has already -been described. But between 1864 and 1869 the almost uninterrupted -succession of strikes and lock-outs, in one county or another, -prevented the National Association from taking a firm hold on the men -in the less organised districts. In 1869 a rival federation, called -the Amalgamated Association of Miners, was formed by the men of some -Lancashire pits, to secure more systematic support of local strikes. -This split only increased the number of miners in union, which in a few -years reached the unprecedented total of two hundred thousand. - -It is easy to understand how much this army of miners, marshalled by -an expert Parliamentary tactician, added to the political weight of -the Trade Union leaders. Though only partially enfranchised, their -influence at the General Election of 1868 was marked; and when, in -1871, the Trades Union Congress appointed a Parliamentary Committee -Macdonald became its chairman. Next year he succeeded in getting -embodied in the new Mines Regulation Act many of the minor amendments -of the law for which he had been pressing; and in 1874 he and his -colleague, Thomas Burt, became, as we have seen, the first working-men -members of the House of Commons. - -Not less important than the somewhat scattered hosts of the Coal-miners -was the compact body of the Lancashire Cotton Operatives, who, -from 1869 onward, began to be reckoned as an integral part of the -Trade Union world. The Lancashire textile workers, who had, in the -early part of the century, played such a prominent part in the -Trade Union Movement, and whose energetic “Short Time Committees” -had, in 1847, obtained the Ten Hours Act, appear to have fallen, -during the subsequent years, into a state of disorganisation and -disunion. In 1853, it is true, the present Amalgamated Association -of Cotton-spinners was established; but this federal Union was -weakened, until 1869, by the abstention or lukewarmness of the local -organisations of such important districts as Oldham and Bolton. The -cotton-weavers were in a somewhat similar condition. The Blackburn -Association, established in 1853, was gradually overshadowed by the -North-East Lancashire Association, a federation of the local weavers’ -societies in the smaller towns, established in 1858. This association, -growing out of a secession from the Blackburn organisation, had for its -special object the combined support of a skilled calculator of prices, -able to defend the operatives’ interests in the constant discussions -which arose upon the complicated lists of piecework rates which -characterise the English cotton industry.[450] - -It is difficult to convey to the general reader any adequate idea of -the important effect which these elaborate “Lists” have had upon the -Trade Union Movement in Lancashire. The universal satisfaction with, -and even preference for, the piecework system among the Lancashire -cotton operatives is entirely due to the existence of these definitely -fixed and published statements. An even more important result has been -the creation of a peculiar type of Trade Union official. For although -the lists are elaborately worked out in detail--the Bolton Spinning -List, for instance, comprising eighty-five pages closely filled with -figures[451]--the intricacy of the calculations is such as to be beyond -the comprehension not only of the ordinary operative or manufacturer, -but even of the investigating mathematician without a very minute -knowledge of the technical detail. Yet the week’s earnings of every one -of the tens of thousands of operatives are computed by an exact and -often a separate calculation under these lists. And when an alteration -of the list is in question, the standard wage of a whole district may -depend upon the quickness and accuracy with which the operatives’ -negotiator apprehends the precise effect of each projected change in -any of the numerous factors in the calculation. It will be obvious that -for work of this nature the successful organiser or “born orator” -was frequently quite unfit. There grew up, therefore, both among the -weavers and the spinners, a system of selection of new secretaries by -competitive examination, which has gradually been perfected as the -examiners--that is, the existing officials--have themselves become -more skilled. The first secretary to undergo this ordeal was Thomas -Birtwistle,[452] who in 1861 began his thirty years’ honourable and -successful service of the Lancashire Weavers. Within a few years he was -reinforced by other officials selected for the same characteristics. -From 1871 onwards the counsels of the Trade Union Movement were -strengthened by the introduction of “the cotton men,” a body of keen, -astute, and alert-minded officials--a combination, in the Trade Union -world, of the accountant and the lawyer. - -Under such guidance the Lancashire cotton operatives achieved -extraordinary success. Their first task was in all districts to -obtain and perfect the lists. The rate and method of remuneration -being in this way secured, their energy was devoted to improving the -other conditions of their labour by means of appropriate legislation. -Ever since 1830 the Lancashire operatives, especially the spinners, -have strongly supported the legislative regulation of the hours and -other conditions of their industry. In 1867 a delegate meeting of the -Lancashire textile operatives, under the presidency of the Rev. J. R. -Stephens, had resolved “to agitate for such a measure of legislative -restriction as shall secure a uniform Eight Hours Bill in factories, -exclusive of meal-times, for adults, females, and young persons, and -that such Eight Hours Bill have for its foundation a restriction -on the moving power.”[453] On the improvement of trade and the -revival of Trade Union strength in 1871-72 this policy was again -resorted to. The Oldham spinners tried, indeed, in 1871, to secure a -“Twelve-o’clock Saturday” by means of a strike. But on the failure of -this attempt the delegates of the various local societies, both of -spinners and weavers--usually the officials of the trade--met together -and established, on the 7th of January 1872, the Factory Acts Reform -Association, for the purpose of obtaining such an amendment of the law -as would reduce the hours of labour from sixty to fifty-four per week. - -The Parliamentary policy of these shrewd tacticians is only another -instance of the practical opportunism of the English Trade Unionist. -The cotton officials demurred in 1872 to an overt alliance with the -Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, just then engaged -in its heated agitation for a repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment -Act. “Some members of the Short Time Committee,” states, without -resentment, the Congress report, “thought that even co-operation -with the Congress Committee would be disastrous rather than useful, -... as Lord Shaftesbury and others declared they would not undertake -a measure proposed in the interest of the Trades Unions.”[454] So -far as the public and the House of Commons were concerned, the Bill -was accordingly, as we are told, “based upon quite other grounds.” -Its provisions were ostensibly restricted, like those of the Ten -Hours Act, to women and children; and to the support of Trade Union -champions such as Thomas Hughes and A. J. Mundella was added that -of such philanthropists as Lord Shaftesbury and Samuel Morley. But -it is scarcely necessary to say that it was not entirely, or even -exclusively, for the sake of the women and children that the skilled -leaders of the Lancashire cotton operatives had diverted their “Short -Time Movement” from aggressive strikes to Parliamentary agitation. -The private minutes of the Factory Acts Reform Association contain -no mention of the woes of the women and the children, but reflect -throughout the demand of the adult male spinners for a shorter day. -And in the circular “to the factory operatives,” calling the original -meeting of the association, we find the spinners’ secretary combating -the fallacy that “any legislative interference with male adult -labour is an economic error,” and demanding “a legislative enactment -largely curtailing the hours of factory labour,” in order that his -constituents, who were exclusively adult males, might enjoy “the nine -hours per day, or fifty-four hours per week, so liberally conceded to -other branches of workmen.”[455] It was, however, neither necessary nor -expedient to take this line in public. The experience of a generation -had taught the Lancashire operatives that any effective limitation of -the factory day for women and children could not fail to bring with it -an equivalent shortening of the hours of the men who worked with them. -And in the state of mind, in 1872, of the House of Commons, and even of -the workmen in other trades, it would have proved as impossible as it -did in 1847 to secure an avowed restriction of the hours of male adults. - -The Short Time Bill was therefore so drafted as to apply in express -terms only to women and children, whose sufferings under a ten hours -day were made much of on the platform and in the press. The battle, in -fact, was, as one of the leading combatants has declared,[456] “fought -from behind the women’s petticoats.” But it was a part of the irony of -the situation that, as Broadhurst subsequently pointed out,[457] the -Bill “encountered great opposition from the female organisations”; -and it was, in fact, expressly in the interests of working women that -Professor Fawcett, in the session of 1873, moved the rejection of -the measure.[458] Even as limited to women and children the proposal -encountered a fierce resistance from the factory owners and the -capitalists of all industries. The opinion of the House of Commons -was averse from any further restriction upon the employers’ freedom. -The Ministry of the day lent it no assistance. The Bill, introduced -in 1872, and again in 1873, made no progress. At length, in 1873, the -Government shelved the question by appointing a Royal Commission to -inquire into the working of the Factory Acts. But a General Election -was now drawing near; and “a Factory Nine Hours Bill for Women and -Children” was incorporated in the Parliamentary programme pressed upon -candidates by the whole Trade Union world.[459] - -We have already pointed out what an attentive ear the Conservative -party was at this time giving to the Trade Union demands. It is -therefore not surprising that when Mundella, in the new Parliament, -once more introduced his Bill, the Home Secretary, Mr. (afterwards -Viscount) Cross, announced that the Government would bring forward -a measure of their own. The fact that the Government draft was -euphemistically entitled the “Factories (Health of Women, etc.) Bill” -did not conciliate the opponents of the shorter factory day which -it ensured; but, to the great satisfaction of the spinners, this -opposition was unsuccessful; and, if not a nine hours day, at any rate -a 56½ hours week became law. This short and successful Parliamentary -campaign brought the cotton operatives into closer contact with -the London leaders; and from 1875 the Lancashire representatives -exercised an important influence in the Trades Union Congress and its -Parliamentary Committee. Henceforth detailed amendments of the Factory -Acts, and increased efficiency in their administration, become almost -standing items in the official Trade Union programme. - -An interesting parallelism might be traced between the cotton -operatives on the one hand and the coal-miners on the other. To -outward seeming no two occupations could be more unlike. Yet without -community of interest, without official intercourse, and without any -traceable imitation, the organisations of the two trades show striking -resemblances to each other in history, in structural development, -and in characteristics of policy, method, and aims. Many of these -similarities may arise from the remarkable local aggregation in -particular districts, which is common to both industries. From this -local aggregation spring, perhaps, the possibilities of a strong -federation existing without centralised funds, and of a permanent trade -society enduring without friendly benefits. A further similarity may be -seen in the creation, in each case, of a special class of Trade Union -officials, far more numerous in proportion to membership than is usual -in the engineering or building trades. But the most noticeable, and -perhaps the most important, of these resemblances is the constancy with -which both the miners and the cotton operatives have adhered to the -legislative protection of the Standard of Life as a leading principle -of their Trade Unionism. - -Whilst these important divisions of the Trade Union army were aiming -at legislative protection, victories in another field were bringing -whole sections of Trade Unionists to a different conclusion. The -successful Nine Hours Movement of 1871-72--the reduction, by collective -bargaining, of the hours of labour in the engineering and building -trades--rivalled the legislative triumphs of the miners and the cotton -operatives. - -Since the great strikes in the London building trades in 1859-61, the -movement in favour of a reduction of the hours of labour had been -dragging on in various parts of the country. The masons, carpenters, -and other building operatives had in many towns, and after more or -less conflict, secured what was termed the Nine Hours Day. In 1866 -an agitation arose among the engineers of Tyneside for a similar -concession; but the sudden depression of trade put an end to the -project. In 1870, when the subject was discussed at the Newcastle -“Central District Committee” of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, -the spirit of caution prevailed, and no action was taken. Suddenly, at -the beginning of 1871, the Sunderland men took the matter up, and came -out on strike on the 1st of April. After four weeks’ struggle, almost -before the engineers elsewhere had realised that there was any chance -of success, the local employers gave way, and the Nine Hours Day was -won. - -It was evident that the Sunderland movement was destined to spread to -the other engineering centres in the neighbourhood; and the master -engineers of the entire North-Eastern District promptly assembled -at Newcastle on April 8 to concert a united resistance to the men’s -demands. The operatives had first to form their organisation. Though -Newcastle has since become one of the best centres of Trade Unionism, -the Amalgamated Society of Engineers could, in 1871, count only five -or six hundred members in the town; the Boilermakers, Steam-Engine -Makers, and Ironfounders were also weak, and probably two out of three -of the men in the engineering trade belonged to no Union whatsoever. A -“Nine Hours League,” embracing Unionists and non-Unionists alike, was -accordingly formed for the special purpose of the agitation; and this -body was fortunate enough to elect as its President John Burnett,[460] -a leading member of the local branch of the Amalgamated Society, -afterwards to become widely known as the General Secretary of that -great organisation. The “Nine Hours League” became, in fact though -not in name, a temporary Trade Union, its committee conducting all -the negotiations on the men’s behalf, appealing to the Trade Union -world for funds for their support, and managing all the details of the -conflict that ensued.[461] - -The five months’ strike which led up to a signal victory for the men -was, in more than one respect, a notable event in Trade Union annals. -The success with which several thousands of unorganised workmen, -unprovided with any accumulated funds, were marshalled and disciplined, -and the ability displayed in the whole management of the dispute, made -the name of their leader celebrated throughout the world of labour. -The tactical skill and literary force with which the men’s case was -presented achieved the unprecedented result of securing for their -demands the support of the _Times_[462] and the _Spectator_. Money was -subscribed slowly at first, but after three months poured in from all -sides. Joseph Cowen, of the _Newcastle Daily Chronicle_, was from the -first an ardent supporter of the men, and assisted them in many ways. -The employers in all parts of the kingdom took alarm; and a kind of -levy of a shilling for each man employed was made upon the engineering -firms in aid of the heavy expenses of the Newcastle masters. In spite -of the active exertions of the “International,” several hundred foreign -workmen were imported; but many of these were subsequently induced to -desert.[463] Finally the employers conceded the principal of the men’s -demands; and fifty-four hours became the locally recognised week’s time -in all the engineering trades. - -This widely advertised success, coming at a time of expanding trade, -greatly promoted the movement for the Nine Hours Day. From one end of -the kingdom to the other, every little Trade Union branch discussed -the expediency of sending in notices to the employers. The engineering -trades in London, Manchester, and other great centres induced their -employers to grant their demands without a strike. The great army of -workmen engaged in the shipbuilding yards on the Clyde even bettered -this example, securing a fifty-one hours week. The building operatives -quickly followed suit. Demands for a diminution of the working day, -with an increased rate of pay per hour, were handed in by local -officials of the Carpenters, Masons, Bricklayers, Plumbers, and other -organisations. In many cases non-society men took the lead in the -movement; but it was soon found that the immediate success of the -applications depended on the estimate formed by the employers of the -men’s financial resources, and their capacity to withhold their labour -for a time sufficient to cause embarrassment to business. Wherever the -employers were assured of this fact, they usually gave way without -a conflict. The successes accordingly did much to create, in the -industries in question, a preference for combination and collective -bargaining as a means of improving the conditions of labour. The -prevalence of systematic overtime, which has since proved so formidable -a deduction from the advantages gained by the Nine Hours Movement, -was either overlooked by sanguine officials, or covertly welcomed by -individual workmen as affording opportunities for working at a higher -rate of remuneration.[464] On the other hand, it was a patent fact that -the mechanic employed in attending to the machinery of a textile mill -was the only member of his trade who was excluded from participation in -the shortening of hours enjoyed by his fellow-tradesmen; and that his -failure to secure a shorter day was an incidental consequence of the -existence of legislative restrictions. Thus, at the very time that the -textile operatives and coal-miners were, as we have seen, exhibiting -a marked tendency to look more and more to Parliamentary action for -the protection of the Standard of Life, the facts, as they presented -themselves to the Amalgamated Engineer or Carpenter, were leading the -members of these trades to a diametrically opposite conclusion. - -But though faith in trade combinations and collective bargaining was -strengthened by the success of the Nine Hours Movement, the victories -of the men did not increase the prestige of the two great Amalgamated -Societies. The growing adhesion of the Junta to the economic views -of their middle-class friends was marked by the silent abandonment -by Allan, Applegarth, and Guile of all leadership in trade matters. -Already in 1865 we find the Executive Council of the Amalgamated -Engineers explaining that, although they sympathised with advance -movements, they felt unable to either support them by grants or to -advise their members to vote a special levy.[465] The “backwardness -of the Council of the Engineers” constantly provoked angry criticism. -The chief obstacles to advancement were declared to be Danter, the -President of the Council, and the General Secretary, whose minds had -been narrowed “by the routine of years of service within certain -limits.... Never, since it effected amalgamation, has the Society -solved one social problem; nor has it now an idea of future progress. -Its money is unprofitably and injudiciously invested--even with a -miser’s care--while its councils are marked with all the chilly apathy -of a worn-out mission.”[466] What proved to be the greatest trade -movement since 1852 was undertaken in spite of the official disapproval -of the governing body, and was carried to a successful issue without -the provision from headquarters of any leadership or control. Though -the Nine Hours Strike actually began in Sunderland on April 1, 1871, -the London Executive remained silent on the subject until July. -Towards the end of that month, when the Newcastle men had been out for -seven weeks, a circular was issued inviting the branches to collect -voluntary subscriptions for their struggling brethren. Ultimately, in -September, the “Contingent Fund,” out of which strike pay is given, -was re-established by vote of the branches; and the strike allowance -of 5s. per week, over and above the ordinary out-of-work pay, was -issued, after fourteen weeks’ struggle, to the small minority of the -men on strike who were members of the Society. An emissary was sent -to the Continent, at the Society’s expense, to defeat the employers’ -attempt to bring over foreign engineers; but with this exception all -the expenses of the struggle were defrayed from the subscriptions -collected by the Nine Hours League.[467] And if we turn for a moment -from the Amalgamated Society of Engineers to the other great trade and -friendly societies of the time, it is easy, in the minutes of their -Executive Councils and the proceedings of their branches, to watch the -same tendency at work. Whether it is the Masons or the Tailors, the -Ironfounders or the Carpenters, we see the same abandonment by the -Central Executive of any dominant principle of trade policy, the same -absence of initiative in trade movements, and the same more or less -persistent struggle to check the trade activity of its branches. In the -Amalgamated Society of Carpenters, for example, we find, during these -years, no attempt by headquarters to “level up” the wages of low-paid -districts, or to grapple with the problems of overtime or piecework. We -watch, on the contrary, the branches defending themselves before the -Executive for their little spurts of local activity, and pleading, in -order to wring from a reluctant treasury the concession of strike pay, -that they have been dragged into the “Advance Movement” by the more -aggressive policy of the “General Union” (the rival trade society of -the old type), or by irresponsible “strike-committees” of non-society -men. - -Time and growth were, in fact, revealing the drawbacks of the -constitution with which Newton and Allan had endowed their cherished -amalgamation, and which had been so extensively copied by other -trades. The difficulties arising from the attempt to unite, in one -organisation, men working in the numerous distinct branches of the -engineering trade, demanded constant thought and attention. The rapid -changes in the industry, especially in connection with the growing use -of new machinery, needed to be met by a well-considered flexibility, -dictated by full knowledge of the facts, and some largeness of view. To -maintain a harmonious yet progressive trade policy in all the hundreds -of branches would, of itself, have taxed the skill of a body of experts -free from other preoccupations. All these duties were, however, cast -upon a single salaried officer,[468] working under a committee of -artisans who met in the evening after an exhausting day of physical -toil. - -The result might have been foreseen. The rapid growth of the society -brought with it a huge volume of detailed business. Every grant of -accident benefit or superannuation allowance was made by the Executive -Council. Every week this body had to decide on scores of separate -applications for gifts from the Benevolent Fund. Every time any of the -tens of thousands of members failed to get what he wanted from his -branch, he appealed to the Executive Council. Every month an extensive -trade report had to be issued. Every quarter the branch accounts had -to be examined, dissected, and embodied in an elaborate summary, -itself absorbing no small amount of labour and thought. The hundreds -of branch secretaries and treasurers had to be constantly supervised, -checked by special audits, and perpetually admonished for negligent or -accidental breaches of the complicated code by which the Society was -governed. The Executive Council became, in fact, absorbed in purely -“treasury” work, and spent a large part of its time in protecting the -funds of the Society from extravagance, laxity of administration, or -misappropriation. The quantity of routine soon became enormous; and the -whole attention of the General Secretary was given to coping with the -mass of details which poured in upon him by every post. - -This huge friendly society business brought with it, too, its special -bias. Allan grew more and more devoted to the accumulating fund, -which was alike the guarantee and the symbol of the success of his -organisation. Nothing was important enough to warrant any inroad -on this sacred balance. The Engineers’ Central Executive, indeed, -practically laid aside the weapon of the strike. “We believe,” said -Allan before the Royal Commission in 1867, “that all strikes are a -complete waste of money, not only in relation to the workmen, but -also to the employers.”[469] The “Contingent Fund,” out of which -alone strike pay could be given, was between 1860 and 1872 repeatedly -abolished by vote of the members, re-established for a short time, -and again abolished. Trade Unionists who remembered the old conflicts -viewed with surprise and alarm the spirit which had come over the once -active organisation. Even the experienced Dunning, whose moderation -had, as we have suggested, dictated the first manifesto in which the -new spirit can be traced, was moved to denunciation of Allan’s apathy. -“As a Trade Union,” he writes in 1866, “the once powerful Amalgamated -Society of Engineers is now as incapable to engage in a strike as -the Hearts of Oak, the Foresters, or any other extensive benefit -society.... It formerly combined both functions, but now it possesses -only one, that of a benefit society, with relief for members when out -of work or travelling for employment superadded.... The Amalgamated -Engineers, as a trade society, has ceased to exist.”[470] - -It would be a mistake to assume that the inertia and supineness of the -“Amalgamated” Societies was a necessary result of their accumulated -funds or their friendly benefits. The remarkable energy and success of -the United Society of Boilermakers and Iron-shipbuilders, established -in 1832, and between 1865 and 1875 rapidly increasing in membership and -funds, shows that elaborate friendly benefits are not inconsistent with -a strong and consistent trade policy. This quite exceptional success -is, we believe, due to the fact that the Boilermakers provided an -adequate salaried staff to attend to their trade affairs. The “district -delegates” who were, between 1873 and 1889, appointed for every -important district, are absolutely unconcerned with the administration -of friendly benefits, and devote themselves exclusively to the work of -Collective Bargaining. Unlike the General Secretaries of the Engineers, -Carpenters, Stonemasons, or Ironfounders, who had but one salaried -assistant, Robert Knight, the able secretary of the Boilermakers had -under his orders an expert professional staff, and was accordingly -able, not only to keep both employers and unruly members in check, but -also successfully to adapt the Union policy to the changing conditions -of the industry. In short, it was not the presence of friendly -benefits, but the absence of any such class of professional organisers -as exists in the organisations of the Coal-miners, Cotton Operatives, -and Boilermakers, that created the deadlock in the administration of -the great trade friendly societies.[471] - -The direct result of this abnegation of trade leadership was a complete -arrest of the tendency to amalgamation, and, in some cases, even a -breaking away of sections already within the organisation. The various -independent societies, such as the Boilermakers, Steam-Engine Makers, -and the Co-operative Smiths, gave up all idea of joining their larger -rival. In 1872 the Patternmakers, who had long been discontented at -the neglect of their special trade interests, formed an organisation -of their own, which has since competed with the Amalgamated for the -allegiance of this exceptionally skilled class of engineers. Nor was -Allan at all eager to make his organisation co-extensive with the -whole engineering industry. The dominant idea of the early years -of the amalgamation--the protection of those who had, by regular -apprenticeship, acquired “a right to the trade”--excluded many men -actually working at one branch or another, whilst the friendly society -bias against unprofitable recruits co-operated to restrict the -membership to such sections of the engineering industry, and such -members of each section, as could earn a minimum time wage fixed for -each locality by the District Committee. - -This exclusiveness necessarily led to the development of other -societies, which accepted those workmen who were not eligible for -the larger organisation. The little local clubs of Machine-workers -and Metal-planers expanded between 1867 and 1872 into national -organisations, and began to claim consideration at the hands of -the better paid engineers, on whose heels they were treading. New -societies, such as those of the National Society of Amalgamated -Brass-workers, the Independent Order of Engineers and Machinists, and -the Amalgamated Society of Kitchen Range, Stove Grate, Gas Stoves, -Hot Water, Art Metal, and other Smiths and Fitters, sprang into -existence during 1872, in avowed protest against the “aristocratic” -rule of excluding all workmen who were not receiving a high standard -rate. The Associated Blacksmiths of Scotland, which had been formed -in 1857 out of a class of smiths which was, at the time, unrecognised -in the rules of the Amalgamated, now began steadily to increase in -membership. Finally, during the decade various local societies were -refused the privilege of amalgamation on the ground that either they -included sections of the trade not recognised by the rules, or that the -average age of their constituents was such as to make them unprofitable -members of a society giving heavy superannuation benefit. To the -tendency to create an “aristocracy of labour” was added, therefore, the -fastidiousness of an insurance company. - -Many causes were thus co-operating to shift the centre of Trade Union -influence from London to the provinces. The great trade friendly -societies of Engineers, Carpenters, and Ironfounders were losing -that lead in Trade Union matters which the political activity of -the Junta had acquired for them. The Junta itself was breaking up. -Applegarth, in many respects the leader of the group, resigned his -secretaryship in 1871, and left the Trade Union Movement. Odger, who -lived until 1877, was from 1870 onwards devoting himself more and -more to general politics. Allan, long suffering from an incurable -disease, died in 1874. Meanwhile provincial Trade Unionism was growing -apace. The Amalgamated Society of Engineers, so long pre-eminent in -numbers, began to be overshadowed by the federations of Coal-miners -and Cotton Operatives. Even in the iron trades it found rivals in the -rapidly growing organisations of Boilermakers (Iron-shipbuilders), -whose headquarters were at Newcastle, and the Ironworkers centred at -Darlington, whilst minor engineering societies were cropping up in all -directions in the northern counties. The tendency to abandon London was -further shown by the decision of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters -in 1871 to remove their head office to Manchester, a change which had -the incidental effect of depriving the London leaders of the counsels -of Applegarth’s successor, J. D. Prior, one of the ablest disciples of -the Junta. - -But although London was losing its hold on the Trade Union Movement, no -other town inherited the leadership. Manchester, it is true, attracted -to itself the headquarters of many national societies, and contained in -these years perhaps the strongest group of Trade Union officials.[472] -But there was no such concentration of all the effective forces as had -formerly resulted in the Junta. Though Manchester might have furnished -the nucleus of a Trade Union Cabinet, Alexander Macdonald was to be -found either in Glasgow or London, Robert Knight at Liverpool and -afterwards in Newcastle, John Kane at Darlington, the miners’ agents -all over the country, whilst Henry Broadhurst (who in 1875 succeeded -George Howell as the Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee), -John Burnett, the General Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of -Engineers, and George Shipton, the Secretary of the London Trades -Council, naturally remained in the Metropolis. The result of the -shifting from London was, accordingly, not the establishment elsewhere -of any new executive centre of the Trade Union Movement, but the rise -of a sectional spirit, the promotion of sectional interests, and the -elaboration of sectional policies on the part of the different trades. - -We have attempted in some detail to describe the internal growth of -the Trade Union Movement between 1867 and 1875, in order to enable -the reader to understand the disheartening collapse which ensued in -1878-79, and the subsequent splitting up of the Trade Union world into -the hostile camps once more designated the Old Unionists and the New. -But all the unsatisfactory features of 1871-75 were, during these -years, submerged by a wave of extraordinary commercial prosperity and -Trade Union expansion. The series of Parliamentary successes of 1871-75 -produced, as we have seen, a feeling of triumphant elation among -the Trade Union leaders. To the little knot of working men who had -conducted the struggle for emancipation and recognition, the progress -of these years seemed almost beyond belief. In 1867 the officials of -the Unions were regarded as pothouse agitators, “unscrupulous men, -leading a half idle life, fattening on the contributions of their -dupes,” and maintaining, by violence and murder, a system of terrorism -which was destructive, not only of the industry of the nation, but also -of the prosperity and independence of character of the unfortunate -working men who were their victims. The Unionist workman, tramping with -his card in search of employment, was regarded by the constable and the -magistrate as something between a criminal vagrant and a revolutionist. -In 1875 the officials of the great societies found themselves elected -to the local School Boards, and even to the House of Commons, -pressed by the Government to accept seats on Royal Commissions, and -respectfully listened to in the lobby. And these political results were -but the signs of an extraordinary expansion of the Trade Union Movement -itself. “The year just closed,” says the report of the Parliamentary -Committee in January 1874, “has been unparalleled for the rapid growth -and development of Trade Unionism. In almost every trade this appears -to have been the same; but it is especially remarkable in those -branches of industry which have hitherto been but badly organised.” -Exact numerical details cannot now be ascertained; but the Trades Union -Congress of 1872 claimed to represent only 375,000 organised workmen, -whilst that of 1874 included delegates from nearly three times as many -societies, representing a nominal total of 1,191,922 members.[473] It -is possible that between 1871 and 1875 the number of Trade Unionists -was more than doubled. - -We see this progress reflected in the minds of the employers. At -the end of 1873 we find the newly established National Federation -of Associated Employers of Labour declaring that “the voluntary and -intermittent efforts of individual employers,” or even employers’ -associations confined to a single trade or locality, are helpless -against “the extraordinary development--far-reaching, but openly-avowed -designs--and elaborate organisation of the Trade Unions.” “Few are -aware,” continues this manifesto, “of the extent, compactness of -organisation, large resources, and great influence of the Trade -Unions.... They have the control of enormous funds, which they expend -freely in furtherance of their objects; and the proportion of their -earnings which the operatives devote to the service of their leaders -is startling.... They have a well-paid and ample staff of leaders, -most of them experienced in the conduct of strikes, many of them -skilful as organisers, all forming a class apart, a profession, with -interests distinct from, though not necessarily antagonistic to, those -of the workpeople they lead, but from their very _raison d’être_ -hostile to those of the employers and the rest of the community.... -They have, through their command of money, the imposing aspect of -their organisation, and partly, also, from the mistaken humanitarian -aspirations of a certain number of literary men of good standing, a -large army of literary talent which is _prompt_ in their service on -all occasions of controversy. They have their own press as a field for -these exertions. Their writers have free access to some of the leading -London journals. They organise frequent public meetings, at which paid -speakers inoculate the working classes with their ideas, and urge them -to dictate terms to candidates for Parliament. Thus they exercise a -pressure upon members of Parliament, and those aspirant to that honour, -out of all proportion to their real power, and beyond belief except to -those who have had the opportunity of witnessing its effects. They have -a standing Parliamentary Committee, and a programme; and active members -of Parliament are energetic in their service. They have the attentive -ear of the Ministry of the day; and their communications are received -with instant and respectful attention. They have a large representation -of their own body in London whenever Parliament is likely to be -engaged in the discussion of the proposals they have caused to be -brought before it. Thus, untrammelled by pecuniary considerations, -and specially set apart for this peculiar work, without other -clashing occupations, they resemble the staff of a well-organised, -well-provisioned army, for which everything that foresight and -preoccupation in a given purpose could provide, is at command.”[474] It -is not surprising that the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union -Congress, composed, as it was, of the “staff of leaders” referred to, -should have had this involuntary tribute to their efficiency reprinted -and widely circulated among their constituents. - -The student will form a more qualified estimate of the position -in 1873-75 than either the elated Trade Unionists or the alarmed -employers. In the first place, great as was the numerical expansion of -these years, the reader of the preceding chapters will know that it was -not without parallel. The outburst of Trade Unionism between 1830 and -1834 was, so far as we can estimate, even greater than that between -1871 and 1875, whilst it was far more rapid in its development. There -were, during the nineteenth century, three high tides in the Trade -Union history of our country, 1833-34, 1872-74, and 1889-90. In the -absence of complete and trustworthy statistics it is difficult to say -at which of these dates the sweeping in of members was greatest. But it -is easy to discern that the expansion of 1873-74 was marked by features -which were both like and unlike those of its predecessor. - -Like the outburst of 1833-34, the marked extension of Trade Unionism -in 1872 reached even the agricultural labourers. For more than thirty -years since the transportation of the Dorchester labourers good -times and bad had passed over their heads without resulting in any -combined effort to improve their condition. There seems to have been a -short-lived combination in Scotland in 1865. We hear of an impulsive -strike of some Buckinghamshire labourers in 1867, which spread into -Hertfordshire. A more effective Union was formed in Herefordshire in -1871, which pursued a quiet policy of emigration, and enrolled 30,000 -subscribers in half a dozen counties. But a more energetic movement -now arose. On February 7, 1872, the labourers of certain parishes of -Warwickshire met at Wellesbourne to discuss their grievances. At a -second meeting, a little later, Joseph Arch, a labourer of Barford, who -owned a freehold cottage, and had become known as a Primitive Methodist -preacher, made a speech which bore fruit. On the 11th of March two -hundred men resolved to strike for higher wages, namely, 16s. per -week for a working day from 6 A.M. to 5 P.M. Unlike most strikes this -one attracted from the first the favourable notice of the press.[475] -Publicity brought immediate funds and sympathisers. On the 29th of -March the inaugural meeting of the Warwickshire Agricultural Labourers’ -Union was held at Leamington, under the presidency of the Hon. Auberon -Herbert, M.P., a donation of one hundred pounds being handed in by a -rich friend. Through the eloquence, the revivalist fervour, and the -untiring energy of Joseph Arch, the movement spread like wildfire among -the rural labourers of the central and eastern counties. The mania -for combination which came over the country population during the next -few months recalls, indeed, the mushroom growth of the Grand National -Consolidated Trades Union of forty years before. Within two months -delegates from twenty-six counties met to transform the local society -into a National Agricultural Labourers’ Union, organised in district -Unions all over the country, with a central committee at Leamington, -which, by the end of the year, boasted of a membership of nearly a -hundred thousand.[476] - -The organised Trade Unions rallied promptly to the support of the -labourers, and contributed largely to their funds. The farmers met the -men’s demand by a widespread lock-out of Unionist labourers, which -called forth the support of Trades Councils and individual societies -all over the country.[477] George Howell, then Secretary of the -Parliamentary Committee, George Shipton, the Secretary of the newly -revived London Trades Council, and many other leaders, gave up their -nights and days to perfecting the labourers’ organisations. The skilled -trades, indeed, furnished many of the officials of the new Union. -Joseph Arch found for his headquarters an able general secretary in -Henry Taylor, a carpenter, whilst the Kentish labourers, organised -in the separate Kent Union, enjoyed the services of a compositor. -This help, together with the funds and countenance of influential -philanthropists, made the outburst less transient than that of 1833-34. -In many villages the mere formation of a branch led to an instantaneous -rise of wages. But, as in 1833-34, the audacity of the field labourer -in imitating the combinations of the town artisan provoked an almost -indescribable bitterness of feeling on the part of the squirearchy -and their connections. The farmers, wherever they dared, ruthlessly -“victimised” any man who joined the Union. It is needless to say that -they received the cordial support of the rural magistracy. In aid of -a lock-out near Chipping Norton, two justices, who happened both to -be clergymen, sent sixteen labourers’ wives, some with infants at -the breast, to prison with hard labour, for “intimidating” certain -non-Union men. An attempt to punish the leaders of a meeting at -Farringdon, on the ground of “obstruction of the highway,” was only -defeated by bringing down an eminent Queen’s Counsel from London to -overawe the local bench. The “dukes”--notably those of Marlborough -and Rutland--denounced the “agitators and declaimers” who had “too -easily succeeded in disturbing the friendly feeling which used to unite -the labourer and his employer in mutual feelings of generosity and -confidence.” Innumerable acts of petty tyranny and oppression proved -how far the landed interest had lagged behind the capitalist employers -in the matter of Freedom of Combination. Nor was the Established Church -more sympathetic. At the great meeting held at Exeter Hall on behalf -of the labourers, when the chair was taken by Samuel Morley, M.P., -the only ecclesiastic who appeared on the platform was Archbishop -(afterwards Cardinal) Manning. In fact, the spirit in which the -rural clergy viewed this social upheaval is not unfairly typified -by the public utterance of a learned bishop. On September 2, 1872, -Dr. Ellicott, the Bishop of Gloucester, speaking at a meeting of the -Gloucester Agricultural Society, significantly suggested the village -horsepond as a fit destination for the “agitators,” or delegates sent -by the Union to open new branches. And the farmers, the squires, and -the Church were supported by the army. When the labourers in August -1872 struck for an increase of wages, the officers, in Oxfordshire and -Berkshire, placed the soldiers at the disposal of the farmers for the -purpose of getting in the harvest and so defeating the Union. - -This insurrection of the village and the autocratic spirit which it -aroused in the owners of land and tithe had, we believe, a far-reaching -political effect. With its results upon the agitation for Church -disestablishment and the growing Radicalism of the counties we are not -here concerned. We trace, however, from these months, the appearance -in the Trade Union programme of the proposals relating to the Land Law -Reform and the Summary Jurisdiction of the Magistrates, which seem, -at first sight, unconnected with the grievances of the town artisan. -But though the agricultural labourer had his effect upon the Trade -Union Movement, Trade Unionism was not, at this time, able to do much -for him. Funds and personal help were freely placed at his service -by his brother Unionists. The minute-books and balance-sheets of the -great Unions and the Trade Councils show how warm and generous was the -response made to his appeal by the engineers, carpenters, miners, and -other trades. The London Trades Council successfully exerted itself -to stop the lending of troops to the farmers, and procured a fresh -regulation explicitly prohibiting for the future such assistance “in -cases where strikes or disputes between farmers and their labourers -exist.”[478] The public disapproval of the sentence in the Chipping -Norton case was used by the Trade Union leaders as a powerful argument -for the repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. - -But all this availed the agricultural labourer little. The feverish -faith in combination as a panacea for all social ills gradually -subsided. The farmers, after their first surprise, during which the -labourers, in many counties, secured advances of from eighteenpence -to as much as four shillings per week, met the Union demands and -successes by a stolid resistance, and took every opportunity to regain -their ground. In 1874 the Agricultural Unions sustained their first -severe defeat. Some of those in Suffolk asked for an advance of wages -from 13s. to 14s. for a 54-hours week. The farmers’ answer was an -immediate lock-out, which was rapidly taken up throughout the Eastern -and Midland counties, no fewer than 10,000 members of the Union being -thus “victimised.” The struggle had to be closed in July 1874, after an -expenditure by the National Union of £21,365 in strike pay. After this -the membership rapidly declined. Every winter saw the lock-out used -as a means for smashing particular branches of the Union. And in this -work of destruction the farmers were aided by their personal intimacy -with the labourer. It was easy to drop into the suspicious mind of the -uneducated villager a fatal doubt as to the real destination of the -pennies which he was sending away to the far-off central treasury. Nor -was the Union organisation perfect. Difficulties and delays occurred in -rendering aid to threatened branches or victimised men. The clergyman, -the doctor, and the village publican were always at hand to encourage -distrust of the “paid agitator.” Within a very few years most of the -independent Unions had ceased to exist, whilst Arch’s great national -society had dwindled away to a steadily diminishing membership, -scattered up and down the midland counties, in what were virtually -village sick and funeral clubs. With the decline of prosperity of -British farming, which set in about 1876-77, men were everywhere -dismissed, grass replaced grain over hundreds of thousands of acres, -and the demand for agricultural labour fell off; and even Joseph Arch -had repeatedly to advise the local branches to acquiesce in lower -wages. By 1881 the National Union could claim only 15,000 members, and -in 1889 only 4254.[479] - -We have, therefore, in the sudden growth and quick collapse of this -revolt “of the field” a marked likeness to the meteoric career of -the general Trades Unions of 1833-34. But the expansion of the -Trade Union Movement in 1871-75 had another point of resemblance to -previous periods of inflation. In 1871-75, as in 1833-34 and in 1852, -the project of recovering possession of the instruments of production -seizes hold of the imagination of great bodies of Trade Unionists. -Again we see attempts by trade organisations to establish workshops -of their own. The schemes of Co-operative Production of 1871-75 bore -more resemblance to those of 1852 than to Owen’s crude communism. In -the Trade Unionism of 1833-34 the fundamental Trade Union principle of -the maintenance of the Standard of Life was overshadowed and absorbed -by the Owenite idea of carrying on the whole industry of the country -by national associations of producers, in which all the workmen would -be included. But in the more practical times of 1852 and 1871-75 the -project of “self-employment” remained strictly subordinate to the main -functions of the organisation.[480] Whatever visions may have been -indulged in by individual philanthropists, the Trade Union committees -of both these periods treated the co-operative workshop either as -merely a convenient adjunct to the Union, or as a means of affording to -a certain number of its members a chance of escape from the conditions -of wage-labour.[481] The failure of all these attempts belongs, -therefore, rather to the history of Co-operation than to that of Trade -Unionism. For our present purpose it suffices to note that the loss -in these experiments of tens of thousands of pounds finally convinced -the officials of the old-established Unions of the impracticability of -using Trade Union organisations and Trade Union funds for Co-operative -Production. The management of industry by associations of producers -still remains the ideal of one school of co-operators, and still -periodically captures the imagination of individual Trade Unionists. -But other ideals of collective ownership of the means of production -have displaced the Owenism of 1833-34 and the “Christian Socialism” -of 1852. Of co-operative experiments by Trade Societies, in their -corporate capacity, we hear practically no more.[482] - -On the whole the contrast between the Trade Union expansion of -1873-74 and that of 1833-34 is more significant than any likeness -that may be traced between the two periods. The Trade Unionists of -1833-34 aimed at nothing less than the supersession of the capitalist -employer; and they were met by his absolute refusal to tolerate, -or even to recognise, their organisation. The new feature of the -expansion of 1873-74 was the moderation with which the workmen claimed -merely to receive some share of the enormous profits of these good -times. The employers, on the other hand, for the most part abandoned -their objection to recognise the Unions, and even conceded, after -repeated refusals, the principle of the regulation of industry by -Joint Boards of Conciliation or impartial umpires chosen from outside -the trade. From 1867 to 1875 innumerable Boards of Conciliation and -Arbitration were established, at which representatives of the masters -met representatives of the Trade Unions on equal terms. In fact, it -must have been difficult for the workmen at this period to realise -with what stubborn obstinacy the employers, between 1850 and 1870, had -resisted any kind of intervention in what they had then regarded as -essentially a matter of private concern. When the Amalgamated Society -of Engineers offered, in 1851, to refer the then pending dispute to -arbitration, the master engineers simply ignored the proposal. The -Select Committees of the House of Commons in 1856 and 1860 found -the workmen’s witnesses strongly in favour of arbitration, but the -employers sceptical as to its possibility. Nor did the establishment -of A. J. Mundella’s Hosiery Board at Nottingham in 1860, and Sir -Rupert Kettle’s Joint Committees in the Wolverhampton building trades -in 1864, succeed in converting the employers elsewhere. But between -1869 and 1875 opinion among the captains of industry, to the great -satisfaction of the Trade Union leaders, gradually veered round. -“Twenty-five years ago,” said Alexander Macdonald in 1875, “when we -proposed the adoption of the principle of arbitration, we were then -laughed to scorn by the employing interests. But no movement has ever -spread so rapidly or taken a deeper root than that which we then set -on foot. Look at the glorious state of things in England and Wales. In -Northumberland the men now meet with their employers around the common -board.... In Durhamshire a Board of Arbitration and Conciliation has -also been formed; and 75,000 men repose with perfect confidence on the -decisions of the Board. There are 40,000 men in Yorkshire in the same -position.”[483] - -But though the establishment, from 1869 onwards, of Joint Boards and -Joint Committees represented a notable advance for the Trade Unions, -and marked their complete recognition by the great employers, yet this -victory brought results which largely neutralised its advantages.[484] -As in the case of the political triumphs, the men gained their point -at the cost of adopting the intellectual position of their opponents. -When the representatives of the employers and the delegates of the -men began to meet to discuss the future scale of wages, we see the -sturdy leaders of many Trade Union battles gradually and insensibly -accepting the capitalists’ axiom that wages must necessarily fluctuate -according to the capitalists’ profits, and even with every variation -of market-prices.[485] At Darlington, for instance, we watch the -shrewd leader of the employers, David Dale, succeeding in completely -impressing John Kane and a whole subsequent generation of ironworkers -with a firm belief in the principle of regulating wages according to -the market price of the product. The high prices of 1870-73 removed -the last scruples of the workmen as to the new doctrine. In 1874 a -delegate meeting of the Northumberland Miners decided to use the -formal expression of the Executive Committee,[486] “that prices should -rule wages”--a decision expressly repeated by delegate meetings in -1877 and 1878. In 1879, when prices had come tumbling down, we find -the Executive still maintaining that “as an Association we have -always contended that wages should be based on the selling price of -coal.”[487] In an interesting letter dated February 1, 1878, Burt, -Nixon, and Young (then the salaried officers of the Northumberland -Miners), in describing the negotiations for a Sliding Scale, take -occasion to mention that they had agreed with the employers that there -should be no Minimum Wage.[488] And though the practical difficulties -involved in the establishment of automatic wage-adjustments hindered -the spread of Sliding Scales to other industries, the principle -became tacitly accepted among whole sections of Trade Unionists. -The compulsory maintenance, in good times and bad, of the workman’s -Standard of Life was thus gradually replaced by faith in a scale of -wages sliding up and down according to the commercial speculations of -the controllers of the market. - -The new doctrine was not accepted without vigorous protests from the -more thoughtful working-men leaders. Lloyd Jones, writing in 1874, -warns “working men of the danger there is in a principle that wages -should be regulated by market prices, accepted and acted on, and -therefore presumably approved of by Trades Unions. These bodies, it is -to be regretted, permit it in arbitration, accept it in negotiations -with their employers, and thus give the highest sanction they can to -a mode of action most detrimental to the cause of labour.... The first -thing, therefore, those who manage trade societies should settle is a -minimum, which they should regard as a point below which they should -never go.... Such a one as will secure sufficiency of food and some -degree of personal and home comfort to the worker; not a miserable -allowance to starve on, but living wages.... The present agreements -they are going into on fluctuating market prices is a practical placing -of their fate in the hands of others. It is throwing the bread of their -children into a scramble of competition where everything is decided by -the blind and selfish struggles of their employers.”[489] “I entirely -agree,” writes Professor Beesly, “with an admirable article by Mr. -Lloyd Jones[490] in a recent number of the _Beehive_, in which he -maintained that colliers should aim at establishing a minimum price for -their labour, and compelling their employers to take that into account -as the one constant and stable element in all their speculations. All -workmen should keep their eyes fixed on this ultimate ideal.”[491] - -Nor was this view confined to friendly allies of the Trade Union -Movement. We shall have occasion to notice how forcibly both the Cotton -Operatives and the Boilermakers protested against the dependence of -wages on the fluctuations of the market. Alexander Macdonald himself, -though he approved of Joint Committees, instinctively maintained -an attitude of hostility to the innovating principle of a sliding -scale.[492] And, as we shall hereafter see, the conflict between -Macdonald’s teaching with regard to both wages and the hours of labour, -and the economic views of the Northumberland and Durham leaders, -presently divided the organised miners into two hostile camps. - -The Trade Union world of 1871-75 was therefore more complicated, and -presented many more difficult internal problems than was imagined, -either by the alarmed employers or the triumphant Trade Unionists. It -needed only the stress of hard times to reveal to the Trade Unionists -themselves that they were not the compact and well-organised army -described by the National Federation of Associated Employers, but -a congeries of distinct sections, pursuing separate and sometimes -antagonistic policies. - -The expansion of trade, under the influence of which Trade Unionism, -as we have seen, reached in 1873-74 one of its high-water marks, -came suddenly to an end. The contraction became visible first in the -coal and iron industries, those in which the inflation had perhaps -been greatest.[493] The first break occurred in February 1874, when -the coal-miners of the East of Scotland submitted to a reduction of -a shilling a day. During the rest of the year prices and wages came -tumbling down in both these staple trades. In January 1875 a furious -conflict broke out in South Wales, where many thousand miners and -ironworkers refused to submit to a third reduction of ten per cent. -The struggle dragged on until the end of May, when work was resumed -at a reduction, not of ten, but of twelve and a half per cent, with -an understanding that “any change in the wage rates ... shall depend -on a sliding scale of wages to be regulated by the selling price of -coal.”[494] In the following year the depression spread to the textile -industries, and gradually affected all trades throughout the country. -The building trades were, however, still prosperous; and the Manchester -Carpenters chose this moment for an aggressive advance movement. The -disastrous strike that followed early in 1877, and lasted throughout -the year, resulted in the virtual collapse of the General Union of -Carpenters and Joiners, at that time the third in magnitude among the -societies in the building trades, and left the Manchester building -operatives in a state of disorganisation from which they never fully -recovered. In April 1877 the Clyde shipwrights demanded an increase -of wages, to which the employers replied by a general lock-out of all -the operatives engaged in the shipbuilding yards, in the expectation -that this would cause pressure on the shipwrights to withdraw their -claim. For more than three months the main industry of the Clyde was at -a standstill, the dispute being eventually ended, in September 1877, -by submission to the arbitration of Lord Moncrieff, in which the men -were completely worsted. In July 1877 a conflict broke out between the -stonemasons and their employers, in which Bull & Co., the contractors -for the new law courts in London, caused the bitterest resentment -by importing German workmen as blacklegs. The demand had originally -been for an increase of wages and reduction of hours for the London -men; but as the obstinate struggle progressed it became, in effect, a -battle between the Stonemasons’ Union and the federated master builders -throughout the country. Large levies were raised, and over £2000 -collected from other trade societies; but in March 1878, after eight -months’ conflict, the remnant of the strikers returned to work on the -employers’ terms. The cotton trade, too, was made the scene of one -of the greatest industrial struggles on record. After several minor -reductions of wages during 1877, which resulted in local strikes, in -March 1878, as the _Times_ reports, “all the way through a centre of 70 -miles, where 250,000 cotton operatives are employed, notices have been -posted giving a month’s notice of ten per cent reduction in wages.” -A colossal strike ensued, which brought into prominence the rival -theories of the cotton operatives and their employers. It was conceded -by the men that the millowners were losing money, and that some change -had to be made. But as the employers admitted that their losses -arose from the glutted state of the market, the operatives contended -that the proper remedy was the cessation of the over-production; -and they therefore offered to accept the 10 per cent reduction on -condition that the mills should only work four days a week. A heated -controversy ensued, but the millowners persisted in their demand for -the unconditional surrender of the men, and refused all proposals for -arbitration. The cause of the men was unfortunately prejudiced by -serious riots at Blackburn, at which the house of Colonel Raynsford -Jackson, the leader of the associated employers, was looted and burnt. -After ten weeks’ struggle the men went in on the employers’ terms.[495] - -The great struggles of 1875-78 were only the precursors of a general -rout of the Trade Union forces. The increasing depression of trade -culminated during 1878-79 in a stagnation which must rank as one -of the most serious which has ever overtaken British industry. The -paralysis of business was intensified, especially in Scotland, by the -widespread ruin caused by the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank. -From one end of the kingdom to the other great firms became bankrupt, -mines and ironworks were stopped, ships lay idle in the ports, and a -universal feeling of despondency and distrust spread like a blight -into every corner of the industrial world. Every industry had its -crowds of unemployed workmen, the proportion of men on the books of -the Trade Unions rising, in some cases, to as much as 25 per cent. The -capitalists, as might have been expected, chose the moment of trial for -attempting to take back the rest of the concessions extorted from them -in the previous years. “It has appeared to employers of labour,” stated -the private circular issued by the Iron Trade Employers’ Association -in December 1878, “that the time has arrived when the superfluous -wages which have been dissipated in unproductive consumption must be -retrenched, and when the idle hours which have been unprofitably thrown -away must be reclaimed to industry and profit by being redirected -to reproductive work.” The result is reflected in the Trade Union -reports. “All over the United Kingdom,” states the Monthly Report of -the Amalgamated Carpenters for January 1879, “notices of reductions in -wages and extended hours of labour come pouring in from employers with -an eagerness and audacity which contrast strangely with the lessons of -forbearance and moderation so incessantly dinned into the ears of the -British workman in happier times.” “At no time in our history,” reports -the Executive Council of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, “have we -had such a number of industrial disturbances throughout the country. -Bad trade has prevailed; and our employers, now better organised than -ever before, seem to have made it their aim to raise as many points of -contention with us as ever possible. In one place sweeping reductions -of wages would be carried out or attempted; and in others the rates -paid for overtime were sought to be reduced, while in many cases -the hours of labour have been attacked, and in the Clyde district -successfully, three hours being, as a result, added to the week’s work -all over Scotland.... Another notable feature of the depression has -been the continued oppression by the employers of the men in the most -submissive districts, where conciliatory measures were adopted, and -where little objection was made to any innovation. The Clyde district -has been a notable example of this fact, passing in the first instance -through two considerable reductions of wages almost passively, only -to be almost immediately after the victims of desultory attacks upon -the hours question. Irregular attack appears almost to have been the -system adopted by the employers in preference to the development of -any general movement by their Associations.”[496] The years 1878-1880 -witnessed, accordingly, a great increase in the number of strikes in -nearly all trades,[497] most of which terminated disastrously for the -workmen. Sweeping reductions of wages occurred in all industries. The -Northumberland miners, whose normal day’s earnings had been 9s. 1½d. -in March 1873, found themselves reduced, in November 1878, to 4s. 9d. -per day, and in January 1880 to 4s. 4d. Scotch mechanics suffered an -even more sudden reduction. The Glasgow stonemasons, for instance, who -had been earning 9d. and 10d. per hour during 1877, dropped by the end -of 1878 to 6d. per hour, and found it difficult to find employment -even at that figure. A still more dangerous encroachment was made in -connection with the hours of labour. Employers on all sides sought to -lengthen the working day. The mechanics on the Clyde lost the fifty-one -hours week which they had won. The Iron Trades Employers’ Association, -whose circular we have quoted, resolved upon a general attack on the -Nine Hours Day. “It has been resolved,” writes the secretary, “by a -large majority of the Iron Trades Employers’ Association, supported -by a general agreement among other employers, to give notice in their -workshops that the hours of labour shall be increased to the number -prevailing before the adoption of the nine hours limit.”[498] The -concerted action of the associated employers was, however, baulked by -the energy of John Burnett, then General Secretary of the Amalgamated -Society of Engineers. Placed in possession of the Circular for a couple -of hours, he promptly reproduced it in an ably reasoned appeal to his -own members, which was sent broadcast to the press. Publicity proved -fatal to the employers’ plans, and no uniform or systematic action was -taken. Isolated attempts were, however, made in all directions by the -master engineers to revert to fifty-seven or fifty-nine hours per week; -and only by the most strenuous action was the normal fifty-four-hours -week retained in “society shops.” - -Other trades were not equally successful in maintaining even their -nominal day. In many towns the carpenters had two or three hours per -week added to their working time.[499] More serious was the fact -that in numerous minor trades the very conception of a definitely -fixed normal day was practically lost. Even among such well-organised -trades as the Engineers, Carpenters, and Stonemasons the practice of -systematic overtime, coupled with the prevalence of piecework, reduced -the normal day to a nullity.[500] In the abundant Trade Union records -of these years we watch the progress and results of these economic -disasters. The number of men drawing the out-of-work benefit steadily -rises, until the societies of Ironfounders and Boilermakers, which -in 1872-73 had scarcely 1 per cent unemployed, had in 1879 over 20 -per cent on their funds. The Amalgamated Society of Engineers paid -away, under this one head, during the three years 1878-80, a sum of -no less than £287,596. The Operative Plumbers had to exclude, in the -two years 1880-82, nearly a third of their members for non-payment of -contributions. The Ironfounders, who in 1876 had accumulated a fund of -over £5 per member, paid away every penny of it by the end of 1879, -and were only saved from actual stoppage by the numerous loans made to -the society by its more prosperous members. The Stonemasons’ Society -drained itself equally dry, and resorted to the same expedient to avoid -default. The Scottish societies had to meet the crisis in an even more -aggravated form. The total collapse which followed the City of Glasgow -Bank failure absolutely ruined all but half a dozen of the Scotch Trade -Unions, a blow from which Trade Unionism in Scotland did not recover -for the rest of the century. - -The year 1879, indeed, was as distinctly a low-water mark of the Trade -Union Movement as 1873-74 registered a full tide of prosperity. The -economic trials through which Trade Unionism passed in 1879 are only -to be paralleled by those through which it had gone in 1839-42. But -the solid growth which we have described prevented any such total -collapse as marked the previous periods. The depression of 1879 -swept, it is true, many hundreds of trade societies into oblivion. -The Unions of agricultural labourers, which had sprung up with such -mushroom rapidity, either collapsed altogether or dwindled into -insignificant benefit clubs. Up and down the country the hundreds of -little societies in miscellaneous trades which had flourished during -the good years, went down before the tide of adversity. Widespread -national organisations shrank up practically into societies of local -influence, concentrated upon the strongholds of their industries. -The great National Union of Miners, established, as we have seen, in -1862-63, survived, after 1879, only in Northumberland, Durham, and -Yorkshire. Its younger rival, the Amalgamated Association of Miners, -which had, up to 1875, dominated South Wales and the Midlands, broke up -and disappeared. The National Amalgamated Association of Ironworkers, -also established in 1862, which in 1873 numbered 35,000 members in all -parts of the country, was reduced in 1879 to 1400 members, confined -to a few centres in the North of England.[501] In some districts, such -as South Wales, Trade Unionism practically ceased to exist.[502] The -total membership of the Trade Union Movement returned, it is probable, -to the level of 1871. But despite all these contractions the backbone -of the movement remained intact. In the engineering and building trades -the great national societies, though they were denuded of their reserve -funds, retained their membership. Nor was it only the trade friendly -societies that weathered the storm. The essentially trade organisations -of the cotton operatives, and of the Northumberland and Durham miners, -maintained their position with only a temporary contraction of -membership. The political organisation of the movement was, moreover, -unaffected. The local Trades Councils went on undisturbed. The annual -Trades Union Congress continued to meet, and to appoint its standing -Parliamentary Committee. In short, though many individual Unions -disappeared, and many others saw their balances absorbed and their -membership reduced, the trials of 1879 proved that the Trade Union -Movement was at last beyond all danger of destruction or collapse, and -that the Trade Union organisation had become a permanent element in our -social structure. - -We see, therefore, that the work which Allan and Applegarth had done -towards consolidating the Trade Union Movement had not been fruitless. -But along with increasing consolidation and definiteness of purpose -had come an increasing differentiation of policy and interest. Each -trade was working out its own industrial problems in its way. Whilst -the miners and the cotton operatives, for instance, were elaborating -their own codes of legislative regulation of the conditions of labour, -the engineering and building trades were becoming pledged to the -legislative _laissez-faire_ of their leaders. Under the influence -of the able spokesmen of the northern counties the coal-miners and -ironworkers were accepting the principle that wages must follow prices; -whilst the cotton operatives, and to some extent the boilermakers,[503] -were making a notable stand for the contrary view that the Standard -Rate of Wages should be a first charge on industry. And while the -miners and cotton operatives regarded their organisations primarily -as societies for trade protection, there was growing up among the -successors of the Junta in the iron and building trades a fixed belief -that the really “Scientific Trade Unionism” consisted in elaborate -friendly benefits and judiciously invested superannuation funds. So -long as trade was expanding, and each policy was pursued with success, -no antagonism arose between the different sections. The cotton -operatives cordially approved the Nine Hours Movement of the engineers, -whilst these, in their turn, supported the Factory Bill desired by the -Lancashire spinners. The miners applauded the gallant stand made by the -cotton operatives against the reductions of 1877-79, whilst the cotton -operatives saw no objection to the acquiescence of the miners in the -dependence of wages on prices. And though all Trade Unions regarded -with respect the high contributions and accumulated funds of the -Amalgamated Engineers, they were equally respectful of the success with -which the Northumberland coal-miners, through bad times and good, had -for half a generation maintained a strong Union with exclusively trade -objects. Thus the divergences of policy, which were destined from 1885 -onward to form the battle-ground between what has been once more termed -the “Old” Unionism and the “New,” did not at first prevent cordial -co-operation in the common purposes of the Trade Union Movement. It was -in the dark days after 1878-79, when every Union suffered reverses, -that internal discontent as to Trade Union policy became acute, and -a new spirit of criticism arose. Not until the purely trade society, -on the one hand, had been found lacking in stability, and the trade -friendly society, on the other, had been convicted of apathy in trade -matters; not until the Lancashire and Yorkshire coalminers had been -driven to protest against the constant reductions brought about by -the sliding scales, and some of the leaders of the Lancashire cotton -operatives hesitated in their advocacy of the legal day; finally, not -until a powerful section of the miners opposed any further extension of -the Mines Regulation Acts, and a section of the engineers and building -operatives began to advocate the legal fixing of their own labour -day--do we find it declared that “the two systems cannot co-exist; they -are contradictory and opposed.”[504] - -In more than one direction, therefore, the depression of trade was -bringing into prominence wide divergences of opinion upon Trade -Union policy. But the adverse industrial circumstances of the time -were revealing, in certain industries, a more invidious cleavage. -As manufacturing processes develop and change with the progress of -invention and the substitution of one material for another--iron -for wood in shipbuilding, for instance--the skilled members of one -trade find themselves superseded for certain work by the members of -another. A modern Atlantic liner, practically a luxuriously-fitted, -electric-lighted floating hotel, built of rolled steel plates, -would obviously not fall within the work of a shipwright like Peter -the Great. But the old-fashioned shipwright naturally refused to -relinquish without a struggle the right to build ships of every -kind. The depression of 1879 was severely felt in the shipbuilding -and engineering trades, every one of which had a large percentage of -its members unemployed. The societies found, as we have seen, the -out-of-work donation a serious drain on their funds, and were inclined -to look more narrowly into cases of “encroachment” upon the work which -each regarded as the legitimate sphere of its own members. Disputes -between Union and Union as to overlap and apportionment of work become, -in these years, of frequent occurrence; and to the standing conflict -with the employers was added embittered internecine warfare between -the men of one branch of trade and those of another. The Engineers -complained of the monopoly which the Boilermakers maintained of all -work connected with angle-iron. The Patternmakers protested vigorously -against the Carpenters presuming to make any engineering patterns. -At Glasgow the Brassfounders objected to the Ironmoulders continuing -to make the large brass castings which the workers in brass had at -first been unable to undertake. The line of demarcation in iron -shipbuilding between the work of a shipwright and that of a boilermaker -was a constant source of friction. The disregard of the ordinary -classification of trades by the authorities of the Royal Dockyards -created great discontent among the Engineers, who saw shipwrights -put to do fitters’ work, and Broadhurst brought the matter in 1882 -before the House of Commons.[505] Nor were the disputes confined to -the puzzling question of the lines of demarcation between particular -trades. In 1877 the recently formed Union of “Platers’ Helpers” -complained bitterly to the Trades Union Congress that the whole -force of the Boilermakers’ Society had been used to destroy their -organisation. The Platers’ Helpers, it may be explained, constitute -a large class of labourers in shipbuilding yards, who are usually -employed and paid, not by the owners of the yards, but by members of -the Boilermakers’ Society. In the building trades numerous cases of -friction were occurring between bricklayers and masons on the one -hand, and the builders’ labourers on the other. The introduction of -terra cotta led to a whole series of disputes between the bricklayers -and the plasterers as to the trade to which the new work properly -belonged. Disputes of this kind were, of course, no new thing. What -gave the matter its new importance was the dominance of the great trade -friendly societies in the skilled occupations. The loss of employment -by individual members became in bad times a serious financial drain on -Unions giving out-of-work pay. In place of the bickerings of individual -workmen we have the conflicts of powerful societies, each supporting -the claim of its own members to do the work in dispute. “When men are -not organised in a Trade Union,” says the general secretary of a large -society, “these little things are not taken much notice of, but the -moment the two trades become well organised, each trade is looking -after its own particular members’ interests....”[506] - -We have in our _Industrial Democracy_ analysed the history, character, -and extent of this rivalry among competing branches of the same -trade. Here we need do no more than record its result in weakening -the bond of union between powerful sections of the Trade Union world. -The local Trades Councils, which might have attained a position -of political influence, were always being disintegrated by the -disputes of competing trades. The powerful Shipping Trades Council -of Liverpool, for instance, which played an important part in Samuel -Plimsoll’s agitation for a new Merchant Shipping Act, was broken up in -1880 by the quarrel between the separate societies of Shipwrights, -Ship-joiners, and House Carpenters over ship work. The minutes of -every Trades Council, especially those in seaports, relate innumerable -well-intentioned attempts to settle similar disputes, almost invariably -ending in the secession of one or other of the contending Unions. -These quarrels prevented, moreover, the formation of any effective -general federation. An attempt was made in 1875 by the officers of the -Amalgamated Engineers’, Boilermakers’, Ironfounders’, and Steam-Engine -Makers’ Societies to establish a federation for mutual defence against -attacks upon the Nine Hours System. After a few months, the disputes -between the Engineers and Boilermakers on the one hand, and between the -members of the Amalgamated Society and the Steam-Engine Makers’ Society -on the other, led to the abandonment of the attempt.[507] A similar -movement initiated by the Boilermakers in 1881 equally failed to get -established.[508] - -Wider federations met with no better success than those confined to -the engineering and shipbuilding trades. The Trades Union Congress -repeatedly declared itself in favour of universal brotherhood among -Trade Unionists, and the formation of a federal bond between the -different societies. But the inherent differences between trade and -trade, the numerous distinct types into which societies were divided, -the wide divergences as to Trade Union policy which we have been -describing, and, above all, the rivalry for members and employment -between competing societies in the same industry, rendered any -universal federation impossible. After the Sheffield Congress in -1874, representatives of the leading Unions in the iron and building -trades set on foot a “Federation of Organised Trade Societies,” -which all Unions were invited to join for mutual defence. But the -Cotton-spinners, with their preference for legislative regulation, -refused to have anything to do with a federation which contemplated -nothing but strike benefits. The whole scheme was, indeed, more a -project of certain Trade Union officials than a manifestation of any -general feeling in favour of common action. Each trade was, as we have -said, working out its own policy, and attending almost exclusively to -its own interests. Under such circumstances any attempt at effective -federation must necessarily have been still-born. Nevertheless the -Edinburgh Congress of 1879 called for a renewed attempt; and the -Parliamentary Committee circulated to every Trade Union in the -kingdom their proposed rules for another “Federation of Organised -Trade Societies,” To this invitation not half a dozen replies were -received.[509] At the Congress of 1882, when the resolution in favour -of a universal federation was again proposed, it found little support. -The representatives of the local Trades Councils urged that these -bodies furnished all that was practicable in the way of federation. -Thomas Ashton, the outspoken representative of the cotton-spinners, -was more emphatic. “For years,” he said, “the Parliamentary Committee -and others had been trying to bring about such an organisation as -that mentioned in the resolution, but it had been found utterly -impossible.... It was all nonsense to pass such a resolution. It was -impossible for the trades of the country to amalgamate, their interests -were so varied and they were so jealous with regard to each other’s -disputes.”[510] - -The foregoing examination of the internal relations of the Trade Union -world between 1875 and 1879, though incomplete, demonstrates the extent -to which the movement during these years was dominated by a somewhat -narrow “particularism.” From 1880 to 1885 the various societies were -absorbed in building up again their membership and balances, which -had so seriously suffered during the continued depression. The annual -Trades Union Congress, the Parliamentary Committee, and the political -proceedings of these years constitute practically the only common bond -between the isolated and often hostile sections. In all industrial -matters the Trade Union world was broken up into struggling groups, -destitute of any common purpose, each, indeed, mainly preoccupied with -its separate concerns, and frequently running counter to the policy or -aims of the rest. The cleavages of interest and opinion among working -men proved to be deeper and more numerous than any one suspected. In -the following chapter we shall see how an imperfect appreciation of -each other’s position led to that conflict between the “Old Unionists” -and the “New” which for some years bade fair to disintegrate the whole -Labour Movement. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[442] Address of Alexander Macdonald to the Leeds Conference, 1873. -Alexander Macdonald, the son of a sailor, who became a miner in -Lanarkshire, was born at Airdrie in 1821, and went to work in the pit -at the age of eight. Having an ardent desire for education he prepared -himself as best he could for Glasgow University, which he entered in -1846, supporting himself from his savings, and from his work as a -miner in the summer. Whilst still at the University he became known -as a leader of the miners all over Scotland. In 1850 he became a mine -manager, and in 1851 he opened a school at Airdrie, an occupation which -he abandoned in 1855 to devote his whole time to agitation on behalf -of the miners. On the formation, in 1863, of the National Union of -Miners, he was elected president, a position which he retained until -his death. Meanwhile he was, by a series of successful commercial -speculations, acquiring a modest fortune, which enabled him to devote -his whole energies to the promotion of the Parliamentary programme -which he had impressed upon the miners. He gave important evidence -before the Select Committee of 1865 on the Master and Servant Law. In -1868 he offered himself as a candidate for the Kilmarnock Burghs, but -retired to avoid a split. At the General Election of 1874 he was more -successful, being returned for Stafford, and thus becoming (with Thomas -Burt) the first “Labour Member.” He was shortly afterwards appointed -a member of the Royal Commission on the Labour Laws, and eventually -presented a minority report of his own on the subject. He died in 1881. -A history of the coal-miners which he projected was apparently never -written, and, with the exception of numerous presidential addresses and -other speeches, and a pamphlet entitled _Notes and Annotations on the -Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872_ (Glasgow, 1872, 50 pp.), we have found -nothing from his pen. A eulogistic notice of his life by Lloyd Jones -appeared in the _Newcastle Chronicle_, November 17, 1883, most of which -is reprinted in Dr. Baernreither’s _English Associations of Working -Men_, p. 408. - -[443] Address to the Miners’ National Conference at Leeds, 1873. - -[444] The Conference appointed a sub-committee to compile and publish -its proceedings, “a thing,” as the preface explains, “altogether -unparalleled in the records of labour.” And indeed the elaborate -volume, regularly published by the eminent firm of Longmans in 1864, -entitled _Transactions and Results of the National Association of Coal, -Lime, and Ironstone Miners of Great Britain, held at Leeds, November -9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, 1863_, with its 174 pages, its frontispiece -representing the pit-brow women, and its motto on the title-page -extracted from the writings of W. E. Gladstone, formed a creditable and -impressive appeal to the reading public. - -[445] For this militant Chartist (1805-79), see _Life of Joseph Rayner -Stephens_, by G. J. Holyoake, 1881. - -[446] _Transactions and Results of the National Association of Coal, -Lime, and Ironstone Miners of Great Britain, held at Leeds, November 9, -10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, 1863_, p. 14. - -[447] _Transactions and Results of the National Association of Coal, -Lime, and Ironstone Miners of Great Britain, held at Leeds, November 9, -10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, 1863_, p. 17. In Northumberland and Durham the -hewers very largely work in two shifts, whilst there used to be only -one shift of boys. - -[448] Section 29 of Mines Regulation Act of 1860. - -[449] Normansell _v._ Platt. John Normansell, the agent of the South -Yorkshire Miners’ Association, stands second only to Macdonald as a -leader of the miners between 1863 and 1875. The son of a banksman, -he was born at Torkington, Cheshire, in 1830, and left an orphan at -an early age. At seven he entered the pit, and when, at the age of -nineteen, he married, he was unable to write his own name. Migrating -to South Yorkshire, he became a leader in the agitation to secure a -checkweigher, which the local coal-owners conceded in 1859. Normansell -was elected to the post for his own pit, and rapidly became the leading -spirit in the district. After the lock-out of 1864 he was elected -secretary to the Union, then counting only two thousand members. Within -eight years he had raised its membership to twenty thousand, and built -up an elaborate system of friendly benefits. Normansell was the first -working-man Town Councillor, having been triumphantly elected at -Barnsley, his Union subscribing £1000 to lodge in the bank in his name, -in order to enable him to declare himself possessed of the pecuniary -qualification at that time required. On his death the amount was voted -to his widow. Normansell gave evidence in 1867 before the Select -Committee on Coal-mining, and before that on the Master and Servant -Law, in 1868 before the Royal Commission on Trade Unions, and in 1873 -before that on the Coal Supply. - -[450] The best and indeed the only exact account of these cotton lists -is that prepared for the Economic Section of the British Association by -a committee consisting of Professor Sidgwick, Professor Foxwell, A. H. -D. (now Sir Arthur) Acland, Dr. W. Cunningham, and Professor J. E. C. -Munro, the report being drawn up by the latter. (_On the Regulation of -Wages by means of Lists in the Cotton Industry_, Manchester, 1887; in -two parts--Spinning and Weaving.) See _History of Wages in the Cotton -Trade during the Past Hundred Years_, by G. H. Wood, 1910; _A Century -of Fine Cotton Spinning_, by McConnel & Co., 1906; and _Standard Piece -Lists and Sliding Scales_, by the Labour Department of the Board of -Trade, Cd. 144, 1900. - -The principles upon which the lists are framed are so complicated that -we confess, after prolonged study, to be still perplexed on certain -points; and though Professor Munro clears up many difficulties, we are -disposed to believe that even he, in some particulars, has not in all -cases correctly stated the matter. We have discussed the whole subject -in our _Industrial Democracy_. - -[451] _Bolton and District Net List of Prices for Spinning Twist, -Reeled Yarn or Bastard Twist, and Weft, on Self-actor Mules_ (Bolton, -1887; 85 pp.). - -[452] Birtwistle was, in 1892, at an advanced age, appointed by the -Home Secretary an Inspector in the Factory Department, under the -“particulars clause” (sec. 24 of the Factory and Workshops Act, 1891), -as the only person who could be found competent to understand and -interpret the intricacies of the method of remuneration in the weaving -trade. - -[453] _Beehive_, February 23, 1867. The circular announcing the -resolution is signed by the leading officers of the Cotton-spinners’ -and Cotton-weavers’ Unions of the time. - -[454] Report of the Parliamentary Committee to the Trades Union -Congress, January 1873. - -[455] Circular of December 11, 1871, signed on behalf of the -preliminary meeting by Thomas Mawdsley--not to be mistaken for James -Mawdsley, J.P., a subsequent secretary. - -[456] Thomas Ashton, J.P. (died 1919), then secretary of the Oldham -Spinners, often made this statement. On the 26th of May 1893 the -_Cotton Factory Times_, the men’s accredited organ, declared, with -reference to the Eight Hours Movement, that “now the veil must be -lifted, and the agitation carried on under its true colours. Women and -children must no longer be made the pretext for securing a reduction of -working hours for men.” - -[457] Speech at Trades Union Congress, Bristol, 1878. - -[458] “From what I have heard,” writes Professor Beesly in the -_Beehive_, May 16, 1874, “I am inclined to think that no single fact -had more to do with the defeat of the Liberal Party in Lancashire at -the last election than Mr. Fawcett’s speech on the Nine Hours Bill in -the late Parliament.” - -[459] Report of Trades Union Congress, Sheffield, January 1874. - -[460] John Burnett, who was born at Alnwick, Northumberland, in 1842, -became, after the Nine Hours Strike, a lecturer for the National -Education League, and joined the staff of the _Newcastle Chronicle_. -In 1875, on Allan’s death, he was elected to the General Secretaryship -of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. He was a member of the -Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress from 1876 to -1885. In 1886 he was appointed to the newly-created post of Labour -Correspondent of the Board of Trade, in which capacity he prepared -and issued a series of reports on Trade Unions and Strikes. On the -establishment of the Labour Department in 1893 he became Chief Labour -Correspondent under the Commissioner for Labour, and was selected to -visit the United States to prepare a report on the effects of Jewish -immigration. He retired in 1907 and died 1914. - -[461] A full account of this conflict is given by John Burnett in -his _History of the Engineers’ Strike in Newcastle and Gateshead_ -(Newcastle, 1872; 77 pp.). A description by the Executive of the -Amalgamated Society of Engineers is given in their “Abstract Report” -up to December 31, 1872. The _Newcastle Daily Chronicle_, from April -to October 1871, furnishes a detailed contemporary record. The leading -articles and correspondence in the _Times_ of September 1871 are -important. - -[462] See the _Times_ leader of September 11, 1871. This leader, which -pronounced “the conduct of the employers throughout this dispute as -imprudent and impolitic,” called forth the bewildered remonstrance of -Sir William (afterwards Lord) Armstrong, writing on behalf of “the -Associated Employers.” “We were amazed,” writes the great captain of -industry, “to see ourselves described in your article as being in a -condition of hopeless difficulty; and we really felt that, if the -League themselves had possessed the power of inspiring that article, -they could scarcely have used words more calculated to serve their -purposes than those in which it is expressed. The concurrent appearance -in the _Spectator_ of an article exhibiting the same bias adds to our -surprise. We had imagined that a determined effort to wrest concessions -from employers by sheer force of combination was not a thing which -found favour with the more educated and intelligent classes, whose -opinions generally find expression in the columns of the _Times_” -(_Times_ September 14, 1871). - -[463] Here the “International” was of use. At Burnett’s instigation, -Cohn, the Danish secretary in London, proceeded to the Continent to -check this immigration, his expenses being paid by the Amalgamated -Society of Engineers. - -[464] With regard to overtime, Burnett informed us that “it was found -impossible to carry a Nine Hours Day pure and simple at the time of the -strike of 1871, and that overtime should still be worked as required -was insisted upon as a first condition of settlement by the employers.” - -[465] Meeting of London pattern-makers to seek advance of wages, -_Beehive_, October 21, 1865. - -[466] Letter from “Amalgamator,” _Beehive_, January 19, 1867. - -[467] The rank and file were more sympathetic than the Executive. -The machinery for making the collections was mostly furnished by the -branches and committees of the Society. - -[468] An “Assistant Secretary” was subsequently added, and eventually -another. But these assistants were, like the General Secretary himself, -recruited from the ranks of the workmen, and however experienced they -may have been in trade matters, were necessarily less adapted to the -clerical labour demanded of them. The great Trade Friendly Societies of -the Stonemasons, Bricklayers, and Ironfounders long continued to have -only one assistant secretary, and no clerical staff whatever. - -[469] Question 827 in Report of Trade Union Commission (March 26, 1867). - -[470] _Bookbinders’ Trade Circular_, January 1866. - -[471] In 1892 the Amalgamated Engineers provided themselves, not only -with district delegates, like those of the Boilermakers, but also with -a salaried Executive Council. The Amalgamated Society of Carpenters -has since started district delegates, and the other national societies -gradually followed suit. - -[472] Mention should here be made of the Manchester and District -Association of Trade Union Officials, an organisation which grew out -of a joint committee formed to assist the South Wales miners in their -strike of 1875. The frequent meetings, half serious, half social, -of this grandly named association, known to the initiated as “the -Peculiar People,” served for many years as opportunities for important -consultations on Trade Union policy between the leaders of the numerous -societies having offices in Manchester. It also had as an object the -protection of Trade Union officials against unjust treatment by their -own societies (see _History of the British Trades Union Congress_, by -W. J. Davis, vol. i., 1910, p. 89) - -[473] Report of the Trades Union Congress, Sheffield, 1874. A table -printed in the Appendix to the present volume gives such comparative -statistics of Trade Union membership as we have been able to compile. - -[474] “Statement as to Formation and Objects of the National Federation -of Associated Employers of Labour,” December 11, 1873, reprinted by the -Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress. This Federation -comprised in its ranks a large proportion of the great “captains of -industry” of the time, including such shipbuilders as Laird and Harland -& Wolff; such textile manufacturers as Crossley, Brinton, Marshall, -Titus Salt, Akroyd, and Brocklehurst; such engineers as Mawdsley, Son & -Field, Combe, Barbour & Combe, and Beyer & Peacock; such ironmasters as -David Dale and John Menelaus; such builders as Trollope of London and -Neill of Manchester, and such representatives of the great industrial -peers as Sir James Ramsden, who spoke for the Duke of Devonshire, and -Fisher Smith, the agent of the Earl of Dudley. - -[475] The immediate publicity given to the agitation was due, in the -first place, to the sympathy of J. E. Matthew Vincent, the editor of -the _Leamington Chronicle_, and secondly, to the instinct of the _Daily -News_, which promptly sent Archibald Forbes, its war correspondent, -to Warwickshire, and “boomed” the movement in a series of special -articles. A contemporary account of the previous career of Joseph -Arch is given by the Rev. F. S. Attenborough in his _Life of Joseph -Arch_ (Leamington, 1872; 37 pp.). See also _The Revolt of the Field_, -by A. W. Clayden (1874), 234 pp.; and “Zur Geschichte der englischen -Arbeiterbewegung im Jahre 1872-1873,” by Dr. Friedrich Kleinwächter in -_Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik_, 1875, and Supplement -I. of 1878; “Die jüngste Landarbeiterbewegung in England,” by Lloyd -Jones, in Nathusius-Thiel’s _Landwirthschaftliche Jahrbücher_, 1875; -_The Romance of Peasant Life_, 1872, and _The English Peasantry_, 1872, -by F. G. Heath; _The Agricultural Labourer_, by F. E. Kettel, 1887; -_Joseph Arch, the Story of his Life, told by Himself_, 1898; _A History -of the English Agricultural Labourer_, by Dr. W. Hasbach, 1908; “The -Labourers in Council,” a valuable article in _The Congregationalist_, -1872; “The Agricultural Labourers’ Union,” in _Quarterly Review_, -1873; “The Agricultural Labourers’ Union,” by Canon Girdlestone, in -_Macmillan’s Magazine_, vol. xxviii.; “The Agricultural Labourer,” -by F. Verinder, in _The Church Reformer_, 1892; and others in this -magazine during 1891-93; _Conflicts of Capital and Labour_, by G. -Howell, 1878 and 1890 editions; _Labour Legislation, Labour Movements -and Labour Leaders_, by the same, 1902; and _Village Trade Unions in -Two Centuries_, by Ernest Selley, 1919. - -[476] Other Labourers’ Unions sprang up which refused to be absorbed -in the National; and the London Trades Council summoned a conference -in March 1873 to promote unity of action. Considerable jealousy was -shown of any centralising policy, and eventually a Federal Union of -Agricultural and General Labourers was formed by half a dozen of the -smaller societies, with an aggregate membership of 50,000. - -[477] The Birmingham Trades Council, for instance, issued the following -poster: - -“Great Lock-out of Agricultural Labourers! - -“An Appeal. Is the Labourer worthy of his Hire? - -“This question is to all lovers of freedom and peaceful progress, -and it is left for them to say whether that spark of life and hope -which has been kindled in the breasts of our toiling brothers in the -agricultural districts shall be extinguished by the pressure of the -present lock-out. The answer is No! and the echo resounds from ten -thousand lips. But let us be practical; a little help is of more -value than much sympathy; we must not stand to pity, but strive to -send relief. The cause of the agricultural labourer is our own; -the interests of labour in all its forms are very closely bound up -together, and the simple question for each one is, How much can I help, -and how soon can I do it? If we stay thinking too long, action may -come too late; these men, our brethren, now deeply in adversity, may -have fallen victims when our active efforts might have saved them. The -strain upon the funds of their Union must be considerable with such -a number thrown into unwilling idleness, and that for simply asking -that their wages, in these times of dear food, might be increased from -13s. to 14s. per week. Money is no doubt wanted, and it is by that -alone the victory can be won. Let us therefore hope that Birmingham -will once again come to the rescue, determined to assist these men to -a successful resistance of the oppression that is attempted in this -lock-out. - -“The great high priest and deliverer of this people now seeks our -aid. We must not let him appeal to us in vain; his efforts have been -too noble in the past, the cause for which he pleads is too full of -righteousness, and the issues too great to be passed by in heedless -silence. Let us all to work at once. We can all give a little, and each -one may encourage his neighbour to follow his example. The conflict -may be a severe one. It is for freedom and liberty to unite as we have -done. We have reaped some of the advantages of our Unions; we must -assist them to establish theirs, and not allow the ray of hope that now -shines across the path of our patient but determined fellow-toilers -to be darkened by the blind folly of their employers, who, being in a -measure slaves to the powers above them, would, if they could, even -at their own loss, consign all below them to perpetual bondage. This -must not be. We must not allow these men to be robbed of their right to -unite, or their future may be less hopeful than their past. Let some -one in every manufactory and workshop collect from those disposed to -give, and so help to furnish the means to assist these men to withstand -the powers brought against them, showing to their would-be oppressors -that we have almost learned the need and duty of standing side by side -until all our righteous efforts shall be crowned by victory. - - -“All members of the Birmingham Trades Council are authorised to collect -and receive contributions to the fund, and will be pleased to receive -assistance from others. - - “By order of the Birmingham Trades Council, - “W. Gilliver, Secretary.” - - -[478] _Queen’s Regulations for the Army for 1873_, Article 180; the -whole correspondence is given in the Report of the London Trades -Council, June 1873. - -[479] The rival Kent Union, which had become the Kent and Sussex -Agricultural and General Labourers’ Union, enrolling all sorts of -labourers, claimed in 1889 still to have 10,000 members, with an annual -income of £10,000 a year, mostly disbursed in sick and funeral benefits. - -[480] See _Die Strikes, die Co-operation, die Industrial Partnerships_, -by Dr. Robert Jannasch (Berlin, 1868; 66 pp.). - -[481] Amid the great outburst of feeling in favour of Co-operative -Production it is difficult to distinguish in every case between the -investments of the funds of the Trade Unions in their corporate -capacity, and the subscriptions of individual members under the -auspices, and sometimes through the agency, of their trade society. The -South Yorkshire Miners’ Association used £30,000 of its funds in the -purchase of the Shirland Colliery in 1875, and worked it on account of -the Association. In a very short time, however, the constant loss on -the working led to the colliery being disposed of, with the total loss -of the investment. The Northumberland and Durham Miners in 1873 formed -a “Co-operative Mining Company” to buy a colliery, a venture in which -the Unions took shares, but which quickly ended in the loss of all the -capital. Some of the Newcastle engineers on strike for Nine Hours in -1871 were assisted by sympathisers to start the Ouseburn Engine Works, -which came to a disastrous end in 1876. In 1875 the Leicester Hosiery -Operatives’ Union, having 2000 members, began manufacturing on its own -account, and bought up a small business. In the following year a vote -of the members decided against such an investment of the funds, and -the Union sold out to a group of individuals under the style of the -Leicester Hosiery Society. It became fairly successful, but scarcely -a tenth of the shareholders were workers in the concern, and it was -eventually merged in the Co-operative Wholesale Society. Innumerable -smaller experiments were set on foot during these years by groups of -Trade Unionists with more or less assistance from their societies, -but the great majority were quickly abandoned as unsuccessful. In a -few cases the business established still exists, but in every one of -these any connection with Trade Unionism has long since ceased. In -later years renewed attempts have been made by a few Unions. Several -local branches of the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives, for -instance, have taken shares in the Leicester Co-operative Boot and -Shoe Manufacturing Society. The London Bassdressers, the Staffordshire -Potters, the Birmingham Tinplate Workers, and a few other societies -have also taken shares in co-operative concerns started in their -respective trades. Full particulars will be found in the exhaustive -work of Benjamin Jones on _Co-operative Production_, 1894. - -[482] In one other respect the Trade Union expansion of 1872-74 -resembled that of 1833-34. Both periods were marked by an attempt -to enrol the women wage-earners in the Trade Union ranks. Ephemeral -Unions of women workers had been established from time to time, only to -collapse after a brief existence. The year 1872 saw the establishment -of the oldest durable Union for women only--the Edinburgh Upholsterers’ -Sewers’ Society. Two years later Mrs. Paterson, the real pioneer of -modern women’s Trade Unions, began her work in this field, and in 1875 -several small Unions among London Women Bookbinders, Upholsteresses, -Shirt and Collar Makers, and Dressmakers were established, to -be followed, in subsequent years, by others among Tailoresses, -Laundresses, etc. Mrs. Emma Ann Paterson (_née_ Smith), who was born -in 1848, the daughter of a London schoolmaster, served from 1867 to -1873 successively as an Assistant Secretary of the Working Men’s Club -and Institute Union and the Women’s Suffrage Association, and married, -in 1873, Thomas Paterson, a cabinetmaker. On a visit to the United -States she became acquainted with the “Female Umbrella Makers’ Union -of New York,” and strove, on her return in 1874, to promulgate the -idea of Trade Unionism among women workers in the South of England. -After some newspaper articles, she set on foot the Women’s Protective -and Provident League (now the Women’s Trade Union League), for the -express purpose of promoting Trade Unionism, and established in the -same year the National Union of Working Women at Bristol. From 1875 to -1886 she was a constant attendant at the Trades Union Congress, and -was several times nominated for a seat on the Parliamentary Committee, -at the Hull Congress heading the list of unsuccessful candidates. An -appreciative notice of her life and work appeared in the _Women’s -Union Journal_ on her death in December 1886; see also _Dictionary of -National Biography_, and _Women in the Printing Trades_, edited by J. -R. MacDonald (1904), pp. 36, 37. - -[483] Speech quoted in _Capital and Labour_; June 16, 1875. - -[484] It must be remembered that the words “arbitration” and -“conciliation” were at this time very loosely used, often meaning no -more than a meeting of employers and Trade Union representatives for -argument and discussion. The classic work upon the whole subject is -Henry Crompton’s _Industrial Conciliation_, 1876. It receives detailed -examination in the various contributions of Mr. L. L. Price, notably -his _Industrial Peace_ (1887) and the supplementary papers entitled -“The Relations between Industrial Conciliation and Social Reform,” and -“The Position and Prospects of Industrial Conciliation,” published -in the _Statistical Society’s Journal_ for June and September 1890 -(vol. liii. pp. 290 and 420). For an American summary may be consulted -Joseph D. Weeks’ _Report on the Practical Working of Arbitration and -Conciliation in the Settlement of Differences between Employers and -Employees in England_ (Harrisburg, 1879), and his paper on _Labour -Differences_ (New York, 1886). The working of arbitration is well set -forth in _Strikes and Arbitration_, by Sir Rupert Kettle, 1866; in A. -J. Mundella’s evidence before the Trade Union Commission, 1868; in his -address, _Arbitration as a Means of Preventing Strikes_ (Bradford, -1868; 24 pp.); and in the lecture by Dr. R. Spence Watson entitled -“Boards of Arbitration and Conciliation and Sliding Scales,” reported -in the _Barnsley Chronicle_, March 20, 1886. An early account of -the Nottingham experience is contained in the paper by E. Renals, -“On Arbitration in the Hosiery Trades of the Midland Counties” -(_Statistical Society’s Journal_, December 1867, vol. xxx. p. 548). -See also the volume edited by Dr. Brentano, _Arbeitseinstellungen und -Fortbildung des Arbeitvertrags_ (Leipzig, 1890), and _Zum socialen -Frieden_, by Dr. von Schulze Gaevernitz (Leipzig, 2 vols., 1892). The -whole subject of the relation between Trade Unions and employers is -fully dealt with in our _Industrial Democracy_. For the latest British -Official reports on the subject see Cd. 6603, 6952, and 9099. - -[485] The course of prices after 1870 demonstrates how disastrously -this principle would have operated for the wage-earners had it been -universally adopted. Between 1870 and 1894 the Index Number compiled by -the _Economist_, representing the average level of market prices, fell -steadily from 2996 to 2082, irrespective of the goodness of trade or -the amount of the employers’ profits. Any exact correspondence between -wages and the price of the product would exclude the wage-earners, as -such, from all share in the advantages of improvements in production, -cheapening of carriage, and the fall in the rate of interest, which -might otherwise be turned to account in an advance in the workman’s -Standard of Life. On the other hand, in an era of rising prices, -when these influences are being more than counteracted by currency -inflation, increasing difficulty of production, or a world-shortage of -supply, an automatic correspondence between money wages and the cost -of living would be useful, if it did not lead to the implication that -the only ground for an advance in wages was an increase in the cost of -living. The workmen have still to contend for a progressive improvement -of their Standard of Life whatever happens to profits. - -[486] Executive Circular, October 12, 1874. - -[487] _Ibid._, October 21, 1879; as to the Sliding Scales actually -adopted, see Appendix II. - -[488] _Miners’ Watchman and Labour Sentinel_, February 9, 1878--a -quasi-official organ of the Northern Miners, which was published in -London from January to May 1878. - -[489] “Should Wages be Regulated by Market Prices?” by Lloyd Jones, -_Beehive_, July 18, 1874; see also his article in the issue for March -14, 1874. - -[490] Lloyd Jones, one of the ablest and most loyal friends of Trade -Unionism, was born at Bandon, in Ireland, in 1811, the son of a small -working master in the trade of fustian-cutting. Himself originally a -working fustian-cutter, Lloyd Jones became, like his father, a small -master, but eventually abandoned that occupation for journalism. -He became an enthusiastic advocate of Co-operation, and in 1850 he -joined Thomas Hughes and E. Vansittart Neale in a memorable lecturing -tour through Lancashire. A few years later we find him in London, in -close touch with the Trade Union leaders, with whom he was on terms -of intimate friendship. From the establishment of the _Beehive_ in -1861 he was for eighteen years a frequent contributor, his articles -being uniformly distinguished by literary ability, exact knowledge of -industrial facts, and shrewd foresight. From 1870 until his death in -1886 he was frequently selected by the various Unions to present their -case in Arbitration proceedings. At the General Election of 1885 he -stood as candidate for the Chester-le-Street Division of Durham, where -he was opposed by both the official Liberals and the Conservatives, -and was unsuccessful. In conjunction with J. M. Ludlow, he wrote _The -Progress of the Working Classes_, 1867, and afterwards published _The -Life, Times, and Labours of Robert Owen_, to which a memoir by his son, -Mr. W. C. Jones, has since been prefixed. - -[491] _Beehive_, May 16, 1874. - -[492] This information we owe to personal friends and colleagues of -Macdonald, Thomas Burt, M.P., and Ralph Young, who, as we have seen, -differed from him on this point, and also on the allied question -of regulation of output according to demand, to be preached by the -coal-miners as well as by the colliery companies, which Macdonald, -throughout his whole career, persistently advocated. See, for instance, -his speech at the local conference on the Depression of Trade, _Bristol -Mercury_, February 13, 1878. - -[493] A useful summary of these events is given in Dr. Kleinwächter’s -pamphlet, _Zur Geschichte der englischen Arbeiterbewegung in den Jahren -1871 und 1874_ (Jena, 1878; 150 pp.). - -[494] _Beehive_, June 5, 1875. - -[495] The operatives’ case is well put in the Weavers’ Manifesto of -June 1878: - -“Fellow-workers--We are and have been engaged during the past nine -weeks in the most memorable struggle between Capital and Labour in the -history of the world. One hundred thousand factory workers are waging -war with their employers as to the best possible way to remove the -glut from an overstocked cloth market, and at the same time reduce -the difficulties arising from an insufficient supply of raw cotton. -To remedy this state of things the employers propose a reduction of -wages to the extent of ten per cent below the rate of wages agreed -upon twenty-five years ago. On the other hand, we have contended that -a reduction in the rate of wages cannot either remove the glut in the -cloth market or assist to tide us over the difficulty arising from the -limited supply of raw material. However, this has been the employers’ -theory, and at various periods throughout the struggle we have made the -following propositions as a basis of settlement of this most calamitous -struggle: - -“1. A reduction of ten per cent, with four days’ working, or five per -cent with five days’ working, until the glut in the cloth market and -the difficulties arising from the dearth of cotton had been removed. - -“2. To submit the whole question of short time or reduction, or both, -to the arbitrement of any one or more impartial gentlemen. - -“3. To submit the entire question to two Manchester merchants or -agents, two shippers conversant with the Manchester trade, and two -bankers, one of each to be selected by the employers and the other -by the operatives, with two employers and two operatives, with Lord -Derby, the Bishop of Manchester, or any other impartial gentleman, as -chairman, or, if necessary, referee. - -“4. To split the difference between us, and go to work unconditionally -at a reduction of five per cent. - -“5. Through the Mayor of Burnley, to go to work three months at a -reduction of five per cent, and if trade had not sufficiently improved -at that time, to submit to a further reduction. - -“6. And lastly, to an unconditional reduction of seven and a half per -cent.” - -[496] Amalgamated Society of Engineers, etc., Abstract Report of the -Council’s Proceedings, 1878-79, p. 18. - -[497] See _The Strikes of the Past Ten Years_, by G. Phillips Bevan -(March 1880, _Stat. Soc. Journal_, vol. xliii. pp. 35-54). We have -ascertained that the strikes mentioned in the _Times_ between 1876 and -1889 show the following variations: - -1876 17 1877 23 1878 38 1879 72 1880 46 1881 20 1882 14 1883 26 1884 31 -1885 20 1886 24 1887 27 1888 37 1889 111 - - -[498] Secret circular from the London Secretary (Sidney Smith) of the -Iron Trades Employers’ Association, December 1878; republished in -Circular of Amalgamated Society of Engineers, January 3, 1879, and in -Report of Executive Council for 1878-79, p. 31. - -[499] At Manchester, Bolton, Ramsbottom, Wrexham, Falmouth, Aldershot, -etc., the hours were thus lengthened. - -[500] To the ordinary reader it may be desirable to explain that the -Unions have, in most trades, succeeded in establishing the principle -of the payment of higher rates for overtime. But in most cases this is -limited to workers paid by time, no extra allowance being given to the -man working by the piece. - -It will be obvious that if a workman, ostensibly enjoying a Nine Hours -Day, is habitually required to work overtime, and is paid only at the -normal piecework rate for his work, he obtains no advantage whatever -from the nominal fixing of his hours of labour. To many thousands of -men in the engineering and building trades the nominal maintenance -of the Nine Hours Day meant, in 1878 and succeeding years, no more -than this. See for the whole subject of “the Normal Day,” _Industrial -Democracy_, by S. and B. Webb. - -[501] The lowest point reached in the statistics of the annual Trades -Union Congresses was in 1881, when the delegates claimed to represent -little more than a third of the numbers of 1874. These statistics of -membership are, however, in many respects misleading. The Congress -of 1879 was attended by a much smaller number of delegates than any -Congress since 1872, and the number of Unions represented was also the -smallest since that date. - -[502] “Four years ago,” writes the President of the Bristol Coopers’ -Society in 1878, “upwards of 40,000 workmen were in combination in -these valleys [South Wales], and to-day not a single Union is in -existence throughout the entire district.” (Paper at Local Conference -on the Depression of Trade, _Bristol Mercury_, February 13, 1878). - -[503] See the injunctions of the General Secretary, Monthly Report, -March 1862; Annual Reports, 1882 and 1888. Robert Knight consistently -opposed “violent fluctuations of wages, at one time a starvation -pittance, at another exorbitantly high.” - -[504] _Trade Unionism, New and Old_, by George Howell, M.P. (1891), p. -235. - -[505] House of Commons Journals, Motion of March 14, 1882: “That in the -opinion of this House it is detrimental to the public service, fatal -to the efficiency of our war ships, and unjust to the fitters in Her -Majesty’s Dockyards, that superintending leading men should be placed -in authority over workmen with whose trades they have no practical -acquaintance, or that men should be put to execute work for which they -are unsuited either by training or experience.” See _Henry Broadhurst, -the Story of his Life from a Stonemason’s Bench to the Treasury Bench_, -by himself, 1901. - -[506] Evidence of Mr. Chandler, then general secretary of Amalgamated -Society of Carpenters and Joiners (Labour Commission, 1892, vol. iii. -Q. 22,014). - -[507] Abstract Report of Amalgamated Engineers, June 30, 1876. - -[508] In 1890, however, Robert Knight, who had been throughout the -foremost worker for federation, succeeded in establishing a Federation -of the Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades of the United Kingdom, -described in our _Industrial Democracy_, from which the Amalgamated -Society of Engineers has held aloof. A large part of the work of the -Federal Executive consisted, for many years, of adjusting disputes -between Union and Union with regard to overlap and apportionment of -work. For the whole subject, see our _Industrial Democracy_, 1897. - -[509] When, in 1890, the project of universal federation was revived, -the draft rules of 1879 were simply reprinted. - -[510] Report of Manchester Congress, 1882; see also _History of the -British Trades Union Congress_, by W. J. Davis, vol. i., 1910. - - - - -CHAPTER VII - -THE OLD UNIONISM AND THE NEW - -[1875-1890] - - -Since 1875 the Trades Union Congress has loomed before the general -public with ever-increasing impressiveness as the representative -Parliament of the Trade Union world. To the historical student, on -the other hand, it has, during the last fifty years, been wanting -in significance as an index to the real factors of the Trade Union -Movement. Between 1871 and 1875, the period of the struggle for -complete legalisation, the Congress concentrated the efforts of the -different sections upon the common object they had all at heart. On -the accomplishment of that object it became for ten years little more -than an annual gathering of Trade Union officials, in which they -delivered, with placid unanimity, their views on labour legislation and -labour politics.[511] From 1885 to 1890 we shall watch the Congress -losing its decorous calm, and gradually becoming the battle-field of -contending principles and rival leaders. But throughout its whole -career it has, to speak strictly, been representative less of the -development of Trade Unionism as such, than of the social and political -aspirations of its leading members. - -The reader of the Congress proceedings between 1875 and 1885 would, -for instance, fail to recognise our description of the characteristics -of the movement in these years. The predominant feature of the Trade -Union world between 1875 and 1885 was, as we have seen, an extreme -and complicated sectionalism. It might therefore have been expected -that the annual meeting of delegates from different trades would -have been made the debating ground for all the moot points and vexed -questions of Trade Unionism, not to say the battle-field of opposing -interests. But though the Trades Union Congress, like all popular -assemblies, had its stormy scenes and hot discussions, from 1875 to -1885 these episodes arose only on personal questions, such as the -conduct of individual members of the committee or the _bona fides_ of -particular delegates. On all questions of policy or principle before -the Congress the delegates were generally unanimous. This was brought -about by the deliberate exclusion of all Trade Union problems from the -agenda. The relative merits of collective bargaining and legislative -regulation were, during these years, never so much as discussed. The -alternative types of benefit club and trade society were not compared. -The difficulties of overlap and apportionment of work were not even -referred to. No mention was made of Sliding Scales, Wage-Boards, -Piecework Lists, or other expedients for avoiding disputes. Piecework -itself, when introduced by a delegate in 1876, was dropped as a -dangerous topic. The disputes between Union and Union were regarded by -the Committee as outside the proper scope of Congress.[512] In short, -the knotty problems of Trade Union organisation, the divergent views -as to Trade Union policy, the effect on Trade Unionism of different -methods of remuneration--all the critical issues of industrial strife -were expressly excluded from the agenda of the Congress. - -For the narrow limits thus set to the functions of the Congress there -was an historical reason. Arising as it did between 1868 and 1871, when -the one absorbing topic was the relation of Trade Unionism to the law, -it had retained the character then impressed upon it of an exclusively -political body. For many years its chief use was to give weight to the -Parliamentary action of the standing committee, whose influence in -the lobby of the House of Commons was directly proportionate to the -numbers they were believed to represent. Publicity and advertisement, -the first requisites of a successful Congress, were worse than useless -without unanimity of opinion. The deliberate refusal of the Trade Union -leaders to discuss internal problems in public Congress under such -circumstances was not surprising. Most men in their position would -have hesitated to let the world know that the apparent solidarity of -Trade Unionism covered jealous disputes on technical questions, and -fundamental differences as to policy. They easily persuaded themselves -that a yearly meeting of shifting delegates was fitted neither to -debate technical questions nor to serve as a tribunal of appeal. But -these difficulties could have been overcome. The quinquennial delegate -meeting of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers secures absolute -frankness of discussion by the exclusion of reporters; and the frequent -national conferences of miners achieve the same end by supplying -the press with their own abstract of the proceedings. The Miners’ -Conference of 1863, which we have already described, had shown, too, -how successfully a large conference of workmen could resolve itself, -for special questions, into private committees, the reports being -laid before the whole conference at its public sittings--a device -not yet adopted by the Trades Union Congress. And the London Society -of Compositors, which is governed practically by mass meetings, had, -for over half a century, known how to combine detailed investigation -of complicated questions with Democratic decisions on principles -of policy, by appointing special committees to report to the next -subsequent members’ meeting. The fact that no such expedients were -suggested shows that in these years the jealousy of most workmen of -outside interference and their apathy about questions unconnected with -their immediate trade interests, made their leaders unwilling to trust -them with real opportunities for full Democratic discussion. - -We shall therefore not attempt to reconstruct the Trade Union -Movement from the proceedings of its annual congresses. The following -brief analysis of their programmes and the achievements of the -Parliamentary Committee is meant to show, not the facts as to Trade -Union organisation throughout the country, with which we have already -dealt, but the political and social ideals that filled the minds of -the more thoughtful and better educated working men, and the rapid -transformation of these ideals in the course of the last decade.[513] - -The mantle of the Junta of 1867-71 had, by 1875, fallen upon a group -of able organisers who, for many years, occupied the foremost place in -the Trade Union world. Between 1872 and 1875 Allan and Applegarth were -replaced by Henry Broadhurst, John Burnett, J. D. Prior, and George -Shipton.[514] These leaders had moulded their methods and policy upon -those of the able men who preceded them. It was they, indeed, aided by -Alexander Macdonald and Thomas Burt, who had actually carried through -the final achievement of 1875. Like Allan, Applegarth, and Guile, they -belonged either to the iron or the building trades, and were permanent -officials of Trade Union organisations. A comparison of the private -minutes of the Parliamentary Committee between 1875 and 1885 with those -of the Conference of Amalgamated Trades of 1867-71 reveals how exactly -the new “Front Bench” carried on the traditions of the Junta. We see -the same shrewd caution and practical opportunism. We notice the same -assiduous lobbying in the House of Commons, and the same recurring -deputations to evasive Ministers. For the first few years, at least, -we watch the Committee in frequent consultation with the same devoted -legal experts and Parliamentary friends.[515] Through the skilful -guidance and indefatigable activity of Henry Broadhurst the political -machinery of the Trade Union Movement was maintained and even increased -in efficiency. If during these years the occupants of the “Front -Bench” failed to give so decisive a lead to the Labour Movement as -their predecessors had done, the fault lay, not in the men or in the -machinery, but rather in the programme which they set themselves to -carry out. - -This programme, laid before all candidates for the House of Commons at -the General Election of 1874, was based, as John Prior subsequently -declared, on the principle “that all exceptional legislation affecting -working men should be swept away, and that they should be placed on -precisely the same footing as other classes of the community.”[516] -Its main items were the repeal of the hated Criminal Law Amendment Act -of 1871, and the further legalisation of Trade Unionism. The sweeping -triumphs of 1875, and the acceptance by the Conservative Government of -the proposals of the Junta, denuded the programme for subsequent years -of its most striking proposals. There remained over in this department -certain minor amendments of law and procedure which occupied the -attention of the Committee for the next few years, and were gradually, -by their exertions, carried into effect.[517] - -But one great disability still lay upon working men as such. By the -common law of England a person is liable for the results, not only -of his own negligence, but also for that of his servant, if acting -within the scope of his employment. The one exception is that, whereas -to a stranger the master is liable for the negligence of any person -whom he employs, to his servant he is not liable for the negligence -of a fellow-servant in common employment. By this legal refinement, -which dates only from 1837, and which successive judicial decisions -have engrafted upon the common law, a workman who suffered injury -through the negligence of some other person in the same employment -was precluded from recovering that compensation from the common -employer which a stranger, to whom the same accident had happened, -could claim and enforce.[518] If by the error of a signalman a railway -train met with an accident, all the injured passengers could obtain -compensation from the railway company; but the engine-driver and guard -were expressly excluded from any remedy. What the workman demanded was -the abolition of the doctrine of “common employment,” and the placing -of the employee upon exactly the same footing for compensation as any -member of the public. - -By the influence of the Miners’ National Union and the Amalgamated -Society of the Railway Servants (established in 1872) the removal of -this disability was, from the first, placed in the foreground of the -Trade Union programme. Year after year Employers’ Liability Bills -were brought in by the Trade Union representatives in the House of -Commons, only to be met by stubborn resistance from the capitalists of -both parties. Through the pertinacity of Henry Broadhurst a partial -reform[519] was obtained from Gladstone’s Government in 1880, in spite -of the furious opposition of the great employers of labour sitting -on both sides of the House. The responsibility of the employer for -insuring his workmen against the risks of their calling was, for -the first time, clearly recognised by Parliament. The report of the -Parliamentary Committee for 1880 claimed that the main battle on the -subject had been fought, and that “time and opportunity only were now -wanting for the completion of this work.” Since then the promotion -of claims for compensation for accidents has been one of the most -important functions of Trade Unions; and many of the societies, such as -the Bricklayers and Boilermakers, have recovered thousands of pounds -for injured members or their relatives.[520] But the doctrine of -“common employment,” modified by this Act, was by no means abolished. -Employers, moreover, were allowed to induce their work-people to -“contract out” of the provisions of the Act.[521] An Employers’ -Liability Bill, the last remnant of the demands of the Junta, remained, -therefore, from 1872 onward a permanent item in the Trade Union -programme down to 1896. - -With the exception of this one proposal the Parliamentary programme -of the Trade Union world was framed, in effect, by the New Front -Bench. Curiously devoid of interest or reality, it is important to -the political student as showing to what extent the thoughtful and -superior workman had, at this time, imbibed the characteristic ideas of -middle-class reformers. - -The programme of the Parliamentary Committee between 1875 and 1885 -falls mainly under three heads. We have first a group of measures the -aim of which was the democratisation of the electoral, administrative, -and judicial machinery of the State. Another set of reforms had for -their end the enabling of the exceptionally thrifty or exceptionally -industrious man to rise out of the wage-earning class. A third group of -proposals aimed at the legal regulation of the conditions of particular -industries. - -Complete political Democracy had been for over a century the creed -of the superior workmen. It was therefore not unnatural that it -should come to the front in the Trades Union Congress. What appears -peculiar is the form which this old-standing faith took in the hands -of the Front Bench. The Trade Union leaders of 1837-42 had adopted -enthusiastically the “Six Points” of the Charter. Even the sober -Junta of 1867-71 had sat with Karl Marx on the committee of the -“International,” in the programme of which Universal Suffrage was -but a preliminary bagatelle. To the Front Bench of 1875-85 Democracy -appeared chiefly in the guise of the Codification of the Criminal -Law, the Reform of the Jury System, the creation of a Court of -Criminal Appeal, and the Regulation of the Summary Jurisdiction of the -Magistracy--a curious group of law reforms which it is easy to trace -to the little knot of barristers who had stood by the Unions in their -hour of trial.[522] We do not wish to deprecate the value of these -proposals, framed in the interests of all classes of the community; but -they were not, and probably were never intended to be, in any sense a -democratisation of our judicial system.[523] When the Congress dealt -with electoral reform it got no further than the assimilation of the -county and borough franchise--already a commonplace of middle-class -Liberalism. The student of Continental labour movements will find -it difficult to believe that in the representative Congress of the -English artisans, amendments in favour of Manhood Suffrage were even -as late as 1882 and 1883 rejected by large majorities.[524] Nor did -the Parliamentary Committee put even the County Franchise into their -own programme until it had become the battle-cry of the Liberal party -at the General Election of 1880. The Extension of the Hours of Polling -becomes a subject of discussion from 1878 onward, but the Payment of -Election Expenses does not come up until 1883, and Payment of Members -not until 1884. - -Scarcely less significant in character were the measures of social -reform advocated during these years. The prominent Trade Unionists had -been converted, as we have already had occasion to point out, to the -economic Individualism which at this time dominated the Liberal party. -A significant proof of this unconscious conversion is to be found in -the unanimity with which a Trades Union Congress could repeatedly -press for such “reforms” as Peasant Proprietorship, the purchase by -the artisan of his own cottage, the establishment of “self-governing -workshops,” the multiplication of patents in the hands of individual -workmen, and other changes which would cut at the root of Trade -Unionism or any collective control of the means of production. For -whatever advantages there might be in turning the agricultural labourer -into a tiny freeholder, it is obvious that under such a system no -Agricultural Labourers’ Union could exist. However useful it may be -to make the town artisan independent of a landlord, it has been proved -beyond controversy that wage-earning owners of houses lose that perfect -mobility which enables them, through their Trade Union, to boycott the -bad employer or desert the low-paying district. And we can imagine the -dismay with which the leaders of the Nine Hours Movement would have -discovered that any considerable proportion of the engineering work of -Newcastle was being done in workshops owned by artisans whose interests -as capitalists or patentees conflicted with the common interests of all -the workers. - -In no respect, however, does the conversion of the Trade Union leaders -to middle-class views stand out more clearly than in their attitude -to the clamour from the workers in certain industries for the legal -protection of their Standard of Life. From time immemorial one of -the leading tenets of Trade Unionism has been the desirability of -maintaining by law the minimum Standard of Life of the workers, and -it was still steadfastly held by two important sections of the Trade -Union world, the Cotton Operatives and the Coal-miners. But to the -Parliamentary Committee of 1875-85, as to the Liberal legislators, -every demand for securing the conditions of labour by legislation -appeared as an invidious exception, only to be justified by the special -helplessness or incompetency of the applicants. Nevertheless, many of -the trades succeeded in persuading Congress to back up the particular -sectional legislation they desired. The Tailors asked, on the one hand, -for the extension of the Factory Acts to home workers, and, on the -other, for compensation out of public funds when interfered with by the -sanitary inspector. The Bakers complained with equal pertinacity of the -lack of public inspection of bakehouses, and of the hardships of their -regulation by the Smoke Prevention Acts. The London Cabmen sought the -aid of Congress, not against their employers, the cab proprietors, but -against the public. The men in charge of engines and boilers demanded -that no one should be allowed to work at their trade without obtaining -from the Government a certificate of competency. In the absence of any -fixed or consistent idea of the collective interest of the wage-earning -class, or of Trade Unionists as such, every proposal that any section -demanded for itself was accepted with equanimity by the Congress, -and passed on to the Parliamentary Committee to carry out, however -inconsistent it might be with the general principles that swayed their -minds.[525] - -It is not difficult to understand why, with such a programme, the -Trade Union world failed, between 1876 and 1885, to exercise any -effective influence upon the House of Commons. A few concessions to -the wage-earners were, indeed, obtained from the Government. The -Employers’ Liability Act of 1880, to which we have already referred, -represented, in spite of all its deficiencies, a new departure of -considerable importance. Useful little clauses protecting the interests -of the wage-earners were, through Broadhurst’s pertinacity, inserted -in Chamberlain’s Bankruptcy Act and in his Joint Stock Companies -Act.[526] But it was left to Charles Bradlaugh, who had never been a -Trade Unionist, to initiate the useful law prohibiting the payment of -wages in public-houses, though when it was introduced the Parliamentary -Committee (observing that it was unnecessary in respect of organised -trades) gave it a mild support. Bradlaugh it was, too, who in 1887 got -passed the amendment of the law against Truck--a subject which the -Parliamentary Committee had, in 1877, dismissed from their programme -on the ground that they were unable, in the trades of which they had -knowledge, to find sufficient evidence of its necessity.[527] But the -failure of the Parliamentary Committee to induce the Government of the -day to legislate for wage-earners as such was naturally most patent -in that group of reforms which dealt with the legal regulation of the -conditions of labour. To the great consolidating Factory Bill of 1878 -they found only four small amendments to propose; and of these only one -was carried.[528] The “Sweating System” of home work against which the -Tailors and Bootmakers were suggesting stringent but, as we venture to -think, ill-considered legislation was permitted to expand free from all -regulation. The bakehouses, too, were allowed to slip virtually out of -inspection. Deputation after deputation waited on the Home Secretary -to press for an increase in the number of factory inspectors, only to -be met with the apparently unanswerable argument that it would cost -money which the poor taxpayers could ill spare, until the astute and -practical leaders of the Lancashire Cotton Operatives grew tired of the -monotonous regularity with which their resolutions in favour of further -factory inspection and more stringent regulations of the conditions of -their trade were passed by Congress, and the little assistance which -this endorsement procured for them. A “Northern Counties Factory Act -Reform Association” was established in 1886, to do the work which the -Trades Union Congress and its Parliamentary Committee had failed to -accomplish. We have, in fact, only one important achievement of the -Parliamentary Committee to record in this department of social reform. -For years Congress had passed emphatic resolutions in favour of the -selection of practical working men as Factory Inspectors. Great was -the jubilation at the appointment, in 1882, of J. D. Prior, General -Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters, and a member of the -Parliamentary Committee, to the post of Inspector.[529] - -In matters of more general interest the Trade Union leaders were -not more successful, though the attempt to reform the law and its -administration resulted in some minor improvements. The first outcome -of the projects for law reform so dear to the Congresses of 1876-80 was -the Justices’ Clerks Act of 1877, which enabled magistrates to remit -costs. The passing of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, which gave -defendants the right to claim trial before a jury whenever the penalty -exceeded three months’ imprisonment, was, Howell observes, “materially -aided by the action of Congress.” But it is needless to inform the -reader that the Criminal Law never got itself codified. To this day -juries continue to be drawn exclusively from the upper and middle -classes. The long agitation for the abolition of the unpaid magistracy -ended in an anti-climax. The Liberal Government of 1884 left the system -unaltered, but, on the nomination of Henry Broadhurst,[530] placed four -Trade Union leaders upon the magisterial bench in certain Lancashire -boroughs, a precedent since followed by successive Lord Chancellors. - -In one direction the Parliamentary Committee saw their hopes fully -accomplished. Their adoption of the particular projects of electoral -reform advocated by the Liberal party enabled them to render effective -help in the passing of the Acts of 1885, which assimilated the County -and the Borough Franchise, effected a redistribution of seats, and made -the extended hours of polling universal. But the desire of successive -Congresses for effective labour representation continued to be baulked -by the extortion from candidates of heavy election expenses, and by -the refusal to provide payment for service in Parliament and other -public bodies. On the burning question of the land the Parliamentary -Committee supported with conscientious fervour Gladstone’s Irish -policy of creating small freeholds, and enthusiastically endorsed the -proposals of Chamberlain for the extension of similar legislation to -Great Britain. The same spirit no doubt entered into their support of -the provisions of Chamberlain’s Patent Act, designed to facilitate the -taking out of patents by poor inventors. To sum up the situation, we -may say that the resolutions of the Trades Union Congress on questions -of general politics between 1880 and 1884 were successfully pressed -on the Legislature only in so far as they happened to coincide with -the proposals of the Liberal party. With the one great exception of -the Employers’ Liability Act, nothing seems really to have called -out the full energies of the leaders. The manifestoes and published -memoranda of the Parliamentary Committee during these years do not -differ either in tone or in substance from the speeches and articles -in which Chamberlain and other Radical capitalists were propounding -a programme of individualist Radicalism. In fact, the draft “Address -to the Workmen of the United Kingdom,” which the Parliamentary -Committee, in anticipation of the General Election, submitted to -the Congress of 1885, fell far short of Chamberlain’s “Unauthorised -Programme.” It occurred neither to the Parliamentary Committee nor to -the Congress to suggest the obvious answer to Sir William Harcourt’s -financial objection to increased factory inspection. No trace is to be -discovered of any consciousness on the part of the Trade Union leaders -of the existence of a very substantial tribute annually levied upon -the industrial world under the names of rent and interest. And even -Chamberlain’s modest and tentative proposals of these years, relating -to the payment, by the recipients of that tribute, of some contribution -by way of “ransom,” found no echo in the official programme of the -Trade Union world. Finally, though the Congress had adopted Payment -of Election Expenses in 1883, and Payment of Members in 1884, the -Parliamentary Committee omitted both these propositions from its -draft, and, like Gladstone, could not even bring itself to ask for -Free Education. The three latter points were added to the draft by the -Congress. - -The assimilation of the political creed of the Trade Union leaders -with that of the official Liberal party was perfectly sincere. We have -already described, in the preceding chapter, how the Junta had begun -to be unconsciously converted from the traditional position of Trade -Unionism to the principle of Administrative Nihilism, then dominant -in the middle class. It is unnecessary for us to argue whether this -conception of the functions of law and government is or is not an -adequate view of social development. The able and conscientious men -who formed the Front Bench of the Trades Union Congress of 1876-85 had -grown up without any alternative political theory, and had accordingly -erected the objection to legislative interference or Governmental -administration into an absolute dogma.[531] - -_Laisser-faire_, then, was the political and social creed of the -Trade Union leaders of this time. Up to 1885 they undoubtedly -represented the views current among the rank and file. At that date -all observers were agreed that the Trade Unions of Great Britain -would furnish an impenetrable barrier against Socialistic projects. -Within a decade we find the whole Trade Union world permeated with -Collectivist ideas, and, as the _Times_ recorded as early as 1893, -the Socialist party supreme in the Trades Union Congress.[532] This -revolution in opinion is the chief event of Trade Union history at the -close of the nineteenth century; and we propose to analyse in some -detail the various influences which in our opinion co-operated to -bring it about. We shall trace the beginnings of a new intellectual -ferment in the Trade Union world. We shall watch this working on -minds awakened by an industrial contraction of exceptional character. -We shall see it resulting in the revelation of hideous details of -poverty and degradation, for which deepening social compunction -imperatively demanded a remedy. We shall describe the recrudescence of -a revolutionary Utopianism like the Owenism of 1833-34. We shall trace -the gradual schooling of the impracticable elements into a sobered and -somewhat bureaucratic Collectivism; and finally, we shall watch the -rapid diffusion of this new faith throughout the whole Trade Union -world.[533] - -If we had to assign to any one event the starting of the new current -of thought, we should name the wide circulation in Great Britain -of Henry George’s _Progress and Poverty_ during the years 1880-82. -The optimistic and aggressive tone of the book, in marked contrast with -the complacent quietism into which the English working-class movement -had sunk, and the force of the popularisation of the economic Theory -of Rent, sounded the dominant note alike of the “New Unionism” and -of the British Socialist Movement. Henry George made, it is true, no -contribution to the problems of industrial organisation; nor had he, -outside of the “Single Tax” on land values, any intention of promoting -a general Collectivist movement. But he succeeded, where previous -writers had failed, in widely diffusing among all classes a vivid -appreciation of the nature and results of the landlord’s appropriation -of economic rent. It is, in our judgement, the spread among the town -artisans of this conception of rent which has so largely transformed -the economic views of the Trade Union world, and which has gone far to -shift the lines of politics. The land question in particular has been -completely revolutionised. Instead of the Chartist cry of “Back to the -Land,” still adhered to by rural labourers and belated politicians, -the town artisan is thinking of his claim to the unearned increment of -urban land values, which he now watches falling into the coffers of the -great landlords. - -But if Henry George gave the starting push, it was the propaganda of -the Socialists that got the new movement under way. The Socialist -party, which became reorganised in London between 1881 and 1883, after -practically a generation of quiescence, merged the project of Land -Nationalisation in the wider conception of an organised Democratic -community in which the collective power and the collective income -should be consciously directed to the common benefit of all.[534] -Whilst Henry George was, almost in his own despite, driving Peasant -Proprietorship and Leasehold Enfranchisement out of the political -field, the impressive description which Karl Marx had given of the -effects of the Industrial Revolution was interpreting to the thoughtful -workman the every-day incidents of industrial life. It needed no -Socialist to convince the artisan in any of the great industries -that his chance of rising to be a successful employer was becoming -daily more remote. It required no agitator to point out that amid -an enormous increase in wealth production the wages of the average -mechanic remained scarcely sufficient to bring up his family in decency -and comfort, whilst whole sections of his unskilled fellow-workers -received less than the barest family maintenance. Even the skilled -mechanic saw himself exposed to panics, commercial crises, and violent -industrial dislocations, over which neither he nor his Trade Union had -any control, and by which he and his children were often reduced to -destitution. But it was the Socialists who supplied the workman with a -plausible explanation of these untoward facts. Through the incessant -lecturing of H. M. Hyndman, William Morris, and other disciples of -Karl Marx, working men were taught that the impossibility of any large -section of the working class becoming their own employers was due, not -to lack of self-control, capacity, or thrift, but to the Industrial -Revolution, with its improvement of mechanical processes, its massing -of capital, and the consequent extinction of the small _entrepreneur_ -by great industrial establishments. In this light the divorce of the -manual workers from the ownership of the means of production was -seen to be no passing phase, but an economic development which must, -under any system of private control of industry, become steadily -more complete. And it was argued that the terrible alterations of -over-production and commercial stagnation, the anomaly that a glut of -commodities should be a cause of destitution, were the direct result of -the management of industry with a view to personal profit, instead of -to the satisfaction of public wants. - -The economic circumstances of the time supplied the Socialist -lecturers with dramatic illustrations of their theory. The acute -depression of 1878-79 had been succeeded by only a brief and partial -expansion during 1881-83. A period of prolonged though not exceptional -contraction followed, during which certain staple trades experienced -the most sudden and excessive fluctuations. In the great industry of -shipbuilding, for instance, the bad times of 1879 were succeeded by a -period during which trade expanded by leaps and bounds, more than twice -the tonnage being built in 1883 than in 1879. In the very next year -this enormous production came suddenly to an end, many shipbuilding -yards being closed and whole towns on the north-east coast finding -their occupation for the moment destroyed. The total tonnage built -fell from 1,250,000 in 1883 to 750,000 in 1884, 540,000 in 1885, and -to the still lower total of 473,000 in 1886. Thousands of the most -highly skilled and best organised mechanics, who had been brought to -Jarrow or Sunderland the year before, found themselves reduced to -absolute destitution, not from any failure of their industry, but -merely because the exigencies of competitive profit-making had led to -the concentration in one year of the normal production of two. “In -every shipbuilding port,” says Robert Knight in the Boilermakers’ -Annual Report for 1886, “there are to be seen thousands of idle men -vainly seeking for an honest day’s work. The privation that has been -endured by them, their wives and children, is terrible to contemplate. -Sickness has been very prevalent, whilst the hundreds of pinched and -hungry faces have told a tale of suffering and privation which no -optimism could minimise or conceal. Hide it--cover it up as we may, -there is a depth of grief and trouble the full revelations of which, we -believe, cannot be indefinitely postponed. The workman may be ignorant -of science and the arts, and the sum of his exact knowledge may be -only that which he has gained in his closely circumscribed daily toil; -but he is not blind, and his thoughts do not take the shape of daily -and hourly thanksgiving that his condition is not worse than it is; -he does not imitate the example of the pious shepherd of Salisbury -Plain, who derived supreme contentment from the fact that a kind -Providence had vouchsafed him salt to eat with his potatoes. He sees -the lavish display of wealth in which he has no part. He sees a large -and growing class enjoying inherited abundance. He sees miles of costly -residences, each occupied by fewer people than are crowded into single -rooms of the tenement in which he lives. He cannot fail to reason that -there must be something wrong in a system which effects such unequal -distribution of the wealth created by labour.” - -Other skilled trades had, between 1883 and 1887, a similar though -less dramatic experience. At the International Trades Union Congress -of 1886, James Mawdsley, the cautious leader of the Lancashire -cotton-spinners, speaking as a member of the Parliamentary Committee -on behalf of the British section, described the state of affairs -in England in the following terms: “Wages had fallen, and there -was a great number of unemployed.... Flax mills were being closed -every day.... All the building trades were in a bad position; ... -ironfoundries were in difficulties, and one-third of the shipwrights -were without work.... Steam-engine makers were also slack, except those -manufacturers who exported to France, Germany, and Austria. With a few -rare exceptions, the depression affecting the great leading trades was -felt in a thousand-and-one occupations. Seeing that there was a much -larger number of unemployed, the question naturally presented itself -as to whether there was any chance of improvement. He considered there -was no chance of improvement so long as the present state of society -continued to exist.... He did not understand their Socialism; he had -not studied it as perhaps he ought to have done. The workmen of England -were not so advanced as the workmen of the Continent. Nevertheless -they, at least, possessed one clear conception: they realised that -the actual producers did not obtain their share of the wealth they -created.”[535] We see the same spirit spreading even to the most -conservative and exclusive trades. “To our minds,” writes the Central -Secretary of the powerful Union of Flint Glass Makers, “it is very -hard for employers to attempt to force men into systems by which they -cannot earn an honourable living. These unjust attempts to grind down -the working men will not be tolerated much longer, for revolutionary -changes are beginning to show themselves, and important matters -affecting the industrial classes will speedily come to the front. Why, -for example, should Lord Dudley inherit coal-mines and land producing -£1000 a day while his colliers have to slave all the week and cannot -get a living?”[536] - -The discontent was fanned by well-intentioned if somewhat sentimental -philanthropists, who were publishing their experiences in the sweated -industries and the slums of the great cities. The _Bitter Cry of -Outcast London_ and other gruesome stories were revealing, not only -to the middle class, but also to the “aristocracy of labour,” whole -areas of industrial life which neither Trade Unionism nor Co-operation -could hope to reach. With the middle class the compunction thus excited -resulted in elaborate investigations issuing in inconclusive reports. -A Royal Commission on the Housing of the Poor produced nothing more -effectual than a slight addition to the existing powers of vestries -and Town Councils. Another on the Depression of Trade was absolutely -barren. A Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Poor Law failed -even to discover the problems to be solved. Another on the Sweating -System ended, after years of delay, in an accurate diagnosis of the -evil, coupled with a confession of inability to cope with it. In 1885 -an Edinburgh philanthropist provided a thousand pounds for a public -conference to inquire whether some more equitable system of industrial -remuneration could not be suggested: a conference which served only -to cast doubt on such philanthropic schemes as profit-sharing and -the “self-governing workshop,” whilst bringing into prominence the -Socialist proposals.[537] And, more important than all these, Charles -Booth, a great merchant and shipowner, began in 1886, at his own -expense, a systematic statistical inquiry into the actual social -condition of the whole population of London, the impressive results -of which eventually reverberated from one end of the kingdom to the -other.[538] - -The outcome of the investigations thus set on foot was an incalculable -impetus to social reform. They had, for the most part, been undertaken -in the expectation that a sober and scientific inquiry would prove -the exceptional character of the harrowing incidents laid bare by -the philanthropists, and unsparingly quoted by the new agitators. -But to the genuine surprise alike of the economists and the Trade -Union leaders, the lurid statements of the sensationalists and the -Socialists were, on the whole, borne out by the statistics. The stories -of unmerited misery were shown to be, not accidental exceptions to a -general condition of moderate well-being, but typical instances of the -average existence of great masses of the population. The “sweater” -turned out to be, not an exceptionally cruel capitalist, but himself -the helpless product of a widespread degeneration which extended -over whole industries. In the wealthiest and most productive city in -the world, Charles Booth, after an exhaustive census, was driven to -the conclusion that a million and a quarter persons fell habitually -below his “Poverty Line.” Thirty-two per cent of the whole population -of London (in some large districts over 60 per cent) were found to -be living in a state of chronic poverty, which precluded not only -the elementary conditions of civilisation and citizenship, but was -incompatible with physical health or industrial efficiency. Moreover, -Charles Booth’s figures and the report of the House of Lords Committee -on Sweating disproved, once for all, the comfortable assumption that -all destitution originated in drink or vice. It was impossible, to use -the well-known phrase of Burke, to draw an indictment against a third -of the people of London, or against two-thirds of the East End. - -The daily experience of whole sections of the wage-earners during -these years of depression, and the statistical inquiries of the middle -class, appeared, therefore, to justify the Socialist indictment of -the capitalist system. What was perhaps of more effect was the fact -that the Socialists alone seemed inspired by faith in a radical -transformation of society, and that they alone offered a solution which -had not yet been tried and found wanting. Prior to 1867 it had been -possible to ascribe the evil state of the wage-earners to the malignant -influence of class government and political exclusion. Cobden and -Bright had eloquently described the millennium to be reached through -untaxed products. For a whole generation the leaders of a consolidated -Trade Unionism had demonstrated the advantageous terms that the artisan -might, through collective bargaining and a reserve fund, wring from -his employers. But in face of a protracted lack of employment, the -extended suffrage, Free Trade, and well-administered Trade Unions -proved alike helpless. Twenty years of the franchise had left the town -artisan still at the mercy of commercial gamblers and exposed to the -extortions of the slum landlord. A Liberal Government was actually in -power, wielding an enormous majority, but manifesting no keen desire to -remedy the results of economic inequality. No attempt was being made to -redress even the admitted wrongs of the necessitous taxpayer. The Tea -Duty remained untouched; the Land Tax was left unreformed; whilst the -larger question of using some of the nation’s wealth to provide decent -conditions of existence for the great bulk of the people was not even -mooted. A further Extension of the Franchise, Free Trade, and Popular -Education were still the only social and economic panaceas that the -Liberal party had to offer. But cheapness of commodities was of no use -to the workman who was thrown out of employment; and the spread of -education served but to increase his discontent with existing social -conditions and his ability to understand the theoretic explanations and -practical proposals of the new school of reformers. - -The working man found no more comfort in Trade Unionism than in party -politics. The mason, carpenter, or ironfounder saw, for instance, -his old and powerful Trade Society reduced to little more than a -sick and burial club, refusing all support to strikes even against -reductions of wages and increase of hours, and only maintaining -its out-of-work benefit by running heavily into debt to its more -prosperous members.[539] As the lean years followed one on another, -he saw the benefits reduced, the contributions raised, and numbers -of staunch Unionists left high and dry as members “out of benefit.” -The trade friendly society--the “scientific Trade Unionism” of the -Front Bench--was in fact becoming rapidly discredited. John Burns and -Tom Mann, young and energetic members of the Amalgamated Society of -Engineers, were, between 1884 and 1889, vigorously denouncing, up and -down the country, the supineness of their great amalgamated Union. “How -long, how long,” appeals Tom Mann to the Trade Unionists in 1886,[540] -“will you be content with the present half-hearted policy of your -Unions? I readily grant that good work has been done in the past by -the Unions; but, in Heaven’s name, what good purpose are they serving -now? All of them have large numbers out of employment even when their -particular trade is busy. None of the important societies have any -policy other than that of endeavouring to keep wages from falling. The -true Unionist policy of _aggression_ seems entirely lost sight of: -in fact, the average Unionist of to-day is a man with a fossilised -intellect, either hopelessly apathetic, or supporting a policy that -plays directly into the hands of the capitalist exploiter.... I take my -share of the work of the Trade Union to which I belong; but I candidly -confess that unless it shows more vigour at the present time (June -1886) I shall be compelled to take the view--against my will--that -to continue to spend time over the ordinary squabble-investigating, -do-nothing policy will be an unjustifiable waste of one’s energies. I -am sure there are thousands of others in my state of mind.”[541] - -“Constituted as it is,” writes John Burns in September 1887,[542] -“Unionism carries within itself the source of its own dissolution.... -Their reckless assumption of the duties and responsibilities that -only the State or whole community can discharge, in the nature of -sick and superannuation benefits, at the instance of the middle -class, is crushing out the larger Unions by taxing their members to -an unbearable extent. This so cripples them that the fear of being -unable to discharge their friendly society liabilities often makes them -submit to encroachments by the masters without protest. The result of -this is that all of them have ceased to be Unions for maintaining the -rights of labour, and have degenerated into mere middle and upper class -rate-reducing institutions.”[543] - -Here we see the beginning of that agitation against the combination of -friendly benefits with trade protection aims which subsequently became, -for a short time, one of the characteristics of the “New Unionism.” But -if the trade friendly society withered up during these years into a -mere benefit club, the purely trade society showed no greater vitality. -The great depression of 1878-79 had swept out of existence hundreds of -little local Unions which lacked the cohesion given by the friendly -society side. The Lancashire and Midland Miners’ organisations, which -gave no benefits, had either collapsed altogether, or had dissolved -into isolated pit clubs, incapable of combined action. The Lancashire -cotton operatives, the Northumberland and Durham miners, and a few -other essentially trade societies, held together only by surrendering -to the employers one concession after another. With capitalists ready -at any moment to suspend a profitless business, collective bargaining -proved as powerless to avert reductions as the individual contract. -In face of a long-continued depression of trade, marked by frequent -oscillations in particular industries, both types of Trade Unionism, it -seemed, had been tried and found wanting. - -These were the circumstances under which the disillusioned -working-class politician or Trade Unionist was reached by the -lectures and writings of the Socialists, who offered him not only a -sympathetic explanation of the ills from which he suffered, but also a -comprehensive scheme of social reform, extending from an Eight Hours -Bill to the Nationalisation of the Means of Production. In a purely -historical essay it is unnecessary for us to discuss the validity of -the optimistic confidence with which the Socialists of these years -declared that under a system of collective ownership the workers would -not only be ensured at all times a competent livelihood, but would -themselves control the administration of the surplus wealth of the -nation. But in tracing the causes of the New Unionism of 1889-90, and -the transformation of the Trade Union Movement from an Individualist to -a Collectivist influence in the political world, we venture to ascribe -a large share to the superior attractiveness of this buoyant faith over -anything offered by the almost cynical fatalism of the old school. - -The Socialist agitation benefited between 1886 and 1889 by a series of -undesigned advertisements. Meetings of “the unemployed” in February -1886 led to unexpected riots, which threw all London into a panic, -and were followed by a Government prosecution for sedition. Hyndman, -Burns, Champion, and Williams, as the leaders of the Social Democratic -Federation, were indicted at the Old Bailey, and their trial, ending -in an acquittal, attracted the attention of the whole country to their -doctrines. The “Unemployed” gatherings went on with ever-increasing -noise until November 1887, when the Chief Commissioner of Police issued -a proclamation prohibiting meetings in Trafalgar Square, which had for -a whole generation served as the forum of the London agitator. This -“attack on free speech” by a Conservative Government, coming after -several minor attempts to suppress open-air meetings by its Liberal -predecessor, rallied the forces of London artisan Radicalism to those -of the Socialists. A gigantic demonstration on Sunday, November 13, -1887, was held in defiance of the police, only to be repulsed from -Trafalgar Square by a free use of the police bludgeon and the calling -out of both cavalry and infantry. John Burns and Cunninghame Graham, -M.P., were imprisoned for their share in this transaction. A similar -agitation on a smaller scale was going on in the provinces. On Tyneside -and in the Midlands numerous emissaries of the Social Democratic -Federation and the Socialist League were spreading the revolt against -the helpless apathy into which the Trade Unions had sunk. In every -large industrial centre the indefatigable lecturing of branches of -Socialist organisations was stirring up a vague but effective unrest in -all except the official circle of the Trade Union world. - -To the great army of unskilled, or only partially skilled, workmen -concentrated in London and other large cities the new crusade came -as a gospel of deliverance. The unskilled labourer was getting tired -of being referred, as the sole means of bettering his condition, to -the “scientific Trade Unionism” alone recognised by the Front Bench. -Trade Societies which admitted only workmen earning a high standard -rate, which exacted a weekly contribution of not less than a shilling, -and which frequently excluded all but regularly apprenticed men, were -regarded by the builders’ labourer, the gas stoker, or the docker, as -aristocratic corporations with which he had as little in common as -with the House of Lords. “The great bulk of our labourers,” writes -John Burns, “are ignored by the skilled workers. It is this selfish, -snobbish desertion by the higher grades of the lower that makes success -in many disputes impossible. Ostracised by their fellows, a spirit -of revenge alone often prompts men to oppose or remain indifferent -to Unionism, when if the Unions were wiser and more conciliatory, -support would have been forthcoming where now jealousy and discontent -prevails.”[544] Even among the skilled workers, the younger artisans, -if they had joined their Unions at all, were discontented with the -exclusive and apathetic policy of the older members. Thus we find -rising up, in such “aristocratic” Unions as the Amalgamated Society -of Engineers and the London Society of Compositors, a “New Unionist” -party of young men, who vigorously objected to the degradation of a -Trade Union into a mutual insurance company, who protested against -the exclusion of the lowly paid sections from the organisation of the -trade, and who advocated the use of the political influence of the -Society in the interests of Social-Democracy. By 1888 the Socialists -had not only secured the allegiance of large sections of the unskilled -labourers in London and some other towns, but had obtained an important -body of recruits in the great “Amalgamated” societies. - -At this pass nothing short of strangulation could have kept the new -spirit out of the Trade Union Congress. It is interesting to notice -that the first sign among the delegates is to be ascribed to the -direct influence of Karl Marx. At the 1878 Congress at Bristol we find -Adam Weiler, an old member of the “International,” and a personal -friend of the great Socialist, reading a paper in which he advocated -legislation to limit the hours of labour.[545] At the next Congress -Weiler took exception to the resolution in favour of establishing a -Peasant Proprietorship moved on behalf of the Parliamentary Committee. -But in that year his amendment in favour of Land Nationalisation -did not even find a seconder. Three years later the effect of Henry -George’s propaganda becomes visible. In 1882, when the land question -was again raised, the two ideals were sharply contrasted, and in -spite of protests against “communistic principles,” a rider declaring -for nationalisation was adopted by 71 votes to 31. The Parliamentary -Committee made no change in their attitude on the question, contending -that the vote had been taken in the absence of many delegates, and -that it did not represent the opinion of the Congress as a whole. This -contention was to some extent borne out by the votes of the next five -Congresses, at all of which amendments in favour of the principle of -nationalisation were rejected, though by decreasing majorities. At -length, in 1887, at the Swansea Congress, the tide turned, and a vague -addendum in favour of Land Nationalisation was accepted.[546] At the -Bradford Congress in 1888 the very idea of Peasant Proprietorship had -disappeared. The representatives of the agricultural labourers now -asked only for individual occupation of publicly owned allotments. -Ultimately the Congress adopted by 66 votes to 5 a distinct declaration -in favour of Land Nationalisation, coupled with an instruction to the -Parliamentary Committee to bring the proposal before the House of -Commons. - -Meanwhile Weiler had made another and more successful attempt to -enlist the aid of the Congress in the legal regulation of the hours of -labour. At the 1883 Congress he moved a resolution which instructed -the Parliamentary Committee to obtain the legal limitation to eight -hours of the maximum day of all workers in the employment of public -authorities, or companies exercising Parliamentary powers. This was -seconded by Edward Harford, the General Secretary of the Amalgamated -Society of Railway Servants, and carried, in a thin meeting, by only -33 to 8. In 1885 the movement had so far gained weight that the -Parliamentary Committee thought it expedient to temporise by promoting -an investigation into the amount of overtime worked in Government -departments, with the result of demonstrating how completely the -practice of systematic overtime had neutralised the Nine Hours -victory.[547] At the 1887 Congress at Swansea the Parliamentary -Committee were instructed to take a vote of the Trade Union world -upon the whole question, a vote which revealed the unexpected fact -that Applegarth’s own Union, the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters -and Joiners, had been converted to an Eight Hours Bill.[548] A second -plebiscite, taken at the instance of the following year’s Congress, -showed that such old Unions as the Compositors, the Ironfounders, and -the Railway Servants were swinging round.[549] - -In the meantime the growing divergence of policy among the coal-miners, -which we foreshadowed in the last chapter, had brought a powerful -contingent of organised workmen to the support of the new party. -We have already described the conversion of the leaders of the -Northumberland and Durham miners to the principle of the Sliding Scale, -involving, as it did, the dependence of the worker’s standard of -comfort upon the market price of his product. On another point, too, -the two northern counties had broken away from the traditional policy -of the Miners’ organisation. Already in 1863 we noted that Crawford, -one of the ablest of their leaders, was vigorously objecting, at the -Leeds Conference, to an Eight Hours Bill for boys, on the ground that -in Northumberland and Durham, where the hewers often worked in two -shifts, such a restriction would interfere with the men’s convenience. -This resistance to a particular interference with the exceptional -circumstances of the local industry gradually developed into a general -objection to legal regulation of the hours of adult men. We find, -therefore, the Northumberland and Durham miners from 1875 onwards -ranging themselves more and more with the leaders of the iron and -building trades, who, as we have seen, had become largely converted to -the economic conceptions then current among the middle class. The fact -that the Northumberland and Durham Associations, almost alone among -Miners’ Unions, had successfully weathered the bad times of 1877-79, -and the constant presence of one or other of their leaders on the -Parliamentary Committee, caused these opinions to be accepted as those -of the whole industry. - -But the miners elsewhere did not long rest content with the new policy -of Durham and Northumberland. In December 1881 the amalgamated South -and West Yorkshire Miners’ Associations formally terminated the then -existing Sliding Scale, and passed a resolution in favour of the policy -of restricting the output. During the following years the Yorkshire -employers several times proposed the re-establishment of a scale, but -the men insisted on its being accompanied by an agreement for a minimum -below which wages should in no event fall--a condition to which the -coal-owners uniformly refused their assent. The lead given by the -Yorkshire miners was quickly followed by other districts, notably -by Lancashire. In this county Trade Unionism among the miners had, -as we have seen, gone to pieces in the bad years. Reorganisation in -local Unions, came in 1881; and a Lancashire Miners’ Federation was -successfully established in the following year. At their Conference of -1883 the delegates of the Lancashire miners resolved, “That the time -has come when the working miners shall regulate the production of coal; -that no collier or other underground worker shall work more than five -days or shifts per week; and that the hours from bank to bank be eight -per shift.” Finding it impossible to secure their object by strikes, -the Lancashire men turned to that policy of legislative regulation -which had marked the proceedings of the Conference of 1863. - -With the improvement in trade which began in 1885, the membership -and influence of the Lancashire and Yorkshire organisations -rapidly increased, and new federations were started throughout the -Midlands. The Scotch miners, too, had in 1886-87 a short outburst of -organisation, when a national federation was formed with a membership -of 23,000. All these Associations adopted the policy of regulating the -output, and the Scotch miners, in particular, conducted, in 1887, a -vigorous agitation in support of the clause limiting the day’s work to -eight hours, which two Scottish members endeavoured to insert in the -Mines Regulation Act of 1887.[550] But the Executive of the National -Union had, since Macdonald’s death in 1881, fallen entirely into the -hands of the Northumberland and Durham leaders. Under their influence -it maintained its adherence to the principle of the Sliding Scale -and its hostility to the Eight Hours Bill, thereby alienating, not -only the new federations, but also the old-established and powerful -Yorkshire Miners’ Association. From 1885 to 1888 the battle between the -contending doctrines ranged at every miners’ conference.[551] During -the latter year the combatants withdrew to separate camps. In September -1888 a conference of the representatives of non-sliding scale districts -was called together in Manchester, when arrangements were made for the -establishment of a new federation, into which no district governed by -a sliding scale was to be allowed to enter. From this time forth the -old National Union on the one hand, and the new Miners’ Federation on -the other, became rivals for the allegiance of the various district -associations, and somewhat unsympathetic critics of each other’s -policy and actions. The issue was not long doubtful. The National -Union gradually shrank up to Northumberland and Durham, whilst the -Miners’ Federation, with its aggressive policy and its semi-Socialistic -principles of a minimum wage and a legal day, grew apace. From 36,000 -members in 1888, it rose to 96,000 in 1889, 147,000 in 1891, and over -200,000 in 1893, overshadowing in its growth all existing Trade Union -organisations. The Socialist advocates of the legal limitation of the -hours of labour accordingly enjoyed from 1888 onward, both in the Trade -Union Congress and at the polling-booths, the support of a rapidly -growing contingent of organised miners, whose solid adhesion has done -more than anything else to promote the general movement in favour of an -Eight Hours Bill. - -It is easy at this distance to recognise, in the altered tone of the -rank and file of Congress delegates, a reflection of the wider change -of opinion outside. But to the Trade Union Front Bench, as, in fact, -to most of the politicians of the time, it was incredible that the new -ideas should gain any real footing among the skilled artisans. The -Parliamentary Committee regarded the innovations with much the same -feeling as that with which they had met the proposals of a little gang -which had, in 1882, vainly attempted to foist the principles of fiscal -protection upon the Congress.[552] When Congress insisted on passing -a resolution with which the Parliamentary Committee found themselves -in disagreement, this expression of opinion was sometimes ignored as -being nothing more than the fad of particular delegates. It was in vain -that the Congress of 1888, after ten years’ deliberation, definitely -decided in favour of the principles of Land Nationalisation instead of -Peasant Proprietorship. The Parliamentary Committee contented itself -with promising that “a well-considered measure” would be put forward -by the Committee. The Eight Hours question could not be treated so -cavalierly. Direct resolutions in favour of legislative action were -therefore staved off by proposals for inquiry. When a vote of the -Trade Union world was decided upon, the Parliamentary Committee, in -conjunction with many of the General Secretaries, were able practically -to baulk the investigation. The voting paper was loaded with warnings -and arguments against legislative action. No attempt was made to ensure -a genuine vote of the rank and file. In some cases the Executive -Committees were allowed to take upon themselves the responsibility of -declaring the opinions held by the members of their societies, the -total membership of which was then reckoned in the voting. In other -instances the Executives were permitted without remonstrance simply -to burke the question. The inquiry failed to elicit any trustworthy -census of the opinion of the Trade Union world. - -An equal lack of sympathy was shown in connection with the growing -feeling of the Congress in favour of the participation of British -Trade Unionists in International Congresses. At the express -command of Congress, the Parliamentary Committee sent delegates to -the International gatherings of 1883 and 1886. But though these -instructions were complied with, the Parliamentary Committee made it -clear, in their annual reports, that far from favouring International -action, “the position they assumed was that they were so well -organised, so far ahead of foreign workmen, that little could be -done until these were more on a level” with the skilled workers -of England.[553] The Congress of 1886 nevertheless instructed the -Parliamentary Committee to summon an International Conference in London -in the following year. Instead of complying with this instruction, the -Committee published, in May 1887, a lengthy pamphlet explaining that, -owing to the indisposition of foreign workmen to make any pecuniary -sacrifices for their Trade Unions, and the consequent lack of any -stable working-class organisations, they had decided to refer the -whole question again to the forthcoming Trade Union Congress. When -the Congress met at Swansea in September 1887, it soon became evident -that the Parliamentary Committee, on this question as on others, was -quite out of touch with its constituents. In spite of the influence of -the Front Bench, a resolution in favour of an International Congress -was adopted; and the Committee succeeded only in inducing Congress to -impose restrictions which were intended to exclude the delegates of the -German Social-Democratic party. The International Congress was held in -London in November 1888. Notwithstanding every precaution, a majority -of the representatives proved to be of Socialist views, Mrs. Besant, -John Burns, Tom Mann, and Keir Hardie appearing among the British -delegates. The stiff and unsympathetic attitude of the Parliamentary -Committee led to heated and, at times, unseemly controversies; and -the resolutions passed were treated by the Committee as of no account -whatsoever. - -The net result of these proceedings was the loss by the Parliamentary -Committee of all intellectual leadership of the Trade Union world. They -failed either to resist the new ideas or to guide them into practicable -channels. The official Trade Union programme from 1885 to 1889 became -steadily more colourless, in striking contrast with the rapid march -of politics in the country, which was sweeping the Liberal party -forward year by year until in 1891 it adopted the so-called “Newcastle -Programme.” This programme formulated, though very inadequately, the -national side of that semi-collectivist policy which under the name of -Progressivism had superseded Liberalism in the London County Council. -All that the Parliamentary Committee did was to abandon, one by one, -the proposals for the democratisation of the civil and judicial -administration which the Front Bench had so much at heart, without -replacing them by the more robust resolutions which the Congress -in these years was passing. The Land Question, on which a vigorous -advocacy of the creation of small freeholders had been formerly -maintained, dwindled to a meaningless demand for undefined reform of -the land laws, and finally disappeared altogether on the adoption by -the Congress of the principle of nationalisation. The maintenance of -the Nine Hours Day, and the further reduction of the hours of labour by -means of voluntary combination (a frequent item in the official agenda -from 1875 to 1879) gradually dropped out altogether as the new demand -for legal regulation gathered strength. In short, the Parliamentary -Committee had perforce to give up those items in their programme which -were contrary to the new ideas of Congress, whilst they silently -abstained from incorporating the new resolutions with which they were -personally not in agreement. - -It would, however, be unfair to assume that the stock of official -Trade Unionism was, during these years, absolutely barren of new -developments. To Mr. C. J. Drummond,[554] then Secretary to the -London Society of Compositors, and a friend of the Parliamentary -Committee, belongs the credit of having taken the first step towards -the enforcement, through the Government, of a standard minimum wage. On -the revision of the Government printing contract in 1884, Mr. Drummond -secured the support of the Parliamentary Committee in an attempt to -induce the Stationery Office to adopt, as the basis for the contract, -the Trade Union rates of the London compositors. This attempt was, -in the main, successful; but the new contract was nevertheless given -to a “closed” house, in which no member of the Union could work. -The compositors did not let the matter rest. When the President of -the Local Government Board (Joseph Chamberlain) issued a circular -in January 1886, as to the effects of the depression in trade, Mr. -Drummond replied by explicitly demanding the Government’s recognition -of the Standard Wage in all their dealings. The idea spread with -great rapidity. A general demand was started that public authorities -should present a good example as employers of labour by themselves -paying Trade Union rates, and insisting on their contractors doing the -same. Candidates for Parliament at the General Election of 1886 found -themselves, at the instance of the London Society of Compositors,[555] -for the first time “heckled” as to their willingness to insist on “Fair -Wages”; and it began slowly to dawn upon election agents that it might -be prejudicial for their election literature to bear the imprint of -“rat houses.” In October 1886 the action of the London School Board in -giving its printing contract to an “unfair” house was bitterly resented -by the London compositors, who induced the London Trades Council -to go on a vain deputation of protest. When, in November 1888, the -London School Board election came round, A. G. Cook, a member of the -London Society of Compositors, secured election for Finsbury, avowedly -as a champion of Trade Union wages; and two members of the Fabian -Society, Mrs. Annie Besant and the Rev. Stewart Headlam, won seats as -Socialists. By their eloquence and tactical skill these members induced -the Board, early in 1889, to declare that it would henceforth insist -on the payment of “Fair Wages” by all its contractors, a policy in -which the Board was promptly followed by the newly established London -County Council.[556] This new departure by the leading public bodies in -the Metropolis did much to bring about a common understanding between -the official Trade Unionists and the new movement. It is needless to -describe in this place how, since that date, the principle of “Fair -Wages” has developed. By 1894 a hundred and fifty local authorities -had adopted some kind of “Fair Wages” resolution. In 1890, and more -explicitly still in 1893, successive Governments found it necessary -to repudiate the old principle of buying in the cheapest market, -in favour of the now widespread feeling that public authorities as -large employers of labour, instead of ignoring the condition of their -employees, should use their influence to maintain the Standard Rate of -Wages and Standard Hours of Labour recognised and in practice obtained -by the Trade Unions concerned. - -Though the Front Bench as a whole maintained during these years its -policy of contemptuous inactivity, there were, as we have seen, -some signs of the permeation of the new ideas. It was under these -circumstances a grave misfortune that the inevitable criticism on -the Parliamentary Committee began by a scurrilous attack upon the -personal character and conduct of its leaders.[557] During the years -1887-89 the conscientious adhesion to the Liberal party of most of -the Parliamentary Committee was made the occasion for gross charges -of personal corruption. The General Secretaries of the great Unions, -men who had for a lifetime diligently served their constituents, found -their influence undermined, their character attacked, and themselves -denounced, by the circulation all over the country of insidious -accusations of treachery to the working classes. These charges found -a too ready acceptance among, and were repeated by, those young -and impatient recruits of the new movement who knew nothing of the -history and services of the men they were attacking. In the year 1889 -the friction reached its climax. During the summer the attacks upon -the personal character of the Front Bench were redoubled. As the -date of the Trade Union Congress approached, it became known that a -determined attempt would be made by the Socialist delegates to oust the -Parliamentary Committee from office. The Congress met at Dundee, and -plunged straight into an angry conflict in which the Socialists were -completely routed. The regular attenders of the Congress had, as we -have seen, been gradually absorbing many of the new ideas, and were not -altogether satisfied with the way their resolutions had been ignored -by the Parliamentary Committee. But all discontent or criticism was -swept away by the anger which the character of the attack had excited. -A great majority of the delegates came expressly pledged to support -Broadhurst and his colleagues, and when the division was taken only 11 -out of a meeting of 188 delegates were found to vote against him. The -Cotton Operatives who had at all times supported factory legislation, -the Miners who were demanding an Eight Hours Bill, the Londoners -who came from the centre of the Socialist agitation--all rallied to -defend the Parliamentary Committee. The little knot of assailants -were thoroughly discredited; and the triumph of the “old gang” was -complete.[558] - -The victory of the Parliamentary Committee was hailed with satisfaction -by all who were alarmed at the progress of the new ideas. For a moment -it looked as if the organised Trade Unions of skilled workers had -definitely separated themselves from the new labour movement growing -up around them. Such a separation would, in our opinion, have been an -almost irreparable disaster. The Trade Union Congress could claim to -represent less than 10 per cent of the wage-earners of the country. -Many of the old societies were already shrinking up into insignificant -minorities of superior workmen, intent mainly on securing their sick -and superannuation benefits. Any definite exclusion of wider ideals -might easily have reduced the whole Trade Union organisation to nothing -more than a somewhat stagnant department of the Friendly Society -movement. This danger was averted by a series of dramatic events which -brought the new movement once more inside the Trade Union ranks. At the -moment that Henry Broadhurst was triumphing over his enemies at Dundee, -the London dock-labourers were marching to that brilliant victory over -their employers which changed the whole face of the Trade Union world. - -The great dock strike of 1889 was the culmination of an attempt to -organise the unskilled workers which had begun in London two or three -years before. The privations suffered by the unemployed labourers -during the years of depression of trade, and the new spirit of -hopefulness due to the Socialist propaganda, had led to efforts being -made to bring the vast hordes of unskilled workmen in the Metropolis -into some kind of organisation. At first this movement made very little -progress. In July 1888, however, the harsh treatment suffered by the -women employed in making lucifer matches roused the burning indignation -of Mrs. Besant, then editing _The Link_, a little weekly newspaper -which had arisen out of the struggle for Trafalgar Square. A fiery -leading article had the unexpected result of causing the match-girls -to revolt; and 672 of them came out on strike. Without funds, without -organisation, the struggle seemed hopeless. But by the indefatigable -energy of Mrs. Besant and Herbert Burrows public opinion was aroused -in a manner never before witnessed; £400 was subscribed by hundreds -of sympathisers in all classes; and after a fortnight’s obstinacy the -employers were compelled, by sheer pressure of public feeling, to make -some concessions to their workers. - -The match-girls’ victory turned a new leaf in Trade Union annals. -Hitherto success had been in almost exact proportion to the workers’ -strength. It was a new experience for the weak to succeed because of -their very weakness, by means of the intervention of the public. The -lesson was not lost on other classes of workers. The London gas-stokers -were being organised by Burns, Mann, and Tillett, aided by William -Thorne, himself a gas-worker and a man of sterling integrity and -capacity. The Gas-workers and General Labourers’ Union, established -in May 1889, quickly enrolled many thousands of members, who in the -first days of August simultaneously demanded a reduction of their -hours of labour from twelve to eight per day. After an interval of -acute suspense, during which the directors of the three great London -gas companies measured their forces, peaceful counsels prevailed, and -the Eight Hours Day, to the general surprise of the men no less than -that of the public, was conceded without a struggle, and was even -accompanied by a slight increase of the week’s wages.[559] - -The success of such unorganised and unskilled workers as the -Match-makers and the Gas-stokers led to renewed efforts to bring the -great army of Dock-labourers into the ranks of Trade Unionism. For two -years past the prominent London Socialists had journeyed to the dock -gates in the early hours of the morning to preach organised revolt -to the crowds of casuals struggling for work. Meanwhile Benjamin -Tillett, then working as a labourer in the tea warehouses, was -spending his strength in the apparently hopeless task of constituting -the Tea-workers and General Labourers’ Union. The membership of this -society fluctuated between 300 and 2500 members; it had practically -no funds; and its very existence seemed precarious. Suddenly the -organisation received a new impulse. An insignificant dispute on the -12th of August 1889 as to the amount of “plus” (or bonus earned over -and above the five-pence per hour) on a certain cargo, brought on an -impulsive strike of the labourers at the South-West India Dock. The men -demanded sixpence an hour, the abolition of sub-contract and piecework, -extra pay for overtime, and a minimum engagement of four hours. Tillett -called to his aid his friends Tom Mann and John Burns, and appealed -to the whole body of dock labourers to take up the fight. The strike -spread rapidly to all the docks north of the Thames. Within three -days ten thousand labourers had, with one accord, left the precarious -and ill-paid work to get which they had, morning after morning, -fought at the dock gates. The two powerful Unions of Stevedores (the -better-paid, trained workmen who load ships for export) cast in their -lot with the dockers, and in the course of the next week practically -all the river-side labour had joined the strike. Under the magnetic -influence of John Burns, who suddenly became famous as a labour leader -on both sides of the globe, the traffic of the world’s greatest port -was, for over four weeks, completely paralysed. An electric spark of -sympathy with the poor dockers fired the enthusiasm of all classes of -the community. Public disapproval hindered the dock companies from -obtaining, even for their unskilled labour, sufficient blacklegs to -take the strikers’ place. A public subscription of £48,736 allowed -Burns to organise an elaborate system of strike-pay, which not only -maintained the honest docker, but also bribed every East End loafer -to withhold his labour; and finally the concentrated pressure of -editors, clergymen, shareholders, ship-owners, and merchants enabled -Cardinal Manning and Sydney (afterwards Lord) Buxton, as self-appointed -mediators, to compel the Dock Directors to concede practically the -whole of the men’s demands, a delay of six weeks being granted to allow -the new arrangements to be made. As in the case of the match-girls -in the previous year, the most remarkable feature of the dockers’ -strike was the almost universal sympathy with the workers’ demands. A -practical manifestation of that sympathy was given by the workmen of -Australia. The Australian newspapers published telegraphic accounts of -the conflict, with descriptions of the dockers’ wrongs, which produced -an unparalleled and unexpected result. Public subscriptions in aid -of the London dockers were opened in all the principal towns on the -Australian continent; and money poured in from all sides. Over £30,000 -was remitted to London by telegraph--an absolutely unique contribution -towards the strike subsidy which went far to win the victory ultimately -achieved.[560] - -The immediate result of the dockers’ success was the formation of a -large number of Trade Unions among the unskilled labourers. Branches -of the Dock, Wharf, and Riverside Labourers’ Union (into which -Tillett’s little society was now transformed) were established at -all the principal ports. A rival society of dockers, established at -Liverpool, enrolled thousands of members at Glasgow and Belfast. The -unskilled labourers in Newcastle joined the Tyneside and National -Labour Union, which soon extended to all the neighbouring towns. The -Gas-workers’ Union enrolled tens of thousands of labourers of all -kinds in the provincial cities. Organisation began again among the -farm labourers. The National Union of Agricultural Labourers, which -had sunk to a few thousand scattered members, suddenly rose in 1890 -to over 14,000. New societies arose, which took in general as well -as farm labourers; such as the Eastern Counties Labour Federation, -which, by 1892, had 17,000 members; and the smaller societies centring -respectively on Norwich, Devizes, Reading, Hitchin, Ipswich, and -Kingsland in Herefordshire.[561] The General Railway Workers’ Union, -originally established in 1889 as a rival to the Amalgamated Society -of Railway Servants, took in great numbers of general labourers. The -National Amalgamated Sailors and Firemen’s Union,[562] established in -1887, expanded during 1889 to a membership of 65,000. Within a year -after the dockers’ victory probably over 200,000 workers had been added -to the Trade Union ranks, recruited from sections of the labour world -formerly abandoned as incapable of organisation. All these societies -were marked by low contributions and comprehensive membership. They -were, at the outset, essentially, if not exclusively, devoted to -trade protection, and were largely political in their aims. Their -characteristic spirit is aptly expressed by the resolution of the -Congress of the General Railway Workers’ Union on the 19th of November -1890: “That the Union shall remain a fighting one, and shall not be -encumbered with any sick or accident fund.” “We have at present,” -reports the General Secretary of the National Union of Gas-workers and -General Labourers in November 1889, “one of the strongest labour Unions -in England. It is true we have only one benefit attached, and that is -strike pay. I do not believe in having sick pay, out-of-work pay, and a -number of other pays.... The whole aim and intention of this Union is -to reduce the hours of labour and reduce Sunday work.”[563] - -A wave of Trade Unionism, comparable in extent with those of 1833-34 -and 1873-74, was now spreading into every corner of British industry. -Already in 1888 the revival of trade has led to a marked increase in -Trade Union membership. This normal growth now received a great impulse -from the sensational events of the Dock strike. Even the oldest and -most aristocratic Unions were affected by the revivalist fervour of the -new leaders. The eleven principal societies in the shipbuilding and -metal trades, which had been, since 1885, on the decline, increased -from 115,000 at the end of 1888 to 130,000 in 1889, 145,000 in 1890, -and 155,000 in 1891. The ten largest Unions in the building trades, -which between 1885 and 1888 had, in the aggregate, likewise declined -in numbers, rose from 57,000 in 1888 to 63,000 in 1889, 80,000 in -1890, and 94,000 in 1891. In certain individual societies the increase -in membership during these years was unparalleled in their history. -We have already referred to the rapid rise between 1888 and 1891 of -that modern Colossus of Unions, the Miners’ Federation. The Operative -Society of Bricklayers, established in 1848, grew from a fairly -stationary 7000 in 1888, to over 17,000 in 1891. The National Society -of Boot and Shoe Operatives, established in 1874, went from 11,000 in -1888 to 30,000 in 1891. And, to turn to quite a different industry, -the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, a trade friendly society -of the old type, established in 1872, rose from 12,000 in 1888 to -30,000 in 1891. Nor was the expansion confined to a mere increase in -membership. New Trades Councils sprang up in all directions, whilst -those already existing were rejoined by the trades which had left -them. Federations of the Unions in kindred trades were set on foot, -and competing societies in the same trade sank their rivalry in the -formation of local joint committees. - -The victory of the London Dockers and the impetus it gave to Trade -Unionism throughout the country at last opened the eyes of the -Trade Union world to the significance of the new movement. It was -no longer possible for the Parliamentary Committee to denounce the -Socialists as a set of outside intriguers, when Burns and Mann, -now become the representative working-men Socialists, stood at the -head of a body of 200,000 hitherto unorganised workmen. The general -secretaries of the older Unions, forming a compact official party -behind the Front Bench, were veering around towards the advanced -party. Their constituencies were becoming permeated with Socialism. -In many instances the older members now supported the new faith. In -other cases they found themselves submerged by the large accessions -to their membership which, as we have already seen, resulted from the -general expansion. The process of conversion was facilitated by the -genuine admiration felt by the whole Trade Union world for the great -organising power and generalship shown by the leaders of the new -movement, and by the cessation of the personal abuse and recrimination -which had hitherto marred the controversy. At the Dundee Congress of -1889, as we have seen, Henry Broadhurst, and his colleagues on the -Parliamentary Committee, had triumphed all along the line. Within a -year the situation had entirely changed. The Stonemasons, Broadhurst’s -own society, had decided, by a vote of the members, to support an Eight -Hours Bill, and Broadhurst, under these circumstances, had perforce -to refuse to act as their representative. The Executive Council of -the Amalgamated Society of Engineers chose Burns and Mann as two out -of their five delegates, impressing upon them all a recommendation -to vote for the legal limitation of the hours of labour. Both the -old-established societies of Carpenters gave a similar mandate. The -Miners’ Federation this time led the attack on the old Front Bench, -and the resolution in favour of a general Eight Hours Bill was -carried, after a heated debate, by 193 to 155. Broadhurst resigned his -position as Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee on the ground -of ill-health. George Shipton, the secretary of the London Trades -Council, publicly declared his conversion to the legal regulation of -the hours of labour. The Liverpool Congress was as decisive a victory -for the Socialists as that of Dundee had been for the Parliamentary -Committee. The delegates passed in all sixty resolutions. “Out of these -sixty resolutions,” said John Burns, “forty-five were nothing more -or less than direct appeals to the State and Municipalities of this -country to do for the workman what Trade Unionism, ‘Old’ and ‘New,’ -has proved itself incapable of doing. Forty-five out of the sixty -resolutions were asking for State or Municipal interference on behalf -of the weak against the strong. ‘Old’ Trade Unionists, from Lancashire, -Northumberland, and Birmingham, asked for as many of these resolutions -as the delegates from London; but it is a remarkable and significant -fact that 19 out of 20 delegates were in favour of the ‘New’ Trades -Union ideas of State interferences in all things except reduction of -hours, and even on this we secured a majority that certainly entitles -us Socialists to be jubilant at our success.”[564] - -But whilst the new faith was being adopted by the rank and file of -Trade Unionists the character of the Socialist propaganda had been -undergoing an equal transformation. The foremost representative -of the Collectivist views had hitherto been the Social-Democratic -Federation, of which Burns and Mann were active members. Under the -dominant influence of Mr. H. M. Hyndman, this association adopted the -economic basis and political organisation of State Socialism. Yet -we find, along with these modern views, a distinct recrudescence of -the characteristic projects of the revolutionary Owenism of 1833-34. -The student of the volumes of _Justice_ between 1884 and 1889 will -be struck by the unconscious resemblance of many of the ideas and -much of the phraseology of its contributors, to those of the _Poor -Man’s Guardian_ and the _Pioneer_ of 1834. We do not here allude to -the revival, in 1885, of the old demand for an Eight Hours Bill, a -measure regarded on both occasions as a “mere palliative.” Nor need we -refer to the constant assumption, made alike by Robert Owen and the -Social-Democratic lecturers, that the acceptance of the Labour-value -theory would enable the difficulty of the “unemployed” to be solved -by organising the mutual exchange of their unmarketable products. -But both in _Justice_ and the _Pioneer_ we see the same disbelief -in separate action by particular Trade Unions, in contrast to an -organisation including “every trade, skilled and unskilled, of every -nationality under the sun.”[565] “The real emancipation of labour,” -says the official manifesto of the Social-Democratic Federation to -the Trade Unions of Great Britain in September 1884, “can only be -effected by the solemn banding together of millions of human beings -in a federation as wide as the civilised world.”[566] “The day has -gone by,” we read in 1887, “for the efforts of isolated trades.... -Nothing is to be gained for the workers as a class without the complete -organisation of labourers of all grades, skilled and unskilled.... -We appeal therefore earnestly to the skilled artisans of all trades, -Unionists and non-Unionists alike, to make common cause with their -unskilled brethren, and with us Social-Democrats, so that the workers -may themselves take hold of the means of production, and organise a -Co-operative Commonwealth for themselves and their children.”[567] -And if the “scientific Socialists” of 1885 were logically pledged to -the administration of industry by the officials of the community at -large, none the less do we see constantly cropping up, especially among -the working-class members, Owen’s diametrically opposite proposal -that the workers must “own their own factories and decide by vote -who their managers and foremen shall be.”[568] Above all we see the -same faith in the near and inevitable advent of a sudden revolution, -when “it will only need a compact minority to take advantage of some -opportune accident that will surely come, to overthrow the present -system, and once and for all lift the toilers from the present social -degradation.”[569] “Noble Robert Owen,” says Mr. Hyndman in 1885, -“seventy years ago perceived ‘the utter impossibility of succeeding -in permanently improving the condition of our population by any -half-measures.’ We see the same truth if possible yet more clearly -now. But the revolution which in his day was unprepared is now ripe -and ready.... Nothing short of a revolution which shall place the -producers of wealth in control of their own country can possibly change -matters for the better.... Will it be peaceful? We hope it may. That -does not depend upon us. But, peaceful or violent, the great social -revolution of the nineteenth century is at hand, and if fighting should -be necessary the workers may at least remember the profound historical -truth that ‘Force is the midwife of progress delivering the old society -pregnant with the new,’ and reflect that they are striving for the -final overthrow of a tyranny more degrading than the worst chattel -slavery of ancient times.”[570] “Let our mission be,” he writes in -1887, “to help to band together the workers of the world for the great -class struggle against their exploiters. No better date could be chosen -for the establishment of such international action on a sound basis -than the year 1889, which the classes look forward to with trembling -and the masses with hope. I advocate no hasty outbreak, no premature -and violent attempt on the part of the people to realise the full -Social-Democratic programme. But I do say that from this time onwards -we, as the Social-Democratic Labour Party of Great Britain, should make -every effort to bear our part in the celebration by the international -proletariat of the First Centenary of the great French Revolution, and -thus to prepare for a complete International Social Revolution before -the end of the century.”[571] - -The year 1889, instead of ushering in a “complete International Social -Revolution” by a universal compact of the workers, turned the current -of Socialist propaganda from revolutionary to constitutional channels. -The advent of political Democracy had put out of date the project -of “a combined assault by workers of every trade and grade against -the murderous monopoly of the minority.”[572] For a moment, at the -very crisis of the dockers’ struggle, the idea of a “General Strike” -flickers up, only to be quickly abandoned as impracticable. When the -problems of administration had actually to be faced by the new leaders -the specially Owenite characteristics of the Socialist propaganda -were quietly dropped. In January 1889 John Burns was elected a member -of the London County Council, and quickly found himself organising -the beginnings of a bureaucratic municipal Collectivism, as far -removed from Owen’s “national companies” as from the conceptions of -the Manchester School. Tom Mann, as president of the Dockers’ Union, -could not help discovering how impracticable it was to set to work -his unemployed members, accustomed only to general labour, in the -production for mutual exchange of the bread and clothing of which -they were in need. And whether working in municipal committees, or at -the head office of a great Union, both Burns and Mann had perforce to -realise the impossibility of bringing about any sudden or simultaneous -change in the social or industrial organisation of the whole community, -or even of one town or trade. - -Under these circumstances it is perhaps not surprising that Burns -and Mann left the Social Democratic Federation, and found themselves -hotly denounced by their old comrades.[573] With the defection of the -New Unionists, revolutionary Socialism ceased to grow; and the rival -propaganda of constitutional action became the characteristic feature -of the British Socialist Movement. Far from abusing or deprecating -Trade Unionism or Co-operation, the constitutional Collectivists urged -it as a primary duty upon every working-class Socialist to become -a member of his Trade Union, to belong to the local Co-operative -Society, and generally to take as active a part as possible in all -organisations. Instead of denouncing partial reforms as mischievous -attempts to defeat “the Social Revolution,” the New Unionist leaders -appealed to their followers to put their own representatives on Town -Councils, and generally to use their electoral influence to bring -about, in a regular and constitutional manner, the particular changes -they had at heart. Instead of circulating calumnies against the -personal character of Trade Union leaders, they flooded the Trade Union -world with Socialist literature, dealing not so much in rhetorical -appeals or Utopian aspirations as in economic expositions of the actual -grievances of industrial life. The vague resolutions of the Trades -Union Congresses were worked out in practical detail, or even embodied -in draft bills which the local member of Parliament might be invited to -introduce, or driven to support. - -The new policy, adopted as it was by such prominent Socialists as -Burns, Mann, and Tillett, and Mrs. Besant, appeared, from 1889 onward, -increasingly justified by its success. The Collectivist victories -on the London School Board and County Council, the steady growth -of municipal activity, and the increasing influence exercised by -working-men members of representative bodies, went far to persuade -both Socialists and Trade Unionists that the only practicable means -of securing for the community the ownership and control of the means -of production lay in a wide extension of that national and municipal -organisation of public services towards which Parliament and the Town -Councils had already taken the first steps. In those industries in -which neither national nor municipal administration was yet possible, -the Socialists demanded such a regulation of the conditions of -employment as would ensure to every worker a minimum Standard of Life. -The extension of the Factory Acts and the more thorough administration -of the Sanitary Law accordingly received a new impulse. In another -direction the drastic taxation of Rent and Interest, pressed for by -Land Nationalisers and Socialists alike, was justified as leading -eventually to the collective absorption of all unearned incomes. In -short, from 1889 onward, the chief efforts of the British Socialist -Movement have been directed, not to bringing about any sudden, -complete, or simultaneous revolution, but to impregnating all the -existing forces of society with Collectivist ideals and Collectivist -principles.[574] - -With the advent of the “New Unionism” of 1889-90 we close this chapter. -We shall see, in subsequent chapters to what extent, and in what way, -the Trade Union Movement was permanently affected by the new movement. -But we append at this point a brief account of what seem to us, first, -the ephemeral features and, secondly, the more durable results of an -impulse which did not wholly spend its force for a whole decade. - -If we were to believe some of the more enthusiastic apostles of the -“New Unionism,” we should imagine that the aggressive trade society -of unskilled labourers, unencumbered with friendly benefits, was -an unprecedented departure in the history of labour organisation. -Those who have followed our history thus far will know better than -to entertain such an illusion, itself an old characteristic of Trade -Unionist revivals. The purely trade society is as old as Trade Unionism -itself. Throughout the whole history of the movement we find two -types of societies co-existing. At special crises in the annals of -Trade Unionism we see one or other of these types taking the lead, -and becoming the “New Unionism” of that particular period. Both trade -society and friendly society with trade objects were common in the -eighteenth century. Legal persecution of trade combination brought to -the front the Union cloaked in the guise of a benefit club; and it -was mainly for organisations of this type that Place and Hume won the -emancipation of 1824-1825. In 1833-34 we find Place deploring as a -mischievous innovation the growth of the new “Trades Unions” without -friendly benefits. Twenty years later we see the leadership reverting -to the “new model” of an elaborate trade friendly society which, for -a whole generation, was vehemently denounced by employers as a fraud -on the provident workman. The “New Unionism” of 1852, described by so -friendly a critic as Professor Beesly as a novel departure, became, -in its turn, the “Old Unionism” of 1889, when the more progressive -spirits again plumed themselves on eliminating from their brand-new -organisations the enervating influences of friendly benefits. - -A closer examination of the facts shows that this almost rhythmical -alternation of type has been only apparent. The impartial student will -notice that whilst the purely trade society has been persistently -adhered to by certain important industries, such as the Coal-miners -and the Cotton-spinners, other trades, like the Engineers and the -Ironfounders, have remained equally constant to the trade friendly -society; whilst others, again, such as the Compositors and the -Carpenters, have passed backwards and forwards from one model to the -other. But besides this adaptation of type to the circumstances of -particular industries, we see also a preference for the purely trade -society on no higher ground than its cheapness. The high contributions -and levies paid by the Cotton-spinners to their essentially trade -society are as far beyond the means of the Agricultural Labourer or -the Docker as the weekly premiums for superannuation, sick, and other -benefits charged to the Amalgamated Engineer. When, as in 1833-34, -1872, and 1889, a wave of enthusiasm sweeps the unskilled labourers -into the Trade Union ranks, it is obviously necessary to form, at -any rate in the first instance, organisations which make no greater -tax upon their miserable earnings than a penny or twopence per -week. The apparent rhythm of alternations between the two types of -organisation is due, therefore, not to any general abandonment of one -for the other, but to the accidental prominence, in certain crises of -Trade Union history, of the Unions belonging to particular trades or -classes of wage-earners. When, for instance, the cotton-spinners, the -builders, and the unskilled labourers of 1834 loomed large to Francis -Place as a revolutionary force, the purely trade society appeared to -him to be the source of all that was evil in Trade Unionism. When, -in 1848-52, the iron trades were conspiring against piecework and -overtime, it was especially the illicit combination of trade and -friendly society which attracted the attention of the public, and -called forth the denunciations of the capitalist class. And when in -1889 the dockers were stopping the trade of London, and the coal-miners -and cotton-spinners were pressing upon both political parties their -demands for legislative interference, we see George Howell voicing -the opposition to exclusively trade societies as dangerously militant -bodies.[575] - -If the purely trade society is no new thing, still less is the -extension of Trade Unionism to the unskilled labourer an unprecedented -innovation. The enthusiasm which, in 1872, enrolled a hundred thousand -agricultural labourers in a few months, produced also numerous small -societies of town labourers, some of which survived for years before -absorption into larger organisations. The London and Counties Labour -League, established as the Kent and Sussex Agricultural and General -Labourers’ Union in 1872, has maintained its existence down to the -present day. The expansion of 1852 led to the formation in Glasgow of -a Labourers’ Society, which is reputed to have enrolled thousands of -members. But it is with the enthusiasm of 1833-34 that the movement -of 1889-90 has in this respect the greatest analogy. The almost -instantaneous conversion to Trade Unionism after the dock strike of -tens of thousands of the unskilled labourers of the towns recalls, -indeed, nothing so much as the rapid enrolment of recruits among -the poorest wage-earners by the emissaries of the Grand National -Consolidated Trades Union. - -But however strongly the outward features of the wave of 1889-90 may -remind the student of those of 1833-34, the characteristics peculiar -to the new movement significantly measure the extent of the advance, -both in social theory and social methods, made by the wage-earners in -the two intervening generations. Time and experience alone will show -how far the empirical Socialism of the Trade Unionist of 1889, with -its eclectic opportunism, its preference for municipal collectivism, -its cautious adaptation of existing social structure, and its modest -aspirations to a gradually increasing participation of the workmen in -control, may safely be pronounced superior in practicability to the -revolutionary and universal Communism of Robert Owen. In truth, the -radical distinction between 1833-34 and 1889-90 is not a matter of -the particular social theories which inspired the outbursts. To the -great majority of the Trade Unionists the theories of the leaders at -either date did but embody a vague aspiration after a more equitable -social order. The practical difference--the difference reflected in -the character and temper of the men attracted to the two movements, -and of the attitude of the public towards them--is the difference of -method and immediate action. Robert Owen, as we have seen, despised -and rejected political action, and strove to form a new voluntary -organisation which should supersede, almost instantaneously and in -some unexplained way, the whole industrial, political, and social -administration of the country. In this disdain of all existing -organisations, and the suddenness of the complete “social revolution” -which it contemplated, the Owenism of 1833-34 found, as we have seen, -an echo in much of the Socialist propaganda of 1884-89. The leaders -of the New Unionists, on the contrary, sought to bring into the -ranks of existing organisations--the Trade Union, the Municipality, -or the State--great masses of unorganised workers who had hitherto -been either absolutely outside the pale, or inert elements within it. -They aimed, not at superseding existing social structures, but at -capturing them all in the interests of the wage-earners. Above all, -they sought to teach the great masses of undisciplined workers how -to apply their newly acquired political power so as to obtain, in a -perfectly constitutional manner, whatever changes in legislation or -administration they desired. - -The difference in method between the “New Unionism” of 1833-34 -and that of 1889-90 may, we think, be ascribed in the main to the -difference between the circumstances under which the movements arose. -To Robert Owen, whose path was blocked on the political line by the -disfranchisement of five out of six of the adult male population, -open voting under intimidation, corrupt close corporations in the -towns and a Whig oligarchy at the centre, the idea of relying on the -constitutional instrument of the polling-booth must have appeared -no less chimerical than his own programme appears to-day. The New -Unionists of 1889-90, on the other hand, found ready for their use -an extensive and all-embracing Democratic social structure, which it -was impossible to destroy, and would have been foolish to attempt -to ignore. The efforts of two generations of Radical Individualists -and “Old Trade Unionists” had placed the legislative power and civil -administration of the country in the hands of a hierarchy of popularly -elected representative bodies. The great engine of taxation was, for -instance, now under the control of the wage-earning voters instead -of that of the land-owning class. The Home Secretary and the factory -inspector, the relieving-officer and the borough surveyor, could be -employed to carry out the behests of the workers instead of those of -the capitalists. And thus it came about that the methods advocated -by the New Unionists of 1889-94 resemble, not those of the Owenites -of 1833-34, but much more the practical arts of political warfare so -successfully pursued by the Junta of 1867-75. - -We shall see the change which had come over the English working-class -movement in the course of sixty years if we compare the leaders of the -two movements which we have been contrasting. To Owen himself we may -allow the privilege of his genius, which did not prevent him from being -an extravagantly bad captain for a working-class movement. But in his -leading disciples ignorance of industrial conditions, contemptuous -indifference to facts and figures, and incapacity to measure, even in -the smallest actions, the relation between the means and the end, stand -in as marked contrast to the sober judgment of men like John Burns as -they did to the cautious shrewdness of Allan and Applegarth. It would -indeed be easy to find many traits of personal likeness between Burns -and Mann on the one hand, and Allan and Applegarth on the other. High -personal character, scrupulous integrity, dignity or charm of manner, -marked all four alike, and the resemblance of character is heightened -by a noticeable resemblance in the nature of their activity. The day’s -work of Tom Mann at the head office of the Dockers’ Union from 1889 to -1892, and that of John Burns in the London County Council and the lobby -of the House of Commons from 1892 to 1906, were close reproductions -of Allan’s activity at the general office of his Engineers, and -Applegarth’s assiduous attendance to Parliamentary Committees and -Royal Commissions. In short, the ways and means of the leaders of -the “New Unionism” remind the student, not of the mystic rites and -skeleton mummery of the Owenite movement, but rather of the restless -energy and political ingenuity of the Junta or the Trades Union -Congress Parliamentary Committee in those early days when the old Trade -Unionists were fighting for legislative reforms with a faith which was -as wise as it was fervent and sincere. - -Some of the secondary characteristics of the New Unionism of 1889 -promptly faded away. The revulsion of feeling against the combination -of friendly benefits with Trade Union purposes quickly disappeared, -though the difficulty of levying high contributions upon ill-paid -workers prevented the complete adoption of the contrary policy.[576] -The expansion of trade which began in 1889 proved to be but of brief -duration, and with the returning contraction of 1892 many of the -advantages gained by the wage-earners were lost. Under the influence -of this check the unskilled labourers once more largely fell away -from the Trade Union ranks. But just as 1873-74 left behind it a far -more permanent structure than 1833-34, so 1889-90 added even more -than 1873-74. The older Unions retained a large part, at any rate, of -the two hundred thousand members added to their ranks between 1887 -and 1891. But this numerical accession was of less importance than -what may, without exaggeration, be termed the spiritual rebirth of -organisations which were showing signs of decrepitude. The selfish -spirit of exclusiveness which often marked the relatively well-paid -engineer, carpenter, or boilermaker of 1880-85, gave place to a more -generous recognition of the essential solidarity of the wage-earning -class. For example, the whole constitution of the Amalgamated Society -of Engineers was, in 1892, revised for the express purpose of opening -the ranks of this most aristocratic of Unions to practically all -the mechanics in the innumerable branches of the engineering trade. -Special facilities, moreover, were offered by this and the other -great societies to old men and artisans earning wages insufficient -to pay for costly friendly benefits. Nor was this all. The plumber -vied with the engineer, the carpenter with the shipwright, in helping -to form Unions among the labourers who work with or under them. And -the struggling Unions of women workers, which had originally some -difficulty in gaining admittance to Trades Councils and the Trade Union -Congress, gratefully acknowledged a complete change in the attitude -of their male fellow-workers. Not only was every assistance now given -to the formation of special Unions among women workers, but women -were, in some cases, even welcomed as members by Unions of skilled -artisans. A similar widening of sympathies and strengthening of bonds -of fellowship was shown in the very general establishment of local -joint committees of rival societies in the same trade, as well as of -larger federations. Robert Knight’s failures to form a federal council -representing the different Unions concerned in shipbuilding were -retrieved in 1891 by his successful establishment of the Federation of -the Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades, which maintained a permanent -existence. The increased sense of solidarity among all sections of -wage-earners, moreover, led to a greatly increased cordiality in -international relations. The Coal-miners, the Glass Bottle Makers, and -the Textile Operatives established more or less formal federations -with their fellow-workers on the Continent of Europe. At the frequent -international Congresses of these trades, as well as at the Socialist -Congress of the workers of all countries, the representatives of the -British Trade Unions largely laid aside that insular conceit which -led the Parliamentary Committee of 1884 to declare that, owing to -his superiority, the British Trade Unionist derived no benefit from -international relations. All this indicates a widening of the mental -horizon, a genuine elevation of the Trade Union Movement. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[511] See the _History of the British Trades Union Congress_, by W. -J. Davis, of which two volumes have been issued by the Parliamentary -Committee (1910 and 1916). William John Davis, one of the most -successful Trade Union administrators, was born in 1848, at Birmingham. -In 1872, when the National Society of Amalgamated Brassworkers was -established in a trade hitherto entirely unorganised, he became General -Secretary, a post which, except for one short interval, he has ever -since retained. Within six months he obtained from the employers the 15 -per cent increase which they had refused to the unorganised men, and -established branches throughout the kingdom; and presently he completed -the difficult and laborious task of constructing a list of prices for -all brasswork, for which he obtained the employers’ recognition. He -was elected to the Birmingham School Board in 1876, and to the Town -Council in 1880. In 1883 he accepted appointment as Factory Inspector, -but six years later returned to his former post at the urgent request -of the workmen, whose Union had in his absence sunk almost to nothing, -a condition from which he was able quickly to restore it to far more -than its highest previous strength; and to take on, in addition, -the secretaryship of the Amalgamated Metal Wire and Tube Makers’ -Society. He was made a J.P. in 1906. Since 1881 he has been elected -twenty-six times to the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union -Congress. He is the author, in addition to the _History of the British -Trades Union Congress_, of _The Token Coinage of Warwickshire_ and -_Nineteenth-Century Token Coinage_ (_The Life Story of W. J. Davis_, by -W. B. Dalley, 1914). - -[512] In 1878, for instance, the Parliamentary Committee resolved that -Congress ought not to interfere either between the English and Scottish -Tailors’ Societies or between the Boilermakers and the Platers’ Helpers. - -[513] The Congress, from 1871, annually elected a Parliamentary -Committee of ten members and a secretary. The members of the Committee -were always chosen from the officials of the more important Unions, -with a strong tendency to re-elect the same men year after year. -Between 1875 and 1889 the composition of the Committee was, in fact, -scarcely changed, except through death or the promotion of members to -Government appointments. George Potter was secretary from 1869-71; -George Odger in that year; and George Howell, afterwards M.P., from -1872-75. Henry Broadhurst was for fourteen years annually re-elected -secretary without a contest, temporarily ceding the post, whilst Under -Secretary of State for the Home Department in 1886, to George Shipton. -He was succeeded by Charles Fenwick, M.P., from 1890-93; then followed -S. Woods, M.P., from 1894-1904; W. C. Steadman, M.P., from 1905-10; and -the Right Honourable C. W. Bowerman, M.P., from 1911 onwards. - -[514] Odger died in 1877, Guile in 1883, and Coulson (who had retired -many years before) in 1893. - -[515] To the counsels of Frederic Harrison, E. S. Beesly, H. Crompton, -and A. J. Mundella was, from 1873, frequently added that of Mr. -(afterwards Justice) R. S. Wright, who rendered invaluable service as a -draughtsman. Henry Crompton supplied us with the following account of -the subsequent separation between the Positivists and the Trade Union -leaders: - -“In the year 1881 the connection of the Parliamentary Committee with -the Positivists was modified. There was not the same occasion for their -services as there had been. After 1883, in which year Mr. F. Harrison -and Mr. H. Crompton attended the Congress by invitation, the connection -ceased altogether, though there was no breach of friendly relations. -Till 1881 there had been entire agreement between them both as to -policy and means of action. The policy of the Positivists had been to -secure complete legal independence for workmen and their legitimate -combinations; to make them more respected and more conscious of their -own work; to lift them to a higher moral level; that they should become -citizens ready and desirous to perform all the duties of citizenship. -The means employed was to consolidate and organise the power of the -Trades Societies, through the institutions of the annual Congress and -its Parliamentary Committee; to use this power, as occasion served, for -the general welfare as well as for trade interests. That the measures -adopted or proposed by the Congress should be thoroughly discussed in -the branches, and delegates well posted in the principal questions. To -express it shortly--organisation of collective labour and political -education of individual workmen. - -“The condition of this effective force was that, while it was being -used in furtherance of political action, it should be kept quite clear -and independent of political parties. The divergence came with the -advent of the Gladstonians to office. The Liberal Government began -a policy of coercion in Ireland. Combination was to be put down by -the very same mechanism which had been invented to repress labour -combinations--by the law of conspiracy. The very ruling of Baron -Bramwell as to the Tailors’ strike was employed to concoct a law to -convict Mr. Parnell and his coadjutors. As a result law was laid down -by the Irish judges as to political combinations, which is binding in -England, and has still to be resisted or abolished. The Positivists -endeavoured to the utmost of their ability to rouse the working -classes to a sense of the danger of these proceedings, and to offer -an uncompromising resistance to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus -Act. The Parliamentary Committee would have none of it. They no doubt -believed that the interests of their clients would be best served -by a narrower policy, by seeking the help and favour of the eminent -statesmen in office. Instead of a compact, powerful force, holding the -balance between the parties and the key of the situation, dictating its -terms, they preferred to be the tag end of a party. In the end they did -not get much, but the Congress was successfully captured and muzzled by -the Gladstonian Government.” - -[516] Report of Trades Union Congress, Dublin, 1880, p. 15. - -[517] The working of the Trade Union Act of 1871 revealed some -technical defects in the law, which were remedied by an amending Act in -1876 (39 and 40 Vic. c. 22). Rules for the execution of the Employers -and Workmen Act were framed by the Lord Chancellor in the same year. - -[518] This defence of “common employment,” which practically deprived -the workman in large undertakings of any remedy in case of accidents -arising through negligence in the works, was first recognised in the -case of Priestly _v._ Fowler in 1837 (3 Meeson and Welby). Not until -1868 did the House of Lords, as the final Court of Appeal, extend it -to Scotland. The growth of colossal industrial undertakings, in which -thousands of workmen were, technically, “in common employment,” made -the occasional harshness of the law still more invidious. - -[519] Act 43 and 44 Vic. c. 52 (1880). - -[520] The annual Parliamentary returns for the next fifteen years -showed that between three and four hundred cases came into court every -year, the amount of compensation actually awarded reaching between -£7000 and £8000. But a large number of cases were compromised, or -settled without litigation. Meanwhile the relative number of accidents -diminished. Whereas in 1877 one railway employee in 95 was more or less -injured, in 1889 the proportion was only one in 195. Whereas between -1873 and 1880 one coal-miner in 446 met his death annually, between -1881 and 1890 the proportion was only one in 519; although there was -apparently less improvement, if any, as regards non-fatal accidents in -the mine. - -[521] By “contracting out” was meant an arrangement between employer -and employed by which the latter relinquish the rights conferred upon -them by the Act, and often also their rights under the Common Law. -The Act was silent on the subject; but the judges decided, to the -great surprise and dismay of the Trade Union leaders, that contracting -out was permissible (see Griffiths _v._ Earl of Dudley, 9, Queen’s -Bench Division, 35). The usual form of “contracting out” was the -establishment of a workman’s insurance fund to which the workmen were -compelled to subscribe, and to which the employer also contributed. -Among the coal-miners, those of Lancashire, Somerset, and some -collieries in Wales generally contracted out. The employees of the -London and North-Western, and London and Brighton Railway Companies -also contracted out. In one or two large undertakings in other -industries a similar course was followed. But in the vast majority -of cases employers did not resort to this expedient. Particulars are -given in the _Report and Evidence of the Select Committee on Employers’ -Liability_, 1866; the publications of the Royal Commission on Labour, -1891-94; and _Miners’ Thrift and Employers’ Liability_, by G. L. -Campbell (Wigan, 1891); and our _Industrial Democracy_. - -In 1893-94 a further amending Bill passed the House of Commons which -swept away the doctrine of common employment, and placed the workman -with regard to compensation on the same footing as any other person. -A clause making void any agreement by which the workman forewent his -right of action, or “contracted out,” was rejected by the House of -Lords, and the Bill was thereupon abandoned. The question was settled -in 1896 by the passage, under the Unionist Government, of the Workmen’s -Compensation Act, giving compensation in all cases, irrespective of the -employers’ default. - -[522] The legal advisers of the Junta realised that the triumph of -1875, though it resulted in a distinct strengthening of the Trade Union -position, was mainly a moral victory. Though Trade Unions were made -legal, the law of conspiracy was only partially reformed, whilst that -relating to political combinations, unlawful assemblies, sedition, -etc., remained, as it still remains, untouched. Expert lawyers knew -in how many ways prejudiced tribunals might at any time make the law -oppressive. The legal friends of Trade Unionism desired, therefore, -to utilise the period of political quiet in simplifying the criminal -law, and in removing as much of the obsolete matter as was possible. -And though State Trials recommenced in Ireland in 1881, and criminal -prosecutions of Trade Unionists continued in England down to 1891, the -interval had been well spent in clearing away some of the grosser evils. - -[523] In the proposed reform of the Jury laws, for instance, the -Parliamentary Committee for several years did not venture to ask -explicitly for that payment of jurymen which alone would enable working -men to serve, and contented themselves with suggesting a lowering of -the qualification for juryman. In 1876, indeed, John Burnett, then a -prominent member of the Committee, strongly opposed the Payment of -Jurymen on the ground that it might create a class of professional -jurors (Trades Union Congress Report, 1876, p. 14). - -[524] See, for instance, the report of the 1876 Congress, p. 30; that -of the 1882 Congress, p. 37; that of the 1883 Congress, p. 41; and -_History of the British Trades Union Congress_, by W. J. Davis, vol. -i., 1910. - -[525] In this connection may be mentioned the extensive agitation -promoted by Samuel Plimsoll for further legislation to prevent the loss -of life at sea. At the 1873 Trades Union Congress Plimsoll distributed -copies of his book, _Our Merchant Seamen_, and enlisted, during the -next three years, practically the whole political force of the Trade -Union Movement in support of his Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment -Bill. The “Plimsoll and Seamen’s Fund Committee,” of which George -Howell became secretary, received large financial help from the Unions, -the South Yorkshire Miners’ Association voting, in 1873, a levy of a -shilling per member, and contributing over £1000. The Parliamentary -Committee gave Plimsoll’s Bill a place in their programme for the -General Election of 1874, and this Trade Union support contributed -largely to Plimsoll’s success in passing a temporary Act in 1875, and -permanent legislation in 1876, against the combined efforts of a strong -Conservative Government and the shipowners on both sides of the House. -(See _Labour Legislation, Labour Movements, and Labour Leaders_, by G. -Howell, 1902.) - -[526] Congress Reports, 1882 and 1883. - -[527] Parliamentary Committee’s Report, September 17, 1877. - -[528] That extending to factory scales and measures the provisions of -the Weights and Measures Act relating to inspection, etc. - -[529] The appointment was first offered to Broadhurst, who elected to -continue his work as Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee, and who -suggested Prior (_Henry Broadhurst, the Story of his Life_, by himself, -1901). - -[530] _Ibid._ p. 136. - -[531] It may be mentioned that the Trades Union Congress, which at -first had welcomed addresses from the middle and upper class friends -of Trade Unionism, was, between 1881 and 1883, gradually restricted to -Trade Unionists. At the Nottingham Congress in 1883, where Frederic -Harrison read a paper on the “History of Trade Unionism,” and Henry -Crompton one on the “Codification of the Law,” when Frederic Harrison -proposed to take part in the discussion on the Land Question, he was -not permitted to do so; and this rule has since been rigidly adhered -to. At the Aberdeen Congress of 1884 Lord Rosebery was allowed to -deliver an address on the “Federalism of the Trades Union Congress,” -but this was the last time that any one has been invited to read a -paper. - -[532] _Times_ leader on the Congress of Belfast, September 11, 1893, -which deplores the remarkable “subservience to Mr. John Burns and -his friends” manifested by the Congress--a subservience marked by -the election of Mr. Burns for the Parliamentary Committee at the -head of the poll, and by the adoption of a programme which included -the nationalisation of the land and other means of production and -distribution. - -[533] The following description of the rise of the “New Unionism” of -1889 is based on minutes and reports of Trade Union organisations, the -files of _Justice_, the _Labour Elector_, the _Trade Unionist_, the -_Cotton Factory Times_, the _Workman’s Times_, and other working-class -journals. The documentary evidence has been elucidated and supplemented -by the reminiscences of most of the principal actors in the movement, -and by the personal recollections of the authors themselves, one of -whom, as a member of the Fabian Society, observed the transformation -from the Socialist side, whilst the other, as a disciple of Herbert -Spencer and a colleague of Charles Booth, was investigating the -contemporary changes from an Individualist standpoint. - -[534] See Mr. H. M. Hyndman’s _England for All_, 1881. - -[535] _Report of the International Trades Union Congress at Paris, -1886_, by Adolphe Smith, 1886. - -[536] _Flint Glass Makers’ Magazine_, November 1884. - -[537] _Report of the Industrial Remuneration Conference_, 1885. - -[538] The results of twenty years of patient labour by Charles Booth -and his assistants are embodied in the magnificent work, _Labour -and Life of the People_ (London, 1st edition, 2 vols., 1889-91; 2nd -edition, 4 vols., 1893), reissued in greatly enlarged form as _Life and -Labour in London_, 18 vols.; _Pauperism and the Endowment of Old Age_ -(London, 1893); _The Aged Poor_ (1894); _Old Age and the Aged Poor_ -(1899); _Industrial Unrest and Trades Union Policy_ (1913). In _Charles -Booth: a Memoir_ (1918) Mrs. Booth has given a personal biography -(1840-1914) of a tireless investigator who, merely by the instrument of -social diagnosis, got accomplished reforms of a magnitude that seemed -at first wholly impracticable. - -[539] The funds of the Stonemasons had been completely exhausted by -the great strike of 1878. In January 1879 the Society determined, -on a proposition submitted by the Central Executive, to close all -pending disputes (including a general strike at Sheffield against a -heavy reduction without due notice); and between that date and March -1885, though many of the branches struggled manfully, and in some -cases successfully, against repeated reductions of wages, increases -of hours, or infringements of the local bye-laws, no strike whatever -was supported from the Society’s funds. The case of the Stonemasons is -typical of the other great trade friendly societies. - -[540] _What a Compulsory Eight Hours Working Day means to the Workers_, -by Tom Mann (1886), 16 pp. - -[541] Mr. Tom Mann, one of the outstanding figures in the New -Unionist Movement, was born at Foleshill, Warwickshire, in 1856, and -apprenticed in an engineering shop at Birmingham, whence he came to -London in 1878, and joined the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. -Eagerly pursuing his self-education, he became acquainted first -with the Co-operative Movement, and then with the writings of Henry -George. In 1884 he visited the United States, where he worked for six -months. On his return he joined the Battersea Branch of the Social -Democratic Federation, and quickly became one of its leading speakers. -His experience of the evils of overtime made the Eight Hours Day a -prominent feature in his lectures, and in 1886 he published his views -in the pamphlet, _What a Compulsory Eight Hours Working Day means -to the Workers_ (1886, 16 pp.), of which several editions have been -printed. In the same year he left his trade in order to devote himself -to the provincial propaganda of the Social Democratic Federation, -spending over two years incessantly lecturing, first about Tyneside, -and then in Lancashire. Returning to London early in 1889, he assisted -in establishing the Gas-workers’ Union and in organising the great -dock strike, on the termination of which he was elected President of -the Dockers’ Union. For three years he applied himself to building -up this organisation, deciding to resign in 1892, when he became a -candidate for the General Secretaryship of the Amalgamated Society -of Engineers. After an exciting contest, during which he addressed -meetings of the members in all the great engineering centres, he failed -of success only by 951 votes on a poll of 35,992. In the meantime -he had been appointed, in 1891, a member of the Royal Commission on -Labour, to which he submitted a striking scheme for consolidating the -whole dock business of the port of London, by cutting a new channel for -the Thames across the Isle of Dogs. On the establishment in 1893 of -the London Reform Union he was appointed its secretary, a post which -he relinquished in 1894 on being elected secretary of the Independent -Labour Party. This he presently relinquished to emigrate to New -Zealand; and there and in Australia he threw himself energetically -into Trade Union agitation. Returning to England in 1911, he became -a fervent advocate of Syndicalism; and then became an organiser for -various General Labour Unions. In 1919 he was elected General Secretary -of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, after an exhaustive ballot of -its great membership. - -[542] Article in _Justice_, September 3, 1887. - -[543] Mr. John Burns, in many respects the most striking personality in -the Labour Movement, was born at Battersea in 1859, and was apprenticed -to a local engineering firm. Already during his apprenticeship he -made his voice heard in public, in 1877 being actually arrested for -persistently speaking on Clapham Common, and in 1878 braving the -“Jingo” mob at a Hyde Park demonstration. As soon as he was out of -his time (1879) he joined the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and -became an advocate of shorter hours of labour. An engagement as -engineer on the Niger, West Africa, during 1880-81, gave him leisure -to read, which he utilised by mastering Adam Smith and J. S. Mill. -Returning to London, he worked side by side with Victor Delahaye, an -ex-Communard, who was afterwards one of the French representatives at -the Berlin Labour Conference, 1891, and with whom he had many talks -on the advancement of labour. In 1883 he joined the Social Democratic -Federation, and at once became its leading working-class member, -championing its cause, for instance, in an impressive speech at the -Industrial Remuneration Conference in 1885. In the same year he was -elected by his district of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers as its -representative at the quinquennial delegate meeting of the Society, -where he found himself the youngest member. At the General Election of -1885 he stood as Socialist candidate for West Nottingham, receiving -598 votes. For the next two years he became known as the leader of -the London “unemployed” agitation. His prosecution for sedition in -1886 (with three other prominent members of the Social Democratic -Federation) aroused considerable interest, and on his acquittal his -speech for the defence, _The Man with the Red Flag_, had a large sale -in pamphlet form (1886; 16 pp.). At the prohibited demonstration at -Trafalgar Square on “Bloody Sunday” (November 13, 1887), in conjunction -with Mr. Cunninghame Graham, M.P., he broke through the police line, -for which they were both sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment. In -January 1889 he was elected for Battersea to the new London County -Council, on which he became one of the most useful and influential -members. His magnificent work in the dock strike and in organising the -unskilled labourers is described in the text. At the General Election -of 1892 he was chosen, by a large majority, M.P. for Battersea, and at -the Trades Union Congress in 1893 he received the largest number of -votes for the Parliamentary Committee, of which he accordingly became -Chairman. In 1906 he was appointed President of the Local Government -Board in Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman’s Government, with a seat in the -Cabinet--thus becoming the first working-man Cabinet Minister--a post -which he held until August 1914, when he resigned on the outbreak of -war. He retained his seat in Parliament until 1918, when he retired. - -[544] Address to Trade Unionists in _Justice_, January 24, 1885. - -[545] Weiler was the delegate of the Alliance Cabinetmakers’ Society, -and came from London. The Congress Report gives the following account -of his paper: “After reviewing the position of the working classes -under the present system, and comparing it with the state of things -eighty years ago, he contended that the best means of bettering their -position was to reduce the hours of toil. The result of this would -be, first, to give every worker a better chance of employment, and -thus lessen that sort of competition which was caused by hunger and -want; secondly, it would give them time and opportunity for rest and -amusement, and that cultivation of their minds which would enable -them to prepare themselves for the time when the present system of -production would collapse, and the time of this collapse was not so -distant as some supposed.” The paper was received with much applause, -and Weiler received the thanks of Congress. No resolution was passed. - -[546] _History of the British Trades Union Congress_, by W. J. Davis, -vol. i. p. 133. - -[547] The Return moved for by George Howell regarding the Woolwich and -Enfield engineering works showed that, during 1884 and 1885, more than -half the artisans worked overtime, the average per week for each man -varying from 9.4 hours in some shops to 17.8 in others. - -[548] 11,966 of its members voted for an Eight Hours Day, and of these -9209 declared in favour of the enforcement of the eight hours limit by -law. The total votes given for an Eight Hours Law was 17,267; against -it, 3819. - -[549] The votes in favour of an Eight Hours Day were 39,656; against -it, 67,390, of which 56,541 were cast on behalf of the Cotton-spinners -and Weavers. In favour of an Eight Hours Law, 28,511; against it, -12,283. The votes of the different trades, and a summary of the -Congress proceedings on this subject, are given in _The Eight Hours -Day_, by Sidney Webb and Harold Cox, 1891; see also _History of the -British Trades Union Congress_, by W. J. Davis, vol. ii. pp. 7-8. - -[550] The clause was moved by S. Williamson, Liberal Member for -Kilmarnock, and seconded by J. H. C. Hozier, Conservative Member for -South Lanarkshire. It received no support from the “Labour Members,” -and was rejected by 159 to 104. See the _Eight Hours Day_, by Webb and -Cox, 1891, p. 23. - -[551] The “National Conferences” of the miners are a feature peculiar -to the industry. Besides the periodical gatherings of the separate -federations, the miners, since 1863, have had frequent conferences -of delegates from all the organised districts in the kingdom. These -conferences were, until 1889, held under the auspices of the National -Union; subsequently they were summoned by the Miners’ Federation. The -meetings, from which reporters are now excluded, are consultative -only, and their decisions are not authoritative until adopted by the -separate organisations. See _Die Ordnung des Arbeitsverhältnisses in -den Kohlengruben von Northumberland und Durham_, by Dr. Emil Auerbach -(Leipzig, 1890, 268 pp.). - -[552] The “Fair Trade” attack had arisen in the following manner. At -the Bristol Congress in 1878, certain delegates, who were strongly -suspected of being the paid agents of the organisation then agitating -for the abolition of the foreign bounties on sugar, attempted to force -this question upon the Congress, and made a serious disturbance. -These delegates afterwards became the paid representatives of the -“Fair Trade League,” an association avowedly composed of landlords -and capitalists with the object of securing a reimposition of import -duties. The Front Bench steadfastly refused to allow the Congress to be -used for promotion of this object, and were exposed in return to what -the Congress in 1882 declared to be “a cowardly, false, and slanderous -attack, ... an attempt at moral assassination.” Instead of fighting -the question of Free Trade _versus_ Protection, the emissaries of the -Fair Trade League developed an elaborate system of personal defamation, -directed against Broadhurst, Howell, Shipton, and other leaders. For -instance, Broadhurst’s administration of the Gas Stokers’ Relief Fund -in 1872 was made the pretext for vague insinuations of malversation -which were scattered broadcast through the Trade Union world. At the -Congress of 1881 the “Fair Trade” delegates were expelled, on it -being proved that their expenses were not paid by the Trade Union -organisations which they nominally represented. A renewed attack on the -Congress of 1882 ended in the triumphant victory of the Parliamentary -Committee, the complete exoneration of Broadhurst and his colleagues, -and the final discomfiture of the “Fair Trade” delegates. See _Henry -Broadhurst: the Story of his Life_, by himself, 1901; _History of the -British Trades Union Congress_, by W. J. Davis, vol. i., 1910. - -[553] Report to Congress of 1884. This is another instance of the -abandonment of the more generous views of Applegarth and Odger. - -[554] Mr. Drummond, who resigned his secretaryship in 1892, was in the -following year appointed to the staff of the Labour Department of the -Board of Trade, from which he retired in 1918. - -[555] See its Circular of June 1886. - -[556] Some isolated protests against the employment of non-Unionists -are of earlier date. Thus, the minutes of the Birmingham Trades Council -show that, on July 3, 1880, at the instance of a painters’ delegate, -it passed a resolution protesting against the employment of “non-Union -and incompetent men” by the local hospital. And in the same month the -Wolverhampton Trades Council had successfully protested against the -employment of non-Unionist printers upon a new Liberal newspaper about -to be established. - -[557] The chief medium for the attack was the _Labour Elector_, a penny -weekly journal published, from September 1888 to April 1890, by Mr. -H. H. Champion, an ex-officer of the Royal Artillery, who (prosecuted -in 1886, as we have seen, with H. M. Hyndman, J. Burns, and Williams, -for sedition) had at one time been a leading member of the Social -Democratic Federation, from which he was excluded on a difference of -policy. He afterwards emigrated to Melbourne, where he still (1920) -resides. - -[558] _Henry Broadhurst: the Story of his Life_, by himself, 1901, pp. -218-24; _History of the British Trades Union Congress_, by W. J. Davis, -vol. i., 1910. - -[559] The men employed by two of the gas companies in London, and most -of those engaged by provincial municipalities, have retained this boon. -But in December 1889 the South Metropolitan Gas Company insisted, -after a serious strike, on a return to the twelve hours’ shift. A -scheme of profit-sharing was used to break up their men’s Union -and induce them to accept individual engagements inconsistent with -Collective Bargaining. This example (which is not unique) confirmed -the Trade Unions in their objection to schemes of “Profit-sharing” or -“Co-partnership.” - -[560] This strike had the good fortune to find contemporary historians -who were themselves concerned in all the phases of the struggle. _The -Story of the Dockers’ Strike_, by Mr. (afterwards Sir) Hubert Llewellyn -Smith and Vaughan Nash (1890, 190 pp.), gives not only a detailed -chronicle of the highly dramatic proceedings, but also a useful -description of the organisation of the London Docks. - -[561] This movement was much assisted by the “Red Van” campaigns of -the English Land Restoration League, 1891-94, which coupled Land -Nationalisation propaganda with the formation of local unions of the -labourers in the Southern and Midland Counties of England. In the -agricultural depression of 1894-95, when staffs were further reduced -and wages again lowered, nearly all these new Unions sank to next to -nothing, or entirely dissolved. Most information as to them is to be -gained from _The Church Reformer_ for 1891-95; _History of the English -Agricultural Labourer_, by W. Hasbach, 1907; and Ernest Selley’s -_Village Trade Unions of Two Centuries_, 1919. - -[562] Short-lived and turbulent combinations among seamen have existed -at various periods for the past hundred years, notably between 1810 and -1825, on the north-east coast, where many sailors’ benefit clubs were -also established. In 1851, again, a widespread national organisation -of seamen is said to have existed, having twenty-five branches between -Peterhead and London, and numbering 30,000 members. This appears to -have been a loose federation of practically autonomous port Unions, -which for some years kept up a vigorous agitation against obnoxious -clauses in the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1851-54, and fought the -sailors’ grievances in the law courts. In 1879 the existing North -of England Sailors and Sea-going Firemen’s Friendly Association was -established, but failed to maintain itself outside Sunderland. In -1887 its most vigorous member, J. Havelock Wilson, convinced that -nothing but a national organisation would be effective, started -the National Amalgamated Sailors and Firemen’s Union, which his -able and pertinacious “lobbying” made, for some years, an effective -Parliamentary force. - -[563] Address to members in First Half-Yearly Report (London, 1889). -The spirit of the uprising is well given in _The New Trade Unionism_, -by Tom Mann and Ben Tillett, 1890; on which George Shipton was moved to -write _A Reply to Messrs. Tom Mann and Ben Tillett’s Pamphlet entitled -“The New Trade Unionism,”_ 1890. - -[564] _Speech delivered by John Burns on the Liverpool Congress, -September 21, 1890_ (1890, 32 pp.). - -[565] _Justice_, November 7, 1885. - -[566] Printed in _Justice_, September 6, 1884. - -[567] “The Decay of Trade Unions,” by H. M. Hyndman, _Justice_, June -18, 1887. - -[568] “The Trade Union Congress,” by John Burns, _Justice_, September -12, 1885. - -[569] _Justice_, July 11, 1885. - -[570] _Justice_, July 18, 1885. The identity of purpose and methods -between the two movements is indeed elsewhere directly asserted; see -“Socialism in ’34,” _ibid._, April 19, 1884, and the extracts from the -Owenite journals in the issue for July 25, 1885. - -[571] _Ibid._, August 6, 1887. - -[572] _Justice_, July 25, 1885. - -[573] From 1889 onwards the columns of _Justice_ abound in abuse and -denunciation of the leaders of the New Unionism. We may cite, not so -much because it summarises this denunciation and abuse, but because of -the details of the movement that it incidentally gives, _The Rise and -Progress of a Right Honourable_, by Joseph Burgess (1911). - -[574] In this development some share is to be attributed to the work -of the Fabian Society, which, established in 1883, began in 1887 to -exercise a growing influence on working-class opinion. The publication, -in 1889, of _Fabian Essays in Socialism_, the circulation between -1887 and 1893 of three-quarters of a million copies of its series -of “Fabian tracts,” and the delivery of several thousand lectures a -year in London and other industrial centres, contributed largely to -substitute a practical and constitutional policy of Collectivist reform -for the earlier revolutionary propaganda. Tom Mann, Ben Tillett, and -other Trade Union leaders were, from 1889 onwards, among the members -of the parent Fabian Society, whilst the ninety independent local -Fabian Societies in the provincial centres usually included many of the -delegates to the local Trades Councils. Some account of the Society and -its work will be found in _Zum socialen Frieden_, by Dr. von Schulze -Gaevernitz (Leipzig, 1891, 2 vols.); in _Englische Socialreformer_, by -Dr. M. Grunwald (Leipzig, 1897); in _La Société Fabienne_, by Edouard -Pfeiffer (Paris, 1911); in _Geschichte des Socialismus in England_, -by M. Beer (Stuttgart, 1913), republished in different English form -as _History of British Socialism_ (vol. i., 1918; vol. ii., 1920); -in _Socialism, a Critical Analysis_, by O. D. Skelton, 1911; and in -_Political Thought in England from Herbert Spencer to the Present -Day_, by Ernest Barker, 1915. A superficial survey of the development -of opinion is given in _Socialism in England_, by Sidney Webb (1st -edition, 1889; 2nd edition, 1893). See _History of the Fabian Society_, -by Edward R. Pease (1915). - -[575] _Trade Unionism Old and New_, 1891, _passim_. - -[576] Thus the Dock, Wharf, and Riverside Labourers’ Union soon gave -Funeral Benefit--usually the first to be added; whilst many of the -branches started their own sick funds. Some of the branches of the -National Union of Gas-workers and General Labourers promptly added -local benefit funds, and the addition of Accident Benefit by the whole -society was presently adopted. - - - - -CHAPTER VIII - -THE TRADE UNION WORLD - -[1890-1894] - - -When we were engaged, between 1890 and 1894, in investigating the -history and organisation of all the several Unions, no complete -statistics as to the extent of the membership were in existence. We -accordingly sought to obtain, not only an analysis of the Trade Union -world as it then was, but also a complete census of Trade Unionism -from one end of the kingdom to the other. We retain this analysis -practically as it stood in the first edition of the book in 1894, as a -record of the position as it then was--in subsequent chapters tracing -the principal changes and developments of the last thirty years. - -To deal first with the aggregate membership, we were convinced in -1894 that, although a certain number of small local societies might -have escaped our notice, we had included every Union then existing -which had as many as 1000 members, as well as many falling below that -figure. From these researches we estimated that the total Trade Union -membership in the United Kingdom at the end of 1892 certainly exceeded -1,500,000 and probably did not reach 1,600,000. Our estimate was -presently confirmed. Working upon the data thus supplied, the Labour -Department of the Board of Trade extended its investigations, and now -records a Trade Union membership for 1892 of 1,502,358.[577] The Trade -Unionists of 1892 numbered, therefore, about 4 per cent of the Census -population. - -But to gauge the strength of the Trade Union world of 1892 we had to -compare the number of Trade Unionists, not with the total population, -but with that portion of it which might conceivably be included within -its boundaries. Thus at the outset we had to ignore the propertied -classes, the professions, the employers and the brain-workers of every -kind, and confine our attention exclusively to the wage-earners engaged -in manual work. Even of the working-class so defined we could exclude -the children and the youths under twenty-one, who are not usually -eligible for Trade Union membership. The women present a greater -difficulty to the statistician. The adult female wage-earners engaged -in manual labour in 1891 were estimated to number between two and three -millions, of which only about 100,000 were even nominally within the -Trade Union ranks. To what extent the men’s Trade Unionism was weakened -by its failure to enrol the women workers was a matter of dispute. From -the industrial point of view the answer depends on complicated economic -considerations, such as the extent to which women compete with men -in particular industries, or women’s trades with those in which men -are employed. Owing to the exclusion of women from the Parliamentary -franchise until 1918 their absence from the Trade Union world detracted -little from its political force. We have dealt elsewhere[578] with the -relation of women workers to the Trade Union organisation. Meanwhile we -omit the women as well as the young persons under twenty-one from our -estimate of the place occupied by Trade Unionism in working-class life. - -We know of no exact statistics as to the total numbers of the -manual-working class. The figures collected by Leone Levi, and -those of Sir Robert Giffen, together with the inferences to be -drawn from the census and from Charles Booth’s works, led us to the -conclusion--at best only hypothetical--that of the nine millions -of men over twenty-one years of age in 1891, about seven millions -belonged to the manual-working class. Out of every hundred of the -population of all ages we could roughly estimate that about eighteen -are in this sense working men adults. Accepting for the moment this -hypothetical estimate, we arrived at the conclusion that the Trade -Unionists numbered at this date about 20 per cent of the adult male -manual-working class, or, roughly, one man in five. - -But this revised percentage is itself misleading. If the million and a -half Trade Unionists were evenly distributed among all occupations and -through all districts, a movement which comprised only 20 per cent of -working men would be of slight economic or industrial importance, and -of no great weight in the political world. What gave the Trade Union -Movement its significance even thirty years ago and transformed these -million and a half units into an organised world of their own, was the -massing of Trade Unionists in certain industries and districts in such -a way as to form a powerful majority of the working-class world. The -Trade Unionists were aggregated in the thriving industrial districts of -the North of England. The seven counties of England north of the Humber -and the Dee contained at least 726,000 members of trade societies, or -almost half of the total for the United Kingdom. At a considerable -distance from these followed the industrial Midlands, where the seven -counties of Leicester, Derby, Notts, Warwick, Gloucester, Northampton, -and Stafford included a total Trade Union membership of at least -210,000, whilst South Wales, including Monmouthshire, counted another -89,000 members of trade societies. The vast agglomeration of the London -district, in which we must reckon Middlesex, the subsidiary boroughs of -West Ham, Croydon, Richmond, and Kingston, as well as Bromley in Kent, -yielded not more than 194,000 Trade Unionists. - -These four districts, comprising nearly 21,000,000 inhabitants, or -rather more than two-thirds of the population of England and Wales, -possessed in 1892 twelve-thirteenths of its Trade Unionists. The total -Trade Union membership in the remainder of the country, with its -8,000,000 of population, did not exceed 105,000, largely labourers. -The only county in England in which in 1892 we found no trace of -Trade Union organisation was Rutland, which did not, at this date, -contain a single branch of any Union whatsoever. But Huntingdonshire, -Herefordshire, and Dorsetshire, containing together over 350,000 -inhabitants, included, according to our estimate, only about 710 Trade -Unionists between them. Scotland, with four millions of population, -had 147,000 Trade Unionists, nearly all aggregated in the narrow -industrial belt between the Clyde and the Forth, two-thirds of the -total, indeed, belonging to Glasgow and the neighbouring industrial -centres. Ireland, with three-quarters of a million more population, -counted but 40,000, nine-tenths of whom belonged to Dublin, Belfast, -Cork, and Limerick. - -Of particular counties, Northumberland and Durham at that date took -the lead, closely followed by Lancashire. The table on following -page supplies particulars of this date for the strongest Trade Union -counties in England and Wales. - -This superficial investigation shows us at once that Trade Unionism -coincided in 1892, as it does in 1920, in the main with density of -population. The thinly peopled plains of Dorsetshire, the Highlands of -Scotland, the West of Ireland, the Cumberland and Westmorland Hills, -were practically devoid of Trade Unionism; the valleys of the Tyne and -Tees, Lancashire and London, and the busy industrial villages of the -Midlands showed a comparatively high percentage. But the correspondence -of Trade Unionism with density of population is by no means exact. -Oldham, for instance, with a population of 201,153, had 25,000 male -Unionists,[579] or 12.43 per cent, whereas Birmingham (including the -suburbs of Aston, Handsworth, and Solihull), with 621,253, had only -26,000, or 4.19 per cent. Newcastle (including Gateshead), with 328,066 -inhabitants, had 26,500 Trade Unionists, or 8.08 per cent, whilst Leeds -(including Wortley, Hunslet, and Burley) had but 16,000 to a population -of 415,243, or 3.85 per cent. And, most striking exception of all, -the crowded five and a half millions of the Metropolitan area had but -194,000 Trade Unionists, or only 3.52 per cent of its population, -whilst Lancashire, even including its northern moorlands and its wide -agricultural districts, had 332,000 for less than four millions of -people, or 8.63 per cent of its population. Reckoning that 18 out of -every 100 of the population are adult male workmen, Trade Unionism thus -counted among its adherents in some counties over 50 per cent of the -total number of working men. - - _Table showing, for certain counties in England, and for - South Wales, the total population in 1891, the ascertained - number of Trade Unionists in 1892, and the percentage to - population in each case. (In the first edition of this - book the student will find a coloured map of England and - Wales, showing, in five tints, the percentage of Trade Union - membership to Census population in 1891 in the several - counties, as estimated in this table.)_ - - ------------------------------+------------+--------------+------------ - | Total | Ascertained | Percentage - | Population | Number of | of Trade - County. | in 1891. | Members of | Unionists - | | Trade | to - | | Societies | Population. - | | in 1892. | - ------------------------------+------------+--------------+------------ - Northumberland | 506,030 | 56,815 | 11.23 - Durham | 1,024,369 | 114,810 | 11.21 - Lancashire | 3,957,906 |[580]331,535 | 8.63 - Yorkshire, E. Riding | 318,570 | 23,630 | 7.42 - Leicestershire | 379,286 | 27,845 | 7.34 - Derbyshire | 432,414 | 29,510 | 6.82 - South Wales and Monmouthshire | 1,325,315 | 88,810 | 6.70 - Nottinghamshire | 505,311 | 31,050 | 6.14 - Yorkshire, W. Riding | 2,464,415 | 141,140 | 5.73 - Gloucestershire | 548,886 | 26,030 | 4.74 - Cheshire | 707,978 | 32,000 | 4.52 - Staffordshire | 1,103,452 | 49,545 | 4.49 - Suffolk | 353,758 | 14,885 | 4.21 - Warwickshire | 801,738 | 33,600 | 4.19 - Northampton | 308,072 | 12,210 | 3.96 - Cumberland | 266,549 | 10,280 | 3.86 - London District (including | | | - Middlesex, Croydon, West | | | - Ham, Richmond, Kingston, | | | - and Bromley) | 5,517,583 | 194,083 | 3.52 - Yorkshire, N. Riding with | | | - York City | 435,897 | 15,215 | 3.49 - | ---------- | ---------- | ---- - Totals | 20,957,529 | 1,232,993 | 5.89 - ------------------------------+------------+--------------+------------ - - No other county had 15,000 Trade Unionists, nor as much as 3 per cent - of its population in trade societies. - -But this percentage itself fails to give an adequate idea of the extent -to which Trade Unionism, even in 1892, dominated the industrial centres -in which it was strongest. Within the concentration by localities, -there was a further concentration by trades--a fact which to a large -extent explains the geographical distribution. The following table -shows in what proportion the leading industries contributed to the -total Trade Union forces: - - _Table showing the approximate number of members of trade societies - in 1892 according to industries, in the different parts of the United - Kingdom._ - - ---------------------+-------------+-----------+----------+------------ - Trade. | England and | Scotland. | Ireland. | Total. - | Wales.[581] | | | - ---------------------+-------------+-----------+----------+------------ - Engineering and | | | | - Metal Trades | 233,450 | 45,300 | 8,250 | 287,000 - Building Trades | 114,500 | 24,950 | 8,550 | 148,000 - Mining | 325,750 | 21,250 | ... | 347,000 - Textile Manufactures | 184,270 | 12,330 | 3,400 | 200,000 - Clothing and | | | | - Leather Trades | 78,650 | 8,400 | 2,950 | 90,000 - Printing Trades | 37,950 | 5,650 | 2,400 | 46,000 - Miscellaneous Crafts | 46,550 | 7,450 | 4,000 | 58,000 - Labourers and | | | | - Transport Workers | 302,880 | 21,670 | 10,450 | 335,900 - | ---------- | -------- | ------ | ---------- - Totals | 1,324,000 | 147,000 | 40,000 | 1,511,000 - | | | | [582] - ---------------------+-------------+-----------+----------+----------- - -For the general reader, this table, together with the foregoing one -showing the geographical distribution of Trade Unionism, completes our -statistical survey of the Trade Union world of 1892. To the student of -Trade Union statistics a more particular enumeration may be useful. -Before we attempt to picture Trade Union life, we shall therefore -devote a dozen pages (which the general reader may with a clear -conscience skip) to the dry facts of organisation in each of the eight -great divisions into which we distributed the Trade Union membership of -1892. - -The first division, comprising all the numerous ramifications of -the engineering, metal-working, and shipbuilding trades, was then -characterised by old-established and highly developed national Unions, -with large membership, centralised administration, and extensive -friendly benefits. The 287,000 Trade Unionists in this division -were enrolled in over 260 separate societies, but almost one-half -belonged to one or other of four great national organisations, the -Amalgamated Society of Engineers (established 1851), the United -Society of Boilermakers and Iron Shipbuilders (established 1832),[583] -the Friendly Society of Ironfounders of England, Ireland, and Wales -(established 1809), and the Associated Society of Shipwrights, a -belated amalgamation formed in 1882 by the many ancient local -Unions of wooden shipbuilders. Of these great Unions, that of the -Boilermakers, with 39,000 members, was incomparably the strongest, -having no rival for the allegiance of its trade and including -practically the whole body of skilled workmen engaged in iron -shipbuilding and boilermaking from one end of the United Kingdom to -the other. The great Unions of Ironfounders and Shipwrights, with -respectively 15,000 and 14,000 members, were not quite so universal as -the Boilermakers. The Associated Society of Ironmoulders (Ironfounders) -of Scotland (established 1831), with 6000 members and a few minor -Unions of less skilled ironfounders, maintained separate organisations; -whilst the Shipwrights’ Provident Union of the Port of London -(established 1824, 1400 members), the Liverpool Trade and Friendly -Association of Shipwrights (established 1800, 1400 members), and a few -other old-fashioned port Unions still held aloof from the Shipwrights’ -amalgamation.[584] The Amalgamated Society of Engineers, the largest -centralised Trade Union in the kingdom, with 66,000 members at home -and 5000 abroad, towered over all its rivals, but had to compete -with compact sectional or local Unions, admitting one or more of the -numerous classes of workmen in the engineering and machine-making -trade.[585] Among the actual producers of iron and steel, the British -Steel Smelters’ Association (established 1886), with 2400 members, -originally a Scotch Union, was extending all over the kingdom; whilst -the Associated Society of Iron and Steel Workers (established 1862), -with 1250 members. - -7800 members, occupied a unique position in the Trade Union world -from its long and constant devotion to the sliding scale. The tin and -hollow-ware workers,[586] the chippers and drillers, the Sheffield -cutlers, and the craftsmen in precious metals were split up into -innumerable local societies, with little federal union. - -It is interesting to notice the large proportion which this division of -Trade Unionists in Scotland bore to the total for that country. Whilst -in England and Wales it formed only one-sixth of the aggregate number, -in Scotland it measured nearly one-third, almost entirely centred about -Glasgow. - - -_Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists in each group -of the Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades._ - - -----------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------- - Trade. | England | Scotland. | Ireland. | Total. - | and Wales.| | | - -----------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------- - Engineers and Machine Makers | 74,000 | 8,250 | 2,750 | 85,000 - Smiths and Farriers | 7,350 | 2,250 | 300 | 9,900 - Brass and Copper Workers | 13,350 | 2,000 | 150 | 15,500 - Sheet Metal Workers | 16,000 | 1,300 | 200 | 17,500 - Ironfounders and Core-makers | 15,500 | 7,250 | 500 | 23,250 - Shipbuilding and | | | | - Boiler making | 45,500 | 13,250 | 3,600 | 62,350 - Iron and Steel Smelters. | 23,500 | 1,500 | ... | 25,000 - Workers in Precious Metals | 3,500 | ... | ... | 3,500 - Sundry Metal Workers | 34,750 | 9,500 | 750 | 45,000 - | -------- | ------ | ------ | -------- - Totals | 233,450 | 45,300 | 8,250 | 287,000 - -----------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------- - -The organisation of Builders and Furniture Makers resembled in many -respects that of the Engineers and Shipbuilders. The 148,000 Trade -Unionists in this division were sorted into 120 separate Unions; but -again we find one-half of them belonging to one or other of three -centralised Trade Friendly Societies of national scope. Of these -the Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons (established 1832, -16,000 members) was the most powerful, having practically no rival -throughout England or Ireland, and maintaining friendly relations with -the corresponding United Operative Masons’ Association of Scotland -(established 1831, 5000 members). But the largest and richest Union in -this division was the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners -(established 1860, 34,000 members at home and 4000 abroad). Although -this Society could count but a small proportion of the total number -of carpenters in the kingdom, it included three-fourths of those who -were Trade Unionists, the remaining fourth being divided between the -Associated Carpenters and Joiners of Scotland (established 1861, 6000 -members), the old General Union of Carpenters and Joiners of England -(established 1827, 4000 members), and a few tiny trade clubs in the -Metropolis which had refused to merge themselves in either of the -national organisations. The Bricklayers were in much the same position -as the Carpenters. The Operative Bricklayers’ Society (established -1848, 22,000 members) included three-fourths of the Trade Unionists, -the remainder being found either in the United Operative Bricklayers’ -Trade, Accident, and Burial Society (established 1832, 2500 members), -or in a few isolated local trade clubs in Scotland and Ireland. Of the -other Unions in the Building Trades, the United Operative Plumbers’ -Association of Great Britain and Ireland (established 1832, reorganised -1865, 6500 members) was by far the most effective and compact, and -was specially interesting as retaining practically the federal -constitution of the Builders’ Union of 1830-34. With the exception of -the United Operative Plumbers’ Association of Scotland (established -1872, 700 members), a small society resulting from a secession, no -rival organisation existed. On the other hand, the Painters, Slaters, -Packing-case Makers, Upholsterers, and French Polishers were split up -into numberless small Unions, whilst the Cabinetmakers and Plasterers -had each one considerable organisation[587] and several smaller -societies, which, however, included but a small proportion of the trade. - -_Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists in the various -branches of the Building and Furniture Trades._ - - -----------------------+----------+-----------+----------+--------- - Trade. | England. | Scotland. | Ireland. | Total. - |and Wales.| | | - -----------------------+----------+-----------+----------+--------- - Stonemasons | 16,750 | 8,250 | 250 | 25,250 - Bricklayers | 24,000 | 700 | 2,300 | 27,000 - Carpenters | 33,000 | 7,850 | 3,250 | 44,100 - Cabinetmakers | 7,200 | 2,000 | 300 | 9,500 - Sawyers and other | | | | - Wood-workers | 4,250 | 350 | 150 | 4,750 - Plasterers | 7,500 | 1,000 | 500 | 9,000 - Painters | 12,400 | 2,150 | 1,000 | 15,550 - Plumbers | 5,400 | 1,200 | 400 | 7,000 - Upholsterers and | | | | - French Polishers | 2,500 | 450 | 300 | 3,250 - Sundry Building Trades | 1,500 | 1,000 | 100 | 2,600 - | -------- | ------ | ------ | -------- - Totals | 114,500 | 24,950 | 8,550 | 148,000 - -----------------------+----------+-----------+----------+--------- - -The Miners and Quarrymen, comprising about sixty-five societies, -were in 1892 the best organised of the eight great divisions into -which we classified the Trade Union forces. Among the coalminers -the “county,” or district Union, without friendly benefits, was the -predominating type. Nearly two-thirds of the whole 347,000 Trade -Unionists in this division were gathered into the Miners’ Federation -of Great Britain (established 1888), a federal Union comprising about -twenty independent organisations, some of which, like the Yorkshire -Miners’ Association (established 1858, 55,000 members), were highly -centralised, whilst others, like the Lancashire Miners’ Federation -(established 1881, 43,000 members), were themselves federal bodies. The -Miners’ Federation, whilst not interfering with the financial autonomy -or internal administration of its constituent bodies, effectively -centralised the industrial and Parliamentary policy of the whole army -of its members from Fife to Somerset. Outside the Federation at this -date stood the powerful and compact Northumberland Miners’ Mutual -Confident Association (established 1863, 17,000 members), and Durham -Miners’ Association (established 1869, 50,000 members), together with -the solid little Mid and West Lothian Miners’ Association (established -1885, 3600 members), and the loose organisations of Sliding Scale -contributors which then figured as Trade Unions in South Wales.[588] -The coal and iron miners of the West of Scotland had scarcely got -beyond the ephemeral pit club and occasional Strike Union. Among -the tin, lead, and copper miners Trade Unionism, as far as we can -ascertain, was absolutely unknown. - -_Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists among the -persons engaged in or about Mines and Quarries._ - - ---------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------- - Trade. | England. | Scotland. | Ireland. | Total. - | and Wales.| | | - ---------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------- - Coal and Iron Miners | 301,000 | 17,500 | ... | 318,500 - Colliery Enginemen | 5,000 | 1,500 | ... | 6,500 - Cokemen, Overmen, Colliery | | | | - Mechanics, &c. | 9,250 | 500 | ... | 9,750 - Quarrymen | 10,500 | ... | ... | 10,500 - Shale Oil Workers | ... | 1,750 | ... | 1,750 - | -------- | ------ | ------ | -------- - Totals | 325,750 | 21,250 | ... | 347,000 - ---------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------- - -The salient fact of Trade Unionism among the textile operatives in 1892 -was that effective organisation was nearly confined to the workers -in cotton, who contributed at least two-thirds of the 200,000 Trade -Unionists in this division. Like the Miners the Cotton Operatives -have always shown a strong preference for federal Associations with -exclusively trade objects. The powerful Amalgamated Association of -Operative Cotton-spinners (established 1853), a federal Union of -19,500 members comprising forty separate district associations, -joined with its sister federations, the Northern Counties Amalgamated -Association of Weavers (established 1884, 71,000 members) and the -Amalgamated Association of Card and Blowing Room Operatives (31,000 -members, established 1886), in the United Textile Factory Workers’ -Association (established 1886). This Association formed exclusively -for Parliamentary purposes, focussed the very considerable political -influence of 125,000 organised cotton operatives in Lancashire, -Cheshire, and Yorkshire, and was, next to the Miners’ Federation, by -far the most powerful Trade Union organisation in the country.[589] - -The highly developed organisation of the Cotton Operatives contrasted -with the feebleness of the Woollen-workers. In the other branches of -textile manufacture the extreme localisation of the separate industries -had given rise to isolated county or district organisations of lace, -hosiery, silk, flax, or carpet-workers usually confined to small areas, -and exercising comparatively little influence in the Trade Union world. -Incomparably the strongest among them was the Amalgamated Society of -Operative Lacemakers (3500 members), which comprised practically all -the adult male workers in the Nottingham machine-lace trade. If we -exclude the constituent organisations of the United Textile Factory -Workers’ Association, the separate Unions in the various branches of -the textile industry numbered 115. - -_Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists in the various -branches of the Textile Manufacture._ - - ----------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------- - Trade. | England. | Scotland. | Ireland. | Total. - | and Wales.| | | - ----------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------- - Cotton-spinners | 19,500 | ... | ... | 19,500 - Cotton-weavers | 82,500 | 500 | ... | 83,000 - Cotton Card-room Operatives | 31,000 | ... | ... | 31,000 - Woollen-workers | 6,000 | 9,500 | ... | 15,500 - Woolsorters, Combers, &c. | 2,500 | ... | ... | 2,500 - Silkworkers | 2,500 | ... | 60 | 2,560 - Flax and Linen-workers | 150 | 300 | 2,940 | 3,390 - Carpet-weavers | 2,600 | 400 | ... | 3,000 - Hosiery-workers | 6,350 | 100 | 50 | 6,500 - Lacemakers | 4,500 | ... | ... | 4,500 - Elastic Webworkers | 700 | ... | ... | 700 - Dyers, Bleachers, and | | | | - Finishers | 11,820 | 180 | 100 | 12,100 - Overlookers | 4,850 | 200 | 200 | 5,250 - Calico-printers and | | | | - Engravers | 1,950 | 500 | 50 | 2,500 - Miscellaneous Textiles | 7,350 | 650 | ... | 8,000 - | -------- | ------ | ------ | -------- - Totals | 184,270 | 12,330 | 3,400 | 200,000 - ----------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+--------- - -The large section of workers engaged in the manufacture of clothing -and leather goods was, perhaps, the least organised of the skilled -trades. One society, indeed, the National Union of Boot and Shoe -Operatives (established 1874), counted almost 43,000 members, and -exercised a very real control over the machine boot trade. And -although the hand industry was in this case rapidly declining, the -Amalgamated Association of Boot and Shoemakers (established 1862) -maintained and even increased the earnings of this body of 4700 skilled -handicraftsmen. The Tailors, on the other hand, had succeeded neither -in controlling the new machine industry, nor in upholding the standard -earnings of the hand-workers. The Amalgamated Society of Tailors -(established 1866, 17,000 members), together with the Scottish National -Operative Tailors’ Society (established 1866, 4500 members), had -absorbed all the local Unions, but included only a small proportion -of those at work in the trade. The Felt Hatters and Trimmers’ Union -(established 1872) had 4300 members, together with a women’s branch -(established 1886) numbering nearly as many. In other branches of this -division some strong organisations existed in the smaller industries, -but the workers for the most part formed only feeble local clubs -or else were totally unorganised. There were altogether over sixty -separate Unions in this division. - -_Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists in the -Clothing and Leather Trades._ - - -------------------------+----------+----------+----------+-------- - Trade. | England.|Scotland. | Ireland. | Total. - |and Wales.| | | - -------------------------+----------+----------+----------+-------- - Boot and Shoemakers | 46,250 | 2,250 | 500 | 49,000 - Other Leather Workers | 5,900 | 550 | 100 | 6,550 - Tailors and other | | | | - Clothing Makers | 16,100 | 5,500 | 2,300 | 23,900 - Hatmakers, Glovers, &c. | 10,400 | 100 | 50 | 10,550 - | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ - Totals | 78,650 | 8,400 | 2,950 | 90,000 - -------------------------+----------+----------+----------+-------- - -The 46,000 Trade Unionists in the paper and printing trades were -divided between four considerable Unions with 27,000 members, and -forty-five little societies numbering not more than 19,000 altogether. -The compositors lead off with three extensive organisations, the London -Society of Compositors, confined to the Metropolis (established 1848, -9800 members), the Typographical Association (established 1849, 11,500 -members), which had absorbed all but four of the Irish and four of -the English local societies outside the Metropolis, and the Scottish -Typographical Association (established 1852, 3000 members). The -Bookbinders and Machine Rulers’ Consolidated Union (established 1835, -3000 members), mainly composed of provincial workers, far exceeded the -London Consolidated Bookbinders’ Society, the largest of half-a-dozen -Metropolitan Unions in this trade. - -_Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists in the various -branches of the Paper and Printing Trades._ - - --------------------------+----------+-----------+----------+-------- - Trade. | England. | Scotland. | Ireland. | Total. - |and Wales.| | | - --------------------------+----------+-----------+----------+-------- - Compositors and Press and | | | | - Machine Men | 27,250 | 4,000 | 2,000 | 33,250 - Bookbinders | 5,150 | 700 | 300 | 6,150 - Papermakers | 3,150 | 500 | ... | 3,650 - Miscellaneous Printing | | | | - Trades | 2,400 | 450 | 100 | 2,950 - | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ - Totals | 37,950 | 5,650 | 2,400 | 46,000 - --------------------------+----------+-----------+----------+-------- - -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. | Scotland. | Ireland. | Total. - |and Wales.| | | - --------------------------+----------+-----------+----------+--------- - Basket and Brushmakers | 2,800 | 350 | 100 | 3,250 - Coach and Waggon Builders | 6,000 | 400 | 600 | 7,000 - Coopers | 4,400 | 1,300 | 300 | 6,000 - Glassworkers | 7,350 | 500 | 150 | 8,000 - Millers and Bakers | 7,000 | 2,500 | 2,500 | 12,000 - Potters | 6,250 | 1,650 | ... | 7,900 - Sundry Trades | 12,750 | 750 | 350 | 13,850 - | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ - Totals | 46,550 | 7,450 | 4,000 | 58,000 - --------------------------+----------+-----------+----------+--------- - -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. | Scotland. | Ireland. | Total. - | and Wales.| | | - ---------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------- - Seamen, Fishermen, | | | \ - Watermen, &c. | 33,850 | 3,900 | 1,500 | 39,250 - Railway Traffic Workers | 43,500 | 1,500 | 3,000 | 48,000 - Enginemen, &c. (other than | | | | - Colliery or Railway) | 6,300 | 370 | 100 | 6,770 - Carmen, &c. | 19,000 | 3,500 | 1,000 | 23,500 - Miscellaneous Labourers | 200,230 | 12,400 | 4,850 | 217,480 - | -------- | ------ | ------ | -------- - Totals | 302,880 | 21,670 | 10,450 | 335,000 - ---------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+---------- - -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. - -It is therefore impossible by a statistical survey to give any adequate -idea of the Trade Union world of 1892. We may note the fact that the -thousand separate unions or branches between Blyth and Middlesborough -numbered some 200,000 members. We may ascertain that within fifteen -miles of the Manchester Exchange at least as many Trade Unionists lived -and worked. But no figures can convey any real impression of the place -which the Trade Union, even then, filled in the every-day life of the -skilled artisans of the United Kingdom. We are therefore fortunate in -being able to supplement our statistics by a graphic description of -Trade Union life supplied to us in 1893 by a skilled craftsman, who -joined his Union on the expiration of his apprenticeship, and served -for some time in various official capacities. - - To an apprentice, Trade Unionism is little more than a name. - He may occasionally overhear the men in his shop discussing - their Union and its work; and he knows that after “club - night” a number of stories of the incidents of the meeting - will be related; whilst, if he works in a strong Society - shop, he may even hear heated discussions on resolutions - submitted to the meeting. But the chief topic will always - be the personal one--who was at the meeting, and what old - chums were met; for the “club” is generally the recognised - meeting-place for “old cronies” in the trade. If he works - in a shop where any of the Trade Union officials are also - employed he may sometimes receive a word of advice and - exhortation “to be sure to join the Society when he is a - man.” On the whole, however, his knowledge of, and interest - in, the Society will be very slight. But should a strike - occur at his shop whilst he is yet a lad, the presence and - power of the Trade Union will be brought very vividly home - to him; and as he works by himself or with the other lads - in an otherwise deserted shop he will form some opinions of - his own. He will naturally feel a violent antipathy to the - “Blacks” brought into his shop, for the sense of comradeship - is strong among boys; and he will notice with considerable - pleasure that they are usually inferior workmen. But in - spite of this, if the employer is “a good sort,” who treats - him well and kindly, he will probably still think that the - men are wrong to strike. For the boy regards the employer as - the one “who finds work for the men to do,” and hence looks - upon a strike as an act of ingratitude; and further, he has - also a vague idea that the men are in the position of being - many to one, and hence he promptly sides with the weaker - party. - - As the youth draws near the end of his apprenticeship he - finds that he is frequently spoken to by Union men and urged - to join the Society. He notices, too, that more attention - is paid to him, and that his opinions are frequently asked - upon trade matters. Finally he is invited round to the - little public in which the club meetings are held, and - introduced to the Lodge officials, and to a number of his - fellow-tradesmen. The advantages offered by the Society - are freely dilated upon, great stress being laid upon the - friendly benefits--the sick, superannuation, funeral, and, - above all, the out-of-work pay. For the Trade Society is - the only institution which provides an out-of-work benefit. - Against sickness and death he may already be insured in - one or other of the numerous Friendly Societies; but the - out-of-work pay is never provided except by a Trade Society, - since only there is it possible to know whether a claimant - is out of work by reason of bad trade, or bad character, - or inefficiency, or even if he is really out of work at - all. And as the advantages of this provision are pointed - out to him he recollects the time when his father, a staid, - steady-going mechanic, was thrown out of work by slack - times; and the memory of that bitter experience clings very - closely to him. Perhaps he is also in love. The thought of - seeing “her” miserable and their children hungry whilst - he himself is helpless to assist, must always be one of - the most harrowing things to a careful young artisan, with - visions of a happy little home in the near future. There - is, however, another view of the club which appeals with - almost equal force to our young artisan just out of his - apprenticeship and finding himself in possession of an - income nearly double that to which he has been accustomed. - The Trade Union Meeting House is the recognised club for the - men in the craft, and thus presents many social attractions. - Friendships are made--numerous “sing-songs” and smoking - concerts arranged; and the joke and friendly glass, the good - cheer and the conviviality, all present great attractions to - the young workman. - - The club is also a centre for obtaining the latest trade - news. Here come the unemployed from other towns; here are - to be heard reports of reductions or advance of wages, - increased or diminished working hours, stories of tyranny, - or the first rumours of that bug-bear to the men--the - invention of new machines, with its probable displacement of - their labour; or even worse, the introduction of women and - boys at reduced prices. There is also an occasional visit - from an important official of the central office to look - forward to, and his words to digest afterwards. All these - attractions incline the young artisan to enrol himself in - the Lodge, but it is mainly personal considerations which - in the end decide him to take the step. Are the good men in - his trade--those whom he likes; who have treated him well, - helped him out of his difficulties and given him coppers - when a lad; the powerful men, the foremen, and those whose - words carry most weight with their fellows--are these men - members of the Union? If they are, and if, as is most - probable in a Society shop, he has formed friendships with - other young fellows who are already members, it is not long - before he consents, and allows himself to be duly proposed - as a candidate for membership. - - The next club night sees him at the door of the club-room - waiting anxiously, and perhaps timorously, whilst the - formalities go on inside. Usually the ordinary business of - the evening is all disposed of before the election of new - members takes place. At the first mention by the President - of the fact that a candidate is waiting to be elected, the - doorkeeper (hitherto posted inside the door to see that no - one comes in or goes out surreptitiously, and that none of - the “worthy brothers” are in an unfit state to enter the - room) slips rapidly outside, and holding the door firmly, - refuses admission to any one while the ceremony lasts. The - President then rising, calls for order, and having read out - the name of the candidate and those of his proposer and - seconder, asks those members to tell the Lodge what they - know about him. Then the proposer rises, and addressing “Mr. - President and worthy brothers,” states what he knows--that - the candidate is a young man, apprenticed in his shop and - duly served his time--a good workman and a steady young - fellow--anxious to join the Society and sure to be a credit - to the Lodge. He resumes his seat amid applause; and the - seconder rises and repeats the same eulogy. Then the - candidate is called into the room, the doorkeeper admitting - him with some ceremony. He enters in fear and trembling; - for the formality of admission, though shorn of its former - mysterious rites, is still conducted with sufficient - solemnity to make it loom as something rather terrible. At - once he finds himself the object of the friendly curiosity - of the members, and the cause of applause, all of which adds - considerably to his nervousness and trepidation. But he is - agreeably surprised to find the ceremony a very meagre one. - The President, rising, calls upon all the members to do - likewise, and then, all standing, he reads out an initiatory - address, and a portion of the Rules of the Society. Then in - a simple affirmation the candidate pledges himself to abide - by the Rules, to study the interests of the Society, and - neither to do, nor, if he can prevent it, allow to be done, - anything in opposition thereto. He has then to formally - sign this pledge. That being done, his name is entered as a - member, and upon paying his entrance fee, he is presented - with a card of membership and a book of Rules of the Society. - - He is now an ordinary member of the Lodge, and this newly - acquired dignity is fully brought home to him in the course - of a week or so, when he receives his first summons to - attend a Lodge meeting. He wends his way to the little - public-house in the dirty back street where the Lodge is - held, and arriving shortly before eight o’clock, the time - fixed for the opening of business, finds a number of his - fellow-workmen congregated round the bar discussing the - evening’s programme and trade matters generally. The men - come in by twos and threes, and he notices that, with few - exceptions, all are neat and clean, having been home and - had their tea and a wash in the interval between then and - working hours.[593] The officers of the Lodge arriving, are - greeted with a general recognition as they pass upstairs - to prepare the club-room for the business of the evening. - Shortly after the hour fixed for commencing, the President - takes the chair, and, as the men slowly straggle up into the - room, rises and declares the meeting open for business. The - club-room is a long, low-ceilinged room which constitutes - the first floor of the public-house. Down the centre of - the room runs a trestle table with forms along the sides, - on which the members are seating themselves. At the top - a shorter table is placed crosswise, forming a letter - T, and here sits the group of officers. The room is - decorated with the framed “emblems” of various trade - societies, interspersed with gilt mirrors and advertising - almanacs. At one end is a throne and canopy, showing that it - is used also as a club-room by one or other of the friendly - societies which still maintain the curious old rites of - their orders. In a corner stands a cottage pianoforte, - indicating that the room is also used for concerts, - sing-songs, and convivial gatherings. - - The first business of the evening is the payment of - contributions. The Secretary, aided by the “Check - Secretary,” the Money Steward, and Treasurer, receives - the subscriptions from the men as they come, one by one, - up the room, enters the payment in the books, and signs - the members’ cards. In many cases women and children come - to pay the subscriptions of their husbands or fathers; and - he will feel a sense of shame at the idea of these having - to come through the public bar to perform their errand. - When the subscriptions are all received, the unemployed - members, and the wives or other relatives of those who are - sick, present themselves to draw their respective benefits. - General inquiries are made after the health and hopes are - expressed for the speedy recovery of the sick ones; and the - sums due are paid out by the officials with considerable - formality. During these proceedings there has been a - constant hum of conversation in the room, and a continual - running in and out of members to the bar, and back again. - But all this now comes to an end. The President rises and - calls for order. Strangers and non-members are cleared out - of the room. The doorkeeper takes up his position inside - the door to watch the comers-in and goers-out; and the - drink-stewards make ready to attend to the members’ wants, - and act as waiters, in order to dispense with strangers - in the room, and to prevent any unnecessary bustle and - confusion.[594] The business of the evening opens with - the reading of the minutes of the last meeting. Questions - concerning the enforcement of some resolution, or the result - of some instructions given to the officers, are asked - and answered, and the minutes are confirmed by a show of - hands and signed by the President. Then letters received, - and copies of those despatched by the Secretary since the - last meeting are read. These include letters from the - General Office interpreting some rule as to the payment of - benefits, from the District Committee giving notice of a - trade regulation, and from other branch secretaries asking - for particulars as to the character and ability of some - candidate for admission. Then follows the excitement of the - evening--the report of delegates appointed to interview - an employer on some grievance. They will explain how they - waited on Mr. So-and-so, who at first refused to see them, - and ordered them off his premises; how presently he came - round and listened to their complaints; how he denied the - existence of the alleged evil, and demanded the names of - the men who complained, which the delegates of course - refused to give; and how at last, after much dispute, he - temporised, and gave them to understand that the grievance - would be remedied. Then the members present from the shop - in question are called upon to explain what improvements, if - any, have been made in the matters of which they complained. - If their report is satisfactory, the subject is allowed to - drop. If not, there is a heated discussion. Our friend, - seated with the young fellows at the back of the room, finds - himself clamouring for a strike. The officers do their best - to hold the meeting back. They suggest that the District - Committee[595] ought first to be communicated with; or if - the grievance is one against which the General Rules or - District Bye-laws permit the men to strike without superior - sanction, they urge further negotiations with the employer. - The discussion is eventually closed by an order to the - Secretary to write to the District Committee for advice, or - by an instruction to the delegates to again interview the - offending employer, and if he “bamboozles” them a second - time, to strike the shop. - - This excitement over, the interest of the meeting flags, - and members drop out one by one. Perhaps there is an appeal - by a member to whom the Committee has refused some benefit - to which he thinks himself entitled. Against this decision - he appeals to his fellow-members in Lodge assembled, urging - his long membership, his wife and family, and his work - for the Union as reasons why he should be leniently dealt - with. Eloquent speeches are made on his behalf by personal - friends. But the Committee and the officers declare that - they have acted according to the Rules, and remind the - Lodge that if they are ordered to pay an illegal benefit, - the Central Office will disallow the amount, and order - the members to repay it to the Union funds. With a strong - Committee the vote will be against the man; with a weak one, - and especially if the man is a jovial and “free-and-easy” - comrade, his friends will turn up in sufficient numbers - to carry the appeal. It being now ten o’clock, all other - business--such as resolutions proposed by individual - members--gets adjourned to the next club night, and the - President declares the Lodge duly closed. The Secretary - hastens home, to sit up burning midnight oil in balancing - the books, entering the minutes, making reports to the - Central Executive or District Committee, and writing the - letters ordered by the meeting. - - The Lodge meeting soon plays an important part in the life - of our active-minded artisan. He feels that he is taking - part in the actual government of a national institution. - Special meetings are held to discuss and vote on questions - submitted by the Executive to the whole body of the members, - such as the alteration of a rule, the election of some - central official, or a grant in aid of another trade. But - primarily the Lodge is his Court of Appeal against all - industrial tyranny, a court in which he is certain of a - ready and sympathetic hearing. There he takes complaints of - fines and deductions, of arbitrary foremen, of low piecework - prices--of anything, in short, which affects his interest or - comfort as a wage-earner. - - The tendency of this ever-present power and actuality of - the Lodge and its officials is to overshadow in the mind - of the member the larger functions and responsibilities - of the Central Executive. To him they are something far - away in the vast outside world, and their powers are very - vague and shadowy. They are, however, brought home to him - in some of the incidents of his Trade Union and working - life. There is, for instance, the “emblem” of his Society, - a large and generally highly-coloured representation of the - various processes of the trade in which he is engaged, often - excellently designed and executed. This, purchased for a - few shillings soon after his admission to the Society, or - more probably at the time of his marriage, is hung, gaily - framed, in his front parlour. On it is recorded his name, - age, and date of admission to the Society, and it bears - the signatures, and perhaps the portraits, of the general - officers. To him it is some slight connecting link with the - other men in his trade and Society. To his wife it is the - charter of their rights in case of sickness, want of work, - or death. As such it is an object of pride in the household, - pointed out with due impressiveness to friends and casual - visitors. - - But more important is the Monthly Circular, now a recognised - feature in most of the large Unions. Here the member feels - himself brought into direct contact with the outside world - of his trade. Has he been ill or out of work and drawn - relief, his name and the amount of money drawn are duly - recorded. If he has not himself been so unfortunate, he - here learns the names of those who have, and perhaps hears - from this source for the first time of such a calamity - having befallen some friend in another and distant town. - Here also are reports of the state of trade and the number - of unemployed in every place where a branch of the Society - exists; of alterations in hours and rates of wages effected - during the month, by friendly negotiations or by a lock-out - or a strike. Finally, there are letters from lodges or - from individual members on all sorts of topics, including - spicy abuse of the Central Executive, and tart rejoinders - from the General Secretary. As his interest in the Society - increases, our artisan himself writes letters to the - Circular, explaining some grievance, suggesting a remedy for - some grievance already explained, or answering criticisms - upon the conduct and policy of his District Committee or his - Lodge. - - In addition to the Monthly Circular there is the Annual - Report. This is a large volume of some hundreds of pages, - containing, in a summarised form, the progress and doings of - the Society for the whole year, with the total income and - expenditure and the balance in hand, the proportionate cost - of all the various benefits, a statement of the accounts - of each branch, and many other figures of interest and - importance. He feels a glow of pride as the growth of his - Society in funds and members is recorded, and perhaps also a - longing to see his own name printed as one of the officers - of one of the Lodges, and thus be even distantly associated - with the success of the Society. - - But after a year or two of the comparative freedom of - the journeyman’s life he begins to feel strongly the - desire for change and adventure. The five or seven years’ - apprenticeship through which he has just passed has kept - him chained in one place, and a period of unrest now - begins. Moreover, he has heard as a commonplace among his - fellow-workmen, that no man knows his own ability or what - he is worth until he has worked in more towns or shops than - one. They have also expatiated to him upon the delights of - “the road”; and finally he determines to take advantage of - his membership of the Society to go on tramp on the first - opportunity. He is therefore not altogether displeased when - some temporary contraction in his trade causes his employer - to turn him adrift, and thus gives him a right to draw his - travelling card.[596] - - At the close of his first day’s tramp, footsore and weary, - he seeks the public-house at which the local Lodge is - held, and having refreshed himself, starts off to find the - Secretary. To him he presents his tramp card. When, on - examination, the dates upon it are found to be correct, - and the distance traversed is sufficient to entitle the - traveller to the full benefit of sixpence and a bed, the - Secretary writes an order to the publican to provide this - relief. The date and place are then clearly marked on the - travelling card, and the Secretary retains the corresponding - half of the receipt form to serve as his own voucher for the - expenditure. Should he know of any suitable situation vacant - in the town, he will tell the tramp to repair there in the - morning. But if no such post offers itself, the wayfarer - must start off again in the morning, in time to arrive - before night at the next Lodge town, at which alone he can - receive any further relief. - - If our friend takes to the road during the summer months - and finds a situation within a few weeks, he will have had - nothing worse than a pleasant holiday excursion. But if his - tramp falls during the winter, or if he has to remain for - months on the move, he will be in a pitiable plight. Whilst - he is in the thickly-populated industrial districts, where - “relief towns” in his trade are frequently to be met with, - he finds his supper and bed at the end of every fifteen or - twenty miles. But as he one by one exhausts these towns, - he will, by the rule forbidding relief from the same Lodge - at less than three months’ interval, be compelled to go - further afield. He presently finds the Lodges so far apart - that it is impossible for a man to walk from one to another - in a day. The relief afforded becomes inadequate for his - maintenance, and many are the shifts to which he has to - resort for food and shelter. Finally, after a specified - period, usually three months, his card “runs out”; he has - become “box-fast,” and can draw no more from the Society - until he has found a job, and resumed payment of his - contributions. - - But our artisan, being an able-bodied young craftsman, has - found a job. Settled in a new town, his tramping for the - present at an end, and himself recovered from the evils, - moral and physical, which that brief period has wrought upon - him, his interest in his Society revives. He attends his new - Lodge regularly, at first because it is the only place in - the town where he meets friends. Presently his old desire - to figure as an official of the Society returns to him. He - cultivates the acquaintance of the officers of the Lodge, - mixes freely with the members, and takes every occasion to - speak on exciting questions. At the next election he is - appointed to some minor post, such as auditor or steward. He - makes himself useful and popular, and in the course of the - year finds himself a member of the Lodge Committee. - - From membership of the Branch Committee he succeeds to - the position of Branch Secretary, the highest to which his - fellow-tradesmen in his own town can elect him. On the night - of the election he is somewhat surprised to find that there - is no keen competition for the post. The pay of a Branch - Secretary is meagre enough--from ten to fifty shillings per - quarter. Most of his evenings and part of his Sundays are - taken up with responsible clerical work. Besides attending - the fortnightly or weekly committee meeting, lasting from - eight to eleven or twelve at night, he has to prepare the - agenda for the special and general meetings of the members, - conduct the whole correspondence of the Lodge, draw up - reports for the District Committee and Central Executive, - keep the accounts, and prepare elaborate balance-sheets - for the head office. Even his working day is not free from - official duties. At any moment he may be called out of his - shop to sign the card of a tramp, or he may have to hurry - away in the dinner-hour to prevent members striking a shop - without the sanction of the Lodge. When a deputation is - appointed to wait on an employer, he must ask for a day - off, and act as leading spokesman for the men. All this - involves constant danger of dismissal from his work, or - even boycott by the employers, as an “agitator.” Nor will - he always be thanked for his pains. Before he was elected - to the Secretaryship, he was probably “hail, fellow, well - met” with all the other members. Now he has constantly to - thwart the wishes and interests of individual members. He - must be always advising the Committee to refuse benefits to - members whose cases fall outside the Rules of the Society, - and counselling Lodge meetings to refuse to sanction - strikes. Hence he soon finds little cliques formed among - the malcontents, who bitterly oppose him. He is charged - with injustice, pusillanimity, treachery, and finally with - being a “master’s man.” But after a while, if he holds - steadfastly on his course, and abides strictly to the Rules - of the Society, he finds himself backed up by the Executive - Committee, and gaining the confidence of the shrewd and - sensible workmen who constitute the bulk of the members, and - who can always be called up to support the officers in Lodge - meetings. - - One of the duties or privileges thrust on our Secretary is - that of representing his trade on the local Trades Council. - He is not altogether gratified to find that the Branch has - elected, as his co-delegates, some of the more talkative - and less level-headed of its members. Some older and more - experienced men decline to serve, on the ground that they - have no time, and “have seen enough of that sort of thing.” - Nevertheless our Secretary at the outset takes his position - very seriously. To the young Trade Unionist the Trades - Council represents the larger world of labour politics, and - he has visions of working for the election of labour men on - the local governing bodies, and of being himself run by the - Trades Council for the School Board, or the Town Council, or - perhaps even for Parliament itself. When the monthly meeting - of the Council comes round, he therefore makes a point of - arriving punctually at eight o’clock at the Council Chamber. - He finds himself in the large and gaudily decorated assembly - room, over the bar of one of the principal public-houses of - the town. A low platform is erected at one end, with chairs - and a small table for the Chairman and Secretary. Below - the platform is placed a long table at which are seated - the reporters of the local newspapers, and the rest of the - room is filled with chairs and improvised benches for the - delegates. Here he meets the thirty or sixty delegates of - the other Unions. He notices with regret that the salaried - officials of the Societies which have their headquarters in - the town, and the District Delegates of the great national - Unions who are located in the neighbourhood--the very men - he hoped to meet in this local “Parliament of Labour”--are - conspicuous by their absence. The bulk of the delegates are - either branch officials like himself, or representatives of - the rank and file of Trade Unionism like his colleagues. - The meeting opens quietly with much reading of minutes - and correspondence by the Secretary. Then come the trade - reports, delegate after delegate rising to protest against - some encroachment by an employer, or to report the result - of some negotiations for the removal of a grievance. A few - questions may perhaps be asked by the other delegates, - but there is usually no attempt to go into the merits of - the case, the Council contenting itself with giving a - sympathetic hearing, and applauding any general denunciation - of industrial tyranny. If a strike is in progress, the - delegates of the trade concerned ask for “credentials” - (a letter by the Secretary of the Council commending the - strikers to the assistance of other trades), and even appeal - for financial assistance from the Council itself. This - brings about difference of opinion. The whole Council has - applauded the strike, but when it comes to the question of - a levy, the representatives of such old-established Unions - as the Compositors, Engineers, Masons, and Bricklayers get - up and explain that the Rules of their Societies do not - allow them to pledge themselves. On the other hand, the - enthusiastic delegates from a newly-formed Labour Union - promptly promise the assistance of their Society, and - vehemently accuse the Council of apathy. Then follows a - still more serious business--a complaint by one of the - several Unions in the engineering or building trades that - the members of a rival Union have lately “black-legged” - their dispute. The delegates from the aggrieved Society - excitedly explain how their men had been withdrawn from a - certain firm which refused to pay the Standard Rate, and - how, almost immediately afterwards, the members of the - other Society had accepted the employer’s terms and got - the work. Then the delegates from the accused Society with - equal warmth assert that the work in question belonged - properly to their branch of the trade; that the members of - the other Society had no business to be doing it at all; - and that as the employers offered the rates specified in - their working rules, they were justified in accepting the - job. At once an angry debate ensues, in which personal - charges and technical details are bandied from side to side, - to the utter bewilderment of the rest of the members. In - vain the Chairman intervenes, and appeals for order. At - last the Council, tired of the wrangle, rids itself of the - question by referring it to a Committee, and an old member - of the Council whispers to our friend a fervent hope that - the Committee will shirk its job, and never meet, since its - report would please neither party, and probably lead to the - retirement of one if not both trades from the Council. - - The next business brings the Council back to harmony. The - delegates appointed at the last meeting to urge on the - Town Council or the School Board the adoption of a “fair - wage clause” now give in their report. They describe how - Mr. Alderman Jones, a local politician of the old school, - talked about wanton extravagance and the woes of the poor - ratepayer; and the Council will be moved to laughter at - their rejoinder, “How about the recent increase in the - salary of your friend, the Town Clerk?” They repeat, with - pleasure, the arguments they used on the deputation, and - their final shot, a bold statement as to the number of - Trade Unionists on the electoral register, is received with - general applause. But in spite of all this they report that - Alderman Jones has prevailed, and the Town Council has - rejected the clause. Our new member notes with satisfaction - that the Council is not so ineffective a body as he has been - fearing. After a good deal of excited talk the Secretary is - instructed to write to the local newspapers explaining the - position, and calling attention to the example set by other - leading municipalities. The members, new and old alike, - undertake to heckle the retiring Town Councillors who voted - against the interests of labour; and the best men of the - Council, to whichever political party they belong, join in - voting for a Committee to run Trade Union candidates against - their most obdurate opponents. - - Passing, rejecting, or adjourning resolutions, of which - notice has been given at a previous meeting, takes up the - remainder of the evening. First come propositions submitted - on behalf of the Executive Committee, composed of five or - seven of the leading men in the Council. The Secretary - explains that an influential member of the Trade Union - Congress Parliamentary Committee has intimated that if they - want a certain measure passed into law, they had better - carry a particular resolution, which is thereupon read to - the meeting. It is briefly discussed, carried unanimously, - and handed to the reporters, the Secretary being ordered - to send copies to the local M.P.’s and possibly to the - Cabinet Minister concerned. Resolutions by other members are - not so easily disposed of. The delegate from the Tailors, - a fanatical adherent of the Peace Society, proposes a - strong condemnation of increased armaments, ending up with - a plea for international arbitration. But the engineer - and the shipwright vehemently object to the resolution as - impracticable, and one of them moves an amendment calling - on the Government to find employment for hardworking - mechanics in times of industrial depression by building - additional ironclads. The Socialist Secretary of a Labour - Union submits a resolution calling on the Town Council to - open municipal workshops for the unemployed--a project - which is ridiculed by the Conservative compositor (who is - acting also as one of the reporters). During the debate the - Chairman, Secretary, and Executive Committeemen lie low and - say nothing, allowing the discussion to wander away from - the point. The debate drops, and if a vote on a popular - but impracticable resolution becomes imminent, some “old - Parliamentary hand” suggests its adjournment to a fuller - meeting. For the next few evenings our friend finds all this - instructive and interesting enough. Before the year is up - he has realised that, except on such simple issues as the - Fair Wages Clause, and the payment of Trade Union wages by - the local authorities, the crowded meeting of tired workmen, - unused to official business, with knowledge and interest - strictly limited to a single industry, is useless as a - Court of Appeal, and ineffective even as a joint committee - of the local trades. At the best the Council becomes the - instrument, or, so to speak, the sounding-board, of the - experienced members, who are in touch with the Trade Union - Parliamentary leaders, and who (at a pay of only a few - shillings a quarter) conduct all the correspondence and - undertake all the business which the Trade Unions of the - town have really in common. - - But our friend receives a sudden check in his career. One - pay-day he is told by his employer that he will not be - wanted after next week. It may be that he has had some - words with the foreman over a spoilt job, or that he has - been making himself too prominent in Trade Union work, or - simply that his employer’s business is slack. But whatever - the cause he is discharged, and must seek employment - elsewhere. At once he declares himself on the funds of the - Society, sending notice to the President and Treasurer of - his position and signing the out-of-work book at the club - daily, like any other unemployed member. For the next two - or three weeks he tramps from shop to shop in his district - seeking work, and eagerly scans the daily papers in hopes - of finding an advertisement of some vacant situation. Then - comes the news from a friend of a vacancy in a distant town. - He resigns his position as Secretary of the Lodge, draws - the balance of out-of-work pay due to him, and departs - regretfully from the town where he has made so many friends - to start upon a new situation. - - On arriving at his new place he is surprised to find that - there is no branch of his Society in the town. There are a - few odd members, but not enough to support a branch--hence - they send their contributions to the nearest Lodge town. - As soon as he has settled down he takes steps to alter - this. In his own workshop he argues and cajoles the men - into a belief in Trade Unionism. At night he frequents - their favourite haunts, and by dint of argument, promises - and appeals, finally gets enough of them to agree to join - a Lodge to make it worth while opening one in the town. He - forthwith communicates with the Central Executive Committee, - and they, knowing his previous work, appoint him Secretary - _pro tem._ A meeting of all the trade is then called by - handbills sent round to the shops, and posted in the men’s - favourite public-houses. On the eventful night the General - Secretary and perhaps another Central officer, come down - to the town. They bring a Branch box containing sets of - Rules and cards of membership, a full set of cash and other - books, a number of business papers, and even a bottle of - ink--in fact all that is needful to carry on the business - of a Lodge. The room will be crammed full of the men in the - trade interested in hearing what the Society is and what it - wants to do. Speeches are made, the advances of wages and - reduction of hours gained by the Society are enumerated, the - friendly benefits are explained, and instances are given - of men disabled from working at their trade, receiving £100 - accident benefit from the Society, and setting up in a small - business of their own. Then the General Secretary opens the - Lodge, and entrance fees and contributions are paid by a - large number of those present, and the meeting changed from - a public to a private one. Officers are elected, our friend - again finds himself chosen as Secretary, a friendly foreman - accepts the post of Treasurer, while the other old members - present at the meeting are elected to the remaining offices. - Addresses from the Central officials start the Lodge on its - way, and the meeting breaks up at a late hour with cheers - for the Society and the General Secretary. - - Within the next three months the Branch Secretary finds that - all that glitters is not gold. At least half of those who - joined at the beginning have lapsed, and at times the branch - looks like collapsing altogether. But by dint of much hard - work, persuasion, and perhaps the formation of friendships, - it is kept together until a time of prosperity for the - trade arrives. This is the Secretary’s opportunity to make - or break his Lodge, and being a wise man he takes it. He - puts a resolution on the agenda paper for the next Lodge - meeting in favour of an advance of wages, or a reduction of - hours, or both. The next meeting carries it unanimously, - and it at once becomes the talk of the whole trade in the - town. Men flock down and join the club in order to assist - and participate in the proposed improvements. Then the - Secretary appeals to the General Executive for permission - to ask for the advance. They consider the matter seriously, - and want to know what proportion of the men in the town are - members, and how long they have been so; what is the feeling - of the non-Unionists towards the proposed movement, and - whether there is any local fund to support non-Unionists - who come out, or buy off tramps and strangers who come to - the town during the probable strike. All these questions - being more or less satisfactorily answered, permission to - seek the improvement is at length given, and now comes the - Secretary’s first taste of “powder” in an official capacity. - - During this agitation the number of members in the Lodge - has been steadily increasing, until it comes to include a - good proportion of the trade in the town. The non-Unionists - have also been approached as to their willingness to assist - the movement, and the bulk of them readily agree to come - out with the Society men if these undertake to maintain - them. A special Committee is formed to conduct the “Advance - Movement,” including delegates from the non-Society shops - prepared to strike. A local levy is put on the members of - the Lodge, in order to form a fund from which to pay such - strike expenses as may not be charged to the Union. At - length all is ready, and our Secretary is instructed to - serve notices upon all the employers in the town, asking for - the advance in wages or the reduction of hours claimed by - the men. - - Meanwhile the employers have not been idle. They have - heard rumours of the coming storm and have met together - and consulted as to what should be done, and have formed - a more or less temporary association to meet the attack. - Upon receiving the notices from the men’s Secretary they - invite a deputation of the men to wait upon them and discuss - the matter. To this the men of course agree, and on the - appointed night the Secretary and the “Advance Committee” - appear at the joint meeting. The leading employer having - been elected to the chair, asks the men to open their case - for an advance of wages and reduction of hours. This they - do, emphasising the facts that wages are lower and hours - longer here than in the same trade in neighbouring towns; - that the cost of living is increasing; and that some men - are always unemployed who would be absorbed by the proposed - change. The employers retort by urging the smallness of - their profits and the difficulty of securing orders in - competition with other towns where wages are even less than - they are here; and also by urging that the cost of living - is decreasing and not increasing--an assertion which they - support by statements of the price of various articles - at different times compared with the present. The men’s - Secretary has as much as he can do to keep his men in order. - The new members--the “raw heads” of the Committee--are - almost hoping that the employers will not agree, for to them - a strike means merely a few weeks’ “play,” at the expense - of the Union. And the ordinary workman is so little used - to discussing with his adversaries that any statement of - the other side of the case is apt to arouse temper. The - employers, too, unaccustomed to treating with their men, - and still feeling it somewhat derogatory to do so, are not - inclined to mince matters, or smooth over difficulties. - Hence the meeting becomes noisy; discussion turns into - recrimination; and the conference breaks up in confusion. - - Meanwhile the Central Executive has watched with anxiety - the approach of a dispute which will involve the Union in - expense, and end possibly in defeat. The General Secretary, - accompanied by one of the Executive Council, appears on the - scene, and endeavours to mediate. But as the town has been - a non-Union one, the employers refuse to see any but their - own workmen, and thus lose the chance of the very moderate - compromise which the General Secretary is almost sure to - offer. This slight to their Official naturally incenses the - local Unionists, and on the following Saturday, when their - notices have expired, they “pick up” their tools as they - leave the works and the strike is begun. - - Then follows a period of intense excitement and hard - work for the men’s officials. The employers advertise in - all directions for men at “good wages” to take “steady - employment,” and counter advertisements are inserted - giving notice of the strike. All the streets are closely - picketed by men, who take it in turns to do duty in twos - and threes outside a factory or workshop for so many hours - each day; pickets are sent to meet all trains, and by dint - of promises, bribes, and appeals to their “manliness and - brotherhood,” workmen who have been attracted to the town by - the employers’ advertisements are induced to depart. Perhaps - a few “blacks” may escape their vigilance and get into some - shop. Every time they come out they are followed and urged - to abandon their dirty calling and join their fellows in the - good work. Some give way, and their fares are at once paid - to the place whence they came. Subscription boxes and sheets - are sent out to raise the funds necessary for the extra - expenses, which must not be taken from the Society’s funds. - If the strike drags on for many weeks delegates go from - town to town addressing meetings of Trade Unions and Trades - Councils soliciting aid, and usually succeed in getting a - good deal more than their own expenses, the surplus being - remitted to the Lodge. There are the non-Unionists who have - come out on strike to be supported; “blacks” to bribe and - send away; printing and delivering of bills and placards to - be paid for, and numerous other subsidiary expenses to be - met, all of which must be defrayed from the local fund. - - But even the most protracted strike comes to an end. If - trade is good and the men are well organised, the employers - will not have succeeded in getting any good workmen, and not - even sufficient bad ones, to continue their works, and their - plant and reputation are alike suffering from unskilled - workmanship. So one by one they give in, and accept the - men’s terms, until at length the men are again at work. On - the other hand, if business be slack the strike may end in - another way. One by one the employers obtain enough men - of one sort or another to carry out what orders they have - in hand. As week succeeds week the strikers lose heart, - until at last the weak ones suddenly return to work at the - old terms. The officers and committeemen and a few dogged - fighters may remain out, hoping against hope that something - will turn up to make the employers give in. But the Central - Executive will probably object to the continued drain of - strike-pay, and may presently declare the strike closed. - This will cause some little resentment among the local - stalwarts, but the strike-pay being now at an end, those - who are still unemployed must tramp off to another town in - search of work. - - If the strike results thus in failure the newly formed - Lodge will soon disappear and the men in the trade remain - unorganised until the advent of another leader of energy and - ability. But if it has resulted in victory the prosperity of - the Lodge is assured. The workmen in the trade flock to the - support of an institution which has shown such practically - beneficial results. Meanwhile the Secretary, to whom most of - the credit is due, begins to be known throughout the trade, - and spoken of as the man who changed such and such a place - from a non-Union to a Union town. Short eulogistic notices - of his career appear in the Monthly Circular, and thus the - way is paved for his future advancement. - - Having thus succeeded in organising his own trade, he finds - an outlet for his energies in doing the same for others - in his town. Perhaps there are other branches of his own - industry without organisations, and if so he begins among - them exactly the same work as he pursued among his own - members. When the time is ripe a meeting is called and a - branch of the society, which embraces the particular body of - men, opened, and he accepts the post of President to help it - along until its members have gained some experience. Then he - will begin again with other trades and go through the same - process, and thus in the course of time succeed in turning - a very bad Trade Union town into a very good one. When that - is accomplished he determines to start a Trades Council. - He attends meetings of all the Unions and branches in the - town and explains the objects and urges the importance of - such a body. He writes letters to the local Press, and - agitates among his own personal following until his object - is well advertised. Finally a joint meeting of delegates - from the majority of the local societies and branches is - got together. The Rules of a neighbouring Trades Council - are discussed and adopted, and at length a Trades Council - is definitely established, if only by the two or three - branches which he has himself organised. He is of course - appointed its Secretary, and gradually by hard work, and - perhaps by successfully agitating for some concession to - labour by the Town Council or local School Board, he wins - the approval of all the societies, and the Council then - becomes a thoroughly representative body. As Secretary of - a newly established Trades Council he becomes rapidly well - known. He is in constant request as a speaker in both his - own and neighbouring towns; and he is sent to the Trade - Union Congress and instructed to move some resolution of - his own drafting. But as the work gradually increases, our - friend, who has all the time to be earning a livelihood at - his trade, finds that he must choose between the Trades - Council and his own Lodge. Through the Trades Council he - can become an influential local politician, and may one - day find himself the successful “Labour Candidate” for - the School Board or the Town Council. But this activity - on behalf of labour generally draws him ever further away - from the routine duties of Branch Secretary of a National - Society, and he will hardly fail to displease some of the - members of his own trade. He may therefore prefer to resign - his Secretaryship of the Trades Council, take a back seat in - politics, and spend all his leisure in the work of his own - Society, with the honourable ambition of eventually becoming - one of its salaried officers. In this case he not only - conducts the business of his Lodge with regularity, but also - serves on the District Committee. Presently, as the most - methodical of its members, he will be chosen to act as its - Secretary, and thus be brought into close communication with - the Central Executive, and with other branches and districts. - - All this constitutes what we may call the non-commissioned - officer’s service in the Trade Union world, carried out - in the leisure, and paid for by the hour, snatched from a - week’s work at the bench or the forge. But now the fame - of our Secretary and his steady work for the Society have - spread throughout the district, and when it is decided to - appoint a District Delegate with a salary of £2 or £2: 10s. - per week, many branches request him to run for the post. - His personal friends and supporters among them raise an - election fund for him, and for a few weeks he dashes about - his district and attends all the branch meetings to urge his - candidature upon the members. Finally the votes are taken - in the Lodges by ballot and sent to the general office to - be counted, and he finds himself duly elected to the post. - Again he moves his home, this time to some central town, - so that he can visit any part of his district with ease - and rapidity. His district stretches over three or four - counties, and includes many large industrial centres, and he - finds himself fully occupied. Let us see how he spends his - days, and what is the work he will do for his Society. - - Every morning he receives a whole batch of letters on - Society business. The General Secretary orders him - immediately to visit one of the branches in his district and - inspect the books, a report having reached the office of - some irregularity. A Branch Secretary telegraphs for him to - come over at once and settle a dispute which has broken out - with an important firm. Another writes asking him to summon - a mass meeting of the trade in the district to take a vote - for or against a general strike against some real or fancied - grievance. The Secretary of the Employers’ Association - in another town fixes an appointment with him to discuss - the piecework prices for a new sort of work. Finally the - Secretary of his District Committee instructs him to attend - a joint meeting which they have arranged with the District - Committee of another Union to settle a difficult question of - overlap or apportionment of work between the members of the - two societies. - - Our friend spends the first half an hour at his - correspondence, fixes a day for a special audit of the - accounts of the suspected branch, drops a hasty line to the - General Secretary informing him of his whereabouts for the - next few days, and writes to the Branch Secretary strongly - objecting to the proposed mass meeting to vote on a strike - on the ground that “an aggregate meeting is an aggravated - meeting,” and appointing, instead, a day for a small - conference of representatives from the different branches. - Then he is off to the railway station so as to arrive - promptly on the scene of the dispute just reported to him. - Here he finds that a number of his members have peremptorily - struck work and are hanging about the gates of the works. - He will half persuade, half order them to instantly resume - work, whilst he goes into the office to seek the employer. - If it is a “Society shop” in a good Trade Union district - he is heartily welcomed, and the matter is settled in a - few minutes. The next train takes him to the neighbouring - town, where he spends two or three hours with the Employers’ - Secretary, using all his wits to manipulate the new prices - in such a way as at least to maintain, if not to increase, - the weekly earnings of his members. In the evening he has - to be back at the centre of his district, thrashing out, in - the long and heated debate of a joint meeting, the difficult - question of whose job the work in dispute between the two - Unions properly is, and what constitutes a practical line - of demarcation between the two trades. Thus he rushes about - from day to day, finishing up at night with writing reports - on the state of trade, organisation, and other matters to - the Executive Committee sitting at the headquarters of his - Union. - - He has now been for many years the devoted servant of his - fellow-workmen, re-elected at the end of each term to his - post of District Delegate. Upon the removal by resignation - or death of the General Secretary he is pressed on all - sides to put up for the post. The members of the District - Committee, and all the secretaries of the local branches, - urge on him his fitness, and the advantages the district - will derive from his election as General Secretary. Again - a committee of his friends and supporters raises a fund - to enable him to travel over the whole country and visit - and address all the branches of the Society. Meanwhile the - Executive Committee prepares for the election of the new - General Secretary. At the removal of the late head officer - they at once meet to appoint one of their number to carry - on the duties _pro tem._, and to issue notices asking for - nominations for the post (generally confined to members who - have been in the Society a certain number of years and are - not in arrears with their subscriptions). Printed lists of - candidates are forthwith sent to the branches in sufficient - numbers to be distributed to all the members. A ballot-box - is placed in the club-room, the election standing over at - least two meeting nights in order to allow every member full - opportunity to record his vote. The boxes are then sent from - the branches to the central office, where the members of the - Executive Committee count the papers and declare the result. - - Our District Delegate having been declared duly elected - to the post of General Secretary is again compelled to - remove. This time it is to one of the great cities--London, - Manchester, or Newcastle--the headquarters of his Society. - He is now entitled to a salary ranging from £200 to £300 per - annum, and has attained the highest office to which it is in - the power of his fellow-tradesmen to appoint him. We will - there leave him to enjoy the dignity and influence of the - position, to struggle through the laborious routine work of - a central office, and to discover the new difficulties and - temptations which beset the life of the general officer of a - great Trade Union. - -The foregoing narrative gives us, in minute detail, the inner life of -Trade Union organisation of thirty years ago. But this picture, on -the face of it, represents the career of an officer, not a private -soldier, in the Trade Union army. Nor must it be supposed that the -great majority of the million and a half Trade Unionists rendered, even -as privates, any active service in the Trade Union forces. Only in the -crisis of some great dispute do we find the branch meetings crowded, -or the votes at all commensurate with the total number of members. -At other times the Trade Union appears to the bulk of its members -either as a political organisation whose dictates they are ready to -obey at Parliamentary and other elections, or as a mere benefit club -in the management of which they do not desire to take part. In the -long intervals of peace during which the constitution of the Society -is being slowly elaborated, the financial basis strengthened, the -political and trade policy determined, less than a half or perhaps even -a tenth of the members will actively participate in the administrative -and legislative work. Practically the whole of this minority will, -at one time or another, serve on branch committees or in such minor -offices as steward, trustee, auditor or sick-visitor. These are the -members who form the solid nucleus of the branch, always to be relied -on to maintain the authority of the committee. From their ranks come -the two principal branch officers, the President and the Secretary, -upon whom the main burden of administration falls. Though never elected -for more than one year, these officers frequently remain at their posts -for many terms in succession; and their offices are in any case filled -from a narrow circle of the ablest or most experienced members. - -Besides the active soldiers in the Trade Union ranks, to be counted by -hundreds of thousands, we had therefore, in 1892, a smaller class of -non-commissioned officers made up of the Secretaries and Presidents of -local Unions, branches and district committees of national societies, -and of Trades Councils. Of these we estimate that there were, in -1892, over 20,000 holding office at any one time. These men form the -backbone of the Trade Union world, and constitute the vital element -in working-class politics. Dependent for their livelihood on manual -labour, they retain to the full the workman’s sense of insecurity, -privation, and thwarted aspirations. Their own singleness of purpose, -the devotion with which they serve their fellows in laborious -offices with only nominal remuneration, and their ingenuous faith in -the indefinite improvement of human nature by education and better -conditions of life, all combine to maintain their enthusiasm for every -kind of social reform. Thus they are always open to new ideas, provided -these are put forward in a practical shape, by men whose character and -intelligence they respect. This class of non-commissioned officers it -is which has, in the main, proved the progressive element in the Trade -Union world, and which actually determines the trend of working-class -thought. Nevertheless these men are not the real administrators -of Trade Union affairs except in the little local Unions, run by -men working at their trade, which are fast disappearing. In the -great national and county Unions the branch or lodge officials are -strictly bound down by detailed rules, and are allowed practically no -opportunity of acting on their own initiative. The actual government of -the Trade Union world rests exclusively in the hands of a class apart, -the salaried officers of the great societies. - -This Civil Service of the Trade Union world, non-existent in 1850, -numbered, in 1892, between six and seven hundred.[597] Alike in the -modern organisation of industry, and in the machinery of Democratic -politics, it was, even in 1892, taking every day a position of greater -influence and importance. Yet if we may judge from the fact that we -have not met with a single description of this new governing class, -the character of its influence, and even its existence, had hitherto -remained almost unobserved. To understand the part played by this Civil -Service, both in the Trade Union Movement and in the modern industrial -State, the reader must realise the qualities which the position -demands, the temptations to which its holders are exposed, and the -duties which they are called upon to perform. - -The salaried official of a great Trade Union occupies a unique -position. He belongs neither to the middle nor to the working class. -The interests which he represents are exclusively those of the manual -working class from which he has sprung, and his duties bring him into -constant antagonism with the brain-working, property-owning class. On -the other hand, his daily occupation is that of a brain-worker, and -he is accordingly sharply marked off from the typical proletarian, -dependent for his livelihood on physical toil. - -The promotion of a working man to the position of a salaried -brain-worker effects a complete and sudden change in his manner of -life. Instead of working every day at a given task, he suddenly finds -himself master of his own time, with duties which, though laborious -enough, are indefinite, irregular, and easily neglected. The first -requisite for his new post is therefore personal self-control. No -greater misfortune can befall an energetic and public-spirited Trade -Unionist, who on occasions takes a glass too much, than to become -the salaried officer of his Union. So long as he is compelled, at -least nine days out of every fourteen, to put in a hard day’s manual -work at regular hours, his propensity to drink may not prevent him -from being an expert craftsman and an efficient citizen. Such a man, -elected General Secretary or District Delegate, is doomed, almost -inevitably, to become an habitual drunkard. Instead of being confined -to the factory or the mine, he is now free to come and go at his own -will, and drink is therefore accessible to him at all hours. His -work involves constant travelling, and frequent waiting about in -strange towns, with little choice of resort beyond the public-house. -The regular periods of monotonous physical exertion are replaced by -unaccustomed intellectual strain, irregular hours, and times of anxiety -and excitement, during which he will be worried and enticed to drink -by nearly every one he meets. And in addition to this the habitual -drunkenness of a Trade Union official, though it involves discredit, -seldom brings dismissal from his post. No discovery is more astounding -to the middle-class investigator than the good-natured tolerance with -which a Trade Union will, year after year, re-elect officers who are -well known to be hopeless drunkards. The rooted dislike which working -men have to “do a man out of his job” is strengthened, in the case -of a Trade Union official, by a generous recognition of the fact -that his service of his fellows has unfitted him to return to manual -labour. Moreover, the ordinary member of a Trade Union overlooks the -vital importance of skilled and efficient administration. He imagines -that the drunkenness and the consequent incompetency of his General -Secretary means only some delay in the routine work of the office, or, -at the worst, some small malversation of the Society’s funds. So long -as the cash keeps right, and the reports appear at regular intervals, -it seems never to occur to him that it is for lack of headship that his -Society is losing ground in all directions, and forgoing, in one week, -more than a dishonest Secretary could steal in a year. - -Fortunately the almost invariable practice of electing the salaried -officials from the ranks of the non-commissioned officers tends to -exclude the workman deficient in personal self-control. The evenings -and holidays spent in clerical duties for the branch do not attract -the free liver, whilst the long apprenticeship in inferior offices -gives his fellow-workmen ample opportunity of knowing his habits. Thus -we find that the salaried officials of the old-established Unions -are usually decorous and even dignified in their personal habits. An -increasing number of them are rigid teetotalers, whilst many others -resolutely refuse, at the risk of personal unpopularity, all convivial -drinking with their members. - -But another danger--one which would not immediately have occurred -to the middle-class investigator--besets the workman who becomes a -salaried official of his Union. The following extract, taken from the -graphic narrative we have already quoted, explains how it appears to a -thoughtful artisan: - - And now begins a change which may possibly wreck his whole - Trade Union career. As Branch Secretary, working at his - trade, our friend, though superior in energy and ability to - the rank and file of his members, remained in close touch - with their feelings and desires. His promotion to a salaried - office brings him wider knowledge and larger ideas. To the - ordinary Trade Unionist the claim of the workman is that - of Justice. He believes, almost as a matter of principle, - that in any dispute the capitalist is in the wrong and the - workman in the right. But when, as a District Delegate, - it becomes his business to be perpetually investigating - the exact circumstances of the men’s quarrels, negotiating - with employers, and arranging compromises, he begins more - and more to recognise that there is something to be urged - on the other side. There is also an unconscious bias at - work. Whilst the points at issue no longer affect his own - earnings or conditions of employment, any disputes between - his members and their employers increase his work and add - to his worry. The former vivid sense of the privations and - subjection of the artisan’s life gradually fades from his - mind; and he begins more and more to regard all complaints - as perverse and unreasonable. - - With this intellectual change may come a more invidious - transformation. Nowadays the salaried officer of a great - Union is courted and flattered by the middle class. - He is asked to dine with them, and will admire their - well-appointed houses, their fine carpets, the ease and - luxury of their lives. Possibly, too, his wife begins to be - dissatisfied. She will point out how So-and-so, who served - his apprenticeship in the same shop, is now well-off, and - steadily making a fortune; and she reminds her husband - that, had he worked half as hard for himself as he has for - others, he also might now be rich, and living in comfort - without fear of the morrow. He himself sees the truth of - this. He knows many men who, with less ability and energy - than himself, have, by steady pursuit of their own ends, - become foremen, managers, or even small employers, whilst - he is receiving only £2 or £4 a week without any chance of - increase. And so the remarks of his wife and her relations, - the workings of his own mind, the increase of years, a - growing desire to be settled in life and to see the future - clear before him and his children, and perhaps also a little - envy of his middle-class friends, all begin insidiously, - silently, unknown even to himself, to work a change in his - views of life. He goes to live in a little villa in a lower - middle-class suburb. The move leads to his dropping his - workmen friends; and his wife changes her acquaintances. - With the habits of his new neighbours he insensibly adopts - more and more of their ideas. Gradually he finds himself at - issue with his members, who no longer agree to his proposals - with the old alacrity. All this comes about by degrees, - neither party understanding the cause. He attributes the - breach to the influences of a clique of malcontents, or - perhaps to the wild views held by the younger generation. - They think him proud and “stuck-up”, over-cautious and even - apathetic in trade affairs. His manner to his members, - and particularly to the unemployed who call for donation, - undergoes a change. He begins to look down upon them all - as “common workmen”; but the unemployed he scorns as men - who have made a failure of their lives; and his scorn is - probably undisguised. This arouses hatred. As he walks to - the office in his tall hat and good overcoat, with a smart - umbrella, curses not loud but deep are muttered against him - by members loitering in search of work, and as these get - jobs in other towns they spread stories of his arrogance - and haughtiness. So gradually he loses the sympathy and - support of those upon whom his position depends. At last - the climax comes. A great strike threatens to involve the - Society in desperate war. Unconsciously biased by distaste - for the hard and unthankful work which a strike entails, he - finds himself in small sympathy with the men’s demands, and - eventually arranges a compromise on terms distasteful to - a large section of his members. The gathering storm-cloud - now breaks. At his next appearance before a general meeting - cries of “treachery” and “bribery” are raised. Alas! it - is not bribery. Not his morality but his intellect is - corrupted. Secure in the consciousness of freedom from - outward taint, he faces the meeting boldly, throws the - accusation back in their faces, and for the moment carries - his point. But his position now becomes rapidly unbearable. - On all sides he finds suspicion deepening into hatred. The - members, it is true, re-elect him to his post; but they - elect at the same time an Executive Committee pledged to - oppose him in every way.[598] All this time he still fails - to understand what has gone wrong, and probably attributes - it to the intrigues of jealous opponents eager for his - place. Harassed on all sides, distrusted and thwarted by his - Executive Committee, at length he loses heart. He looks out - for some opening of escape, and finally accepting a small - appointment, lays down his Secretaryship with heartfelt - relief and disappears for ever from the Trade Union world. - -The Trade Union official who became too genteel for his post was, -like the habitual drunkard, an exception. The average Secretary or -District Delegate was too shrewd to get permanently out of touch with -his constituents. Nevertheless the working man who became a salaried -officer had to pick his way with considerable care between the dangers -attendant on the _rôle_ of boon companion and those inseparable from -the more reputable but more hated character of the superior person. -To personal self-control he had to add strength and independence of -character, a real devotion to the class from which he had sprung, and -a sturdy contempt for the luxury and “gentility” of those with whom he -was brought in contact. All this remains as true to-day as it was in -1892, but the general advance in education and sobriety, and the steady -tendency towards an assimilation of manners among all classes, render -the contrasts of the social nineteenth century daily less marked. -The Trade Union official of 1920 finds it much easier to maintain a -position of self-respecting courtesy both among his own members and -among the employers, officials, and middle-class politicians with whom -he is brought in contact. - -We break off now to describe, in the following chapters, the -development of the Trade Union Movement from 1890 to 1920, and to -discuss some of its outstanding features. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[577] During the whole course of the nineteenth century the Government -failed to ascertain, with any approach to accuracy, how numerous the -Trade Unionists were. Until the appointment of Mr. John Burnett as -Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade in 1886, no attempt was -made to collect, officially, any information about Trade Unionism. The -five annual volumes published by Mr. Burnett between 1886 and 1891 -contained a fund of information on Trade Union statistics, and the -returns became year by year more complete. The report for 1891 gave -particulars of 431 Unions with 1,109,014 members, whilst that for 1892 -covered a slightly larger total. But, restricted as he was to societies -making returns in the precise form required, Mr. Burnett was unable to -get at many existing Unions, whilst a considerable deduction had to be -made from his total for members counted both in district organisations -and in federations. The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies gave -particulars, in his Report for 1892 (House of Commons Paper, 146--II. -of March 28, 1893), of 1,063,000 members in 442 registered Trade Unions -alone, after deducting organisations which are not Trade Unions, and -many duplicate entries. A large number of societies, such as the -Northern Counties Amalgamated Weavers’ Association, many of the Miners’ -Unions, the English and Scottish Typographical Associations, the United -Kingdom Society of Coachmakers, the Flint Glass Makers, the Yorkshire -Glass Bottle Makers, and others were then (as most of them still are) -unregistered. Thus our own statistics revealed a 50 per cent greater -Trade Union membership than the Government figures. It is difficult to -state with exactness the number of separate organisations included, as -this must depend upon the manner in which federal bodies are regarded. -These exhibit almost infinite variations in character, from the mere -“centre of communication” maintained by the thirty-two completely -independent local societies of Coopers, to the rigid unity of the forty -district organisations which make up the Amalgamated Association of -Operative Cotton-spinners. The number of independent societies may be -reckoned at either 930 or at anything up to 1750, according to the view -taken of federal Unions and federations. We put it approximately at -1100. - -[578] See our _Industrial Democracy_ and _Problems of Modern Industry_: -also _Men’s and Women’s Wages, should they be Equal?_ by Mrs. Sidney -Webb, 1919. - -[579] There were, at this date, altogether about 45,000 Unionists in -Oldham, but of these some 20,000 were women. - -[580] Of these, some 80,000 were women. Fully four-fifths of all the -organised women workers were, at this date, included in the Lancashire -textile Trade Unions. - -[581] Including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which -contained together about 1285 Trade Unionists. - -[582] Included in the above total were 99,650 women in 52 Unions, -distributed among the groups as follows: - -Engineering and Metal Trades 2,850 Building and Furniture Trades 300 -Mining ... Textile Manufactures 80,900 Clothing and Leather Trades -8,650 Printing Trades 400 Miscellaneous Crafts 3,450 Labourers and -Transport Workers 3,100 ------ 99,650 - -We may add that the subsequently published Board of Trade statistics -for 1892, arranged on a slightly different classification, gave the -following totals by industrial groups: - - Metal, Engineering and Shipbuilding 279,534 - Building 157,971 - Mining and Quarrying 315,272 - Textile 204,022 - Clothing 83,299 - Transport 154,947 - Other Trades 307,313 - ---------- - 1,502,358 - -See Report on Trade Unions for 1901 (Cd. 773). - -[583] The Boilermakers claim only to have been established since 1834, -but there is evidence of the existence of the Society in 1832. In -a few other cases, notably those of the Stonemasons, Plumbers, and -Bricklayers, we have been able to carry the history of the organisation -further back than has hitherto been suspected. - -[584] The equally archaic port Unions of the Sailmakers, dating, like -those of the Shipwrights, from the last century, were united in the -Federation of Sailmakers of Great Britain and Ireland (established -1890), with 1250 members. - -[585] Of these the most important were the Steam-Engine Makers’ Society -(established 1824, 6000 members), the Associated Blacksmiths’ Society -(a Scottish organisation, established 1857, 2300 members), the United -Kingdom Pattern Makers’ Association (established 1872, 2500 members), -the National Society of Amalgamated Brassworkers (established 1872, -6500 members), the United Journeymen Brassfounders’ Association of -Great Britain and Ireland (established 1866, 2500 members), and the -United Machine Workers’ Association (established 1844, 2500 members). - -[586] The makers of tin plates had a Union in South Wales (established -1871, and reorganised 1887) which claimed a membership of 10,000. The -National Amalgamated Tinplate Workers’ Association of Great Britain -(established 1876) had 3000 members, and the General Union of Sheet -Metal Workers (established 1861) had 1250 members. - -[587] The Alliance Cabinetmakers’ Association (established 1865, -5500 members) and the National Association of Operative Plasterers -(established 1862, 7000 members). - -[588] The South Wales miners were, at this date, in a transition -state. The Miners’ Federation had gained a considerable following in -Monmouthshire and Glamorgan, but the bulk of the men still adhered -to the Sliding Scale machinery, claiming 36,000 members, for the -maintenance of which a fortnightly contribution was usually deducted -by the employers from the miners’ earnings. The Forest of Dean Miners’ -Association (4000 members) seceded from the Federation in 1893. A small -Miners’ Union (2250 members) at West Bromwich also held aloof. - -[589] The Cotton-spinners’ Union was then composed exclusively of adult -males, the boy “piecers” being brigaded in subordinate organisations. -In the Cotton-weavers and Card-room Operatives’ Unions women formed a -large majority of the members. - -[590] The United Kingdom Society of Coachmakers (established 1834) had -5500 members. The Mutual Association of Coopers (established 1878) was -then a loose federation of old-fashioned local Unions, with about 6000 -members. - -[591] We did not include in the above statistics the Unions in classes -not included among the manual workers. The National Union of Teachers, -established 1870, was, already in 1892, a powerful organisation with -23,000 members. The Telegraph Clerks, Life Assurance Agents, and Shop -Assistants also had Unions varying from 1000 to 5000 members, and there -were two organisations of postal employees. The National Unions of -Clerks and Domestic Servants were less definitely established. There -were also small societies among the London Dock Foremen and Clerks and -the Poplar Ships’ Clerks. - -Nor did we include such essentially benefit societies as the Marine -Engineers’ Union (9500 members) and the United Kingdom Pilots’ -Association, which were composed largely of workmen belonging for trade -purposes to particular Trade Unions. - -[592] The census figures for 1891 merge, for each trade, “workmen, -assistants, apprentices, and labourers.” They do not, for instance, -distinguish between Bricklayers and Bricklayers’ Labourers, who belong -to very different Trade Unions. Under Hosiers or Hatters are included -shop-keepers and their assistants, as well as the manufacturing -operatives. - -[593] Old members often recall the days when the men used to come to -the club straight from work, and “in their dirt.” They frequently -ascribe the orderly behaviour at club meetings at the present time, -as compared with the rowdiness of the past, largely to this change of -habit, itself a direct result of the reduction of the hours of labour. - -[594] Many Unions forbid all drinking during the branch meeting. - -[595] In the great Amalgamated Societies District Committees, composed -of representatives of local branches, are formed in the great -industrial Centres, and decide on the trade policy to be adopted by -their constituent branches. These decisions must be confirmed by the -Central Executive. - -[596] The travelling card, formerly called a “blank,” is now, in most -cases, a small book of receipt forms. On it is recorded the particulars -of his membership, and the date to which he has paid his contributions. -Along with it he receives a complete list of the public-houses which -serve as the Society’s Lodge-houses, and also a list of the names and -addresses of the Lodge secretaries. - -[597] We did not include in this figure a large class of men who are -indirectly paid officials of Trade Unions, such as the checkweighers -among the coal-miners, and the “collectors” among the cotton-weavers, -cardroom-workers, etc. The checkweigher, as we have stated (p. 305), is -elected and paid weekly wages, not by the members of the Trade Union, -but by all the miners in a particular coal-pit. But as Trade Unionism -and the election of a checkweigher are practically coincident, he -frequently serves as lodge secretary, etc. The collectors employed by -certain Trade Unions to go from house to house and collect the members’ -contributions are remunerated by a percentage on their collections. -Though not strictly salaried officials, they serve as Trade Union -recruiting agents, as well as intermediaries between members and -the central office, for complaints, appeals, and the circulation of -information. - -[598] We have here another instance of the deeply rooted objection on -the part of workmen to “sack” their officials. A Society will make the -life of an unpopular official unbearable, and will thwart him in every -direction; but so long as he hangs on he has a safe berth. - - - - -CHAPTER IX - -THIRTY YEARS’ GROWTH - -[1890-1920] - - -In 1892, after more than two centuries of development, Trade Unionism -in the United Kingdom numbered, as we have seen, little more than -a million and a half of members, in a community approaching forty -millions; or about 4 per cent of the census population and including -possibly 20 per cent of the adult male manual-working wage-earners. At -the beginning of 1920, as we estimate, the number of Trade Unionists -is well over six millions, in a community that does not quite reach -forty-eight millions; being over 12 per cent of the census population -and including probably as many as 60 per cent[599] of all the adult -male manual-working wage-earners in the kingdom. With the exception of -slight pauses in 1893-95, 1902-4, and 1908-9, this remarkable growth in -aggregate membership has been continuous during the whole thirty years. - -It is important to notice the continuous acceleration of this increase. -For a few years after the high tide of 1889-92 the aggregate membership -dropped slightly. When in 1897 it started to rise again it took a whole -decade to add half a million to the total of 1892-96. Three years more -brought a second half million: a total growth in the eighteen years -from 1892 to 1910 of about a million, or only about 66 per cent. It -then took only three or four years to add another million; whilst -during the last few years the increase has not fallen far short of half -a million a year, or of the order of 10 per cent per annum. Trade Union -membership has, in fact, doubled in the last eight years.[600] - -No less significant is the fact that the increase has not been confined -to particular industries, particular localities, or a particular -sex, but has taken place, more or less, over the whole field. It is -common in varying degrees to the skilled, the semi-skilled, and the -unskilled workers. Even the women, still much less organised than the -men, have in 1920 five or six times as many Trade Unionists as they -had thirty years previously; and have trebled or quadrupled the then -proportion of Trade Union membership to the adult women manual-working -wage-earners. Financially, too, the Trade Unions have, on the whole, -greatly advanced; and their aggregate accumulated funds in 1920 (apart -from the assets of their Approved Society sections under the National -Insurance Act) exceed fifteen millions sterling; being about ten times -as much as in 1890, and constituting a “fighting fund” unimaginably -greater than ever entered the mind of Gast or Doherty, Martin Jude -or William Newton, or any other Trade Union leader of the preceding -century. It is the stages and incidents of this past thirty years’ -growth that we have now to describe. We shall refer incidentally -to half-a-dozen of the more important strikes of the generation; -but nowadays it is not so much industrial disputes that constitute -landmarks of Trade Union history as the steps, often statutory or -political in character, by which the Movement advances in public -influence and in a recognised participation in the government of -industry. During the present century, at any rate, the action of Trade -Unionism on legislation, and of legislation on Trade Unionism, has been -incessant and reciprocal. The growing strength of the Movement has -been marked by a series of legislative changes which have ratified and -legalised the increasing influence of the wage-earners’ combinations -in the government both of industry and political relations. And every -one of these statutes--notably the Trade Disputes Act of 1906, the -Trade Boards Act of 1908, the Coal Mines Regulation (Eight Hours) Act -of 1908, the National Insurance Act of 1911, the Trade Union Act of -1913, the Corn Production Act of 1917, and the Trade Boards Extension -Act of 1918--have been marked by immediate extensions of Trade Union -membership and improvements in Trade Union organisation in the -industries concerned. - -During the thirty years which have elapsed since 1890 the progress of -the Trade Union Movement, enormous as it has been, has been accompanied -by relatively little change in the internal structure of the several -Unions. What has occurred has been a marked change in the relative -position and influence of the different sections of the Trade Union -world, and even in its composition. Some sections have declined -relatively to others. Even more significant is the vastly greater -consolidation of the Trade Unionism of 1920 than that of 1890. Not only -have many more of the societies grown into organisations of numerical -and financial strength, but there has also been developed, especially -during recent years, an interesting network of federations among Unions -in the same industry, and often among cognate or associated industries, -some of which, undertaking negotiations on a national scale for a whole -industry, have become more influential and important than any but the -largest Unions. - - -THE COTTON OPERATIVES - -The most notable of these changes is the decline in relative influence -of the cotton operatives. It is not that the Unions of Spinners, -Weavers and Card-room Operatives have decreased in membership or -in accumulated funds. On the contrary, they have in the aggregate -during the past thirty years more than doubled their membership; -and the Amalgamated Association of Operative Cotton Spinners, with -three-quarters of a million pounds belonging to its 25,000 members -(exclusive of 26,000 piecers), is, now as formerly, the wealthiest -Trade Union of any magnitude. Nor have these Unions in any sense lost -their hold on their own trade, at least in its central district of -Lancashire and Cheshire, though its outlying areas in Derbyshire, -Yorkshire, and Glasgow are still somewhat neglected. But the growth of -Trade Unionism in other industries has reduced the “Cotton Men” from -ten or twelve to four or five per cent of the Trades Union Congress; -and, owing partly to internal differences, their leading personalities -no longer dominate the counsels of the Movement. The excellent -organisation of the Cotton Trade Unions has been maintained; but it -has not been copied by other trades, and their internecine dissensions -have detracted from the influence of their various federations. There -has been, in fact, during the whole thirty years, only two or three -important incidents. A general strike of cotton-spinners took place in -1893, when all the mills were stopped for no less than twenty weeks. -The employers had demanded a reduction of 10 per cent, whilst the -Trade Union urged that the depression should be met by placing all the -mills on short time. This stoppage was at last brought to an end by -agreement between the employers and the Trade Union, arrived at without -external intervention in a fourteen hours continuous session, which -made the reduction in rates only 7d. in the £ (2.916 instead of 10 -per cent), and included elaborate arrangements for future adjustment -of wages and other differences by mutual discussion without cessation -of work.[601] This “Brooklands Agreement,” which we described in our -_Industrial Democracy_, governed the spinning trade from 1893 to 1905, -but was in the latter year formally terminated by the Unions concerned, -on the ground that the machinery worked both slowly and in such a way -as to hamper the operatives in obtaining the advantage of good times. -Provisional arrangements were made, but these did not prevent a strike -of seven weeks in 1908, which ended in a compromise advantageous to the -operatives. Apart from minor and local disputes, frequently about bad -material or refusal to work with a non-Unionist, there was, however, no -forward movement, notably with regard to the hours of labour. In 1902 -a slight amendment of the Factory Act was secured by agreement with -the employers, by which the factory week was reduced from 56½ to -55½ hours; and with this the trade remained contented. Right down -to 1919 there was no important trade movement, but in February of that -year all sections of the cotton operatives claimed their share in the -general reduction of hours that was proceeding; and, after prolonged -negotiations, 300,000 operatives struck in June. When it was seen that -the stoppage of the mills had become general, the employers gave way -and conceded a Forty-eight Hours week, which has not yet been embodied -in law, accompanied by a 30 per cent advance in piece rates so as to -involve no reduction of earnings. - -The organisation of the cotton operatives, whilst remaining -essentially as described in our _Industrial Democracy_, has gone -on increasing in federal complexity. The various sections--notably -spinners with their attendant piecers; weavers, including winders, -and in some towns also warpers, beamers, and reelers; card, blowing -and ring-room operatives; warp-dressers and warpers; tape-sizers; -beamers, twisters and drawers; and overlookers--continue to be -organised in very autonomous local bodies, which are styled sometimes -societies or associations, and sometimes merely branches, and which -vary in number in the different sections from half-a-dozen to ten -times as many. But these are nearly all doubly united, first in a -federal body for the whole of each section (which may be styled an -amalgamation, a federation, an association, or a General Union of -the section), and also in a local “Cotton Trades Federation” or -“Textile Trades Federation,” which combines the local organisations -of the weavers and sometimes other sections in each of a couple of -dozen geographical districts in Lancashire and Cheshire. The weavers’ -“amalgamation,” and other sections of the “manufacturing” trade, are -further united in the Northern Counties Amalgamated Association, with -175,000 members. Finally, all the federal organisations of the several -sections are brought together in the United Textile Factory Workers’ -Association, which focuses the opinion of all the cotton operatives, -including the Amalgamated Association of Bleachers and Dyers, on those -fundamental issues on which they are conscious of a common and an equal -interest.[602] - -The officials of the Cotton Trade Unions--herein differing from those -of the greatly developed General Union of Textile Workers, which has -organised the (principally women) woollen weavers--have remained -predominantly technicians, devoting themselves almost entirely to the -protection of their members’ trade interests, without taking much part -in the wider interests now largely influencing the Trade Union world, -and showing little sympathy either in larger federations or in the new -spirit. They have been slow to take an active part in the political -development of the Trade Union world, which has manifested itself, as -we shall describe in a subsequent chapter, in the organisation of the -Labour Party. This backwardness may be ascribed, in some degree, to the -political history of Lancashire, where an ancestral Conservatism still -lingers, and where it was possible, even in the twentieth century, for -so prominent a Trade Union official as the late James Mawdsley, the -able leader of the cotton-spinners, to stand for Parliament in 1906 as -a member of the Conservative Party. The influence of an exceptionally -large proportion of Roman Catholics among the cotton operatives must -also be noted. It is a unique feature of the technical officials of -the Cotton Unions that they have frequently been willing to serve -the industry as the paid officials of the Employers’ Associations -when they have been offered higher salaries. Their main duty, whether -acting for the employers or the workmen, is to secure uniformity in -the application of the Collective Agreements as between mill and mill; -and such a duty, it is argued, like that of the valuer or accountant, -is independent of personal opinion or bias, and can be rendered with -equal fidelity to either client. This was not at first resented by the -workmen, who even saw some advantage in the Employers’ Association -being served by officers thoroughly acquainted with the complicated -technicalities as the operatives saw them. There has, however, latterly -been a change of feeling; and though such transfers of services cannot -be prevented (the Employers’ Associations constantly finding the Trade -Union official the best man available), they are now resented.[603] - -It is felt in some quarters that many of the “cotton men” have fallen -out of harmony with the newer currents of thought in the Trade Union -world. It is alleged that they accept too implicitly the employers’ -assumptions, and do not sympathise with aspirations of more fundamental -change than a variation of wages or hours. But the influence of the -“cotton men” is, in the Trade Union world, still important for their -specific contribution, to Trade Union theory and practice, of equal -piecework rates for both sexes; of a rigid refusal to allow an employer -to make the inferiority either of any workers or of any machines that -he chooses to employ an excuse for deductions from the Standard Rate, -and of the utmost possible improvement of machinery so long as the -piecework rates are strictly controlled by Collective Bargaining and -firmly embodied in rigidly enforced lists--points on which many Trade -Unionists who would deem themselves “advanced” have not yet attained -the same level.[604] - - -THE BUILDING TRADES - -The Building Trades have lost their relative position in the Trade -Union world to nearly as great an extent as the cotton operatives. -Thirty years ago their representatives stood for 10 per cent of the -Trades Union Congress, whereas to-day they probably do not represent 3 -per cent of its membership. They have, for a whole generation, supplied -no influential leader. The only large society in this section, the -Amalgamated Society of Carpenters, Cabinetmakers, and Joiners (133,000 -members), has more than doubled its membership since 1890, drawing -in various small societies of cabinetmakers, and carpenters, but not -yet the older General Union of Carpenters and Joiners, which counts -15,000 members; and so, too, has the small but solid United Operative -Plumbers’ Society, with 14,000 members--neither of them, however, -commanding the allegiance of anything like the whole of its craft. The -numerous small societies of painters have, for the most part, drawn -themselves together in the National Amalgamated Society of Operative -House and Ship Painters and Decorators (30,000 members); whilst the -National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association (12,500 members) -represents a union of many small societies. Altogether the Trade Unions -in the building trades, including all the little local societies, have -probably done no more than double their membership of 1892, and the -increase has been relatively least in the most skilled grades. This -is due, in part, to an actual decline in the trade, the total numbers -enumerated in the 1911 census being actually less than in that of 1901, -the fall being even greater down to 1919, when it was estimated that -only seven-twelfths as many men were at work at building as in 1901. - -The story of the Building Trade Unions during the thirty years is -one of innumerable small sectional and local disputes with their -employers--taking the form, during 1913, of repeated sudden strikes in -the London area against non-Unionists, forced on by the “hot-heads” -and discountenanced by the Executive Committees, and leading, in 1914, -to a general lock-out by the London Master Builders’ Association. The -employers demanded that the Trade Unions should penalise members who -struck without authority, and that the Unions should put up a pecuniary -deposit which might be forfeited when a strike occurred in violation -of the Working Rules. They also insisted on each workman signing a -personal agreement to work quietly with non-Unionists, under penalty of -a fine of 20s. In the lock-out that ensued the whole building trade of -the Metropolis was stopped for over six months. Efforts at a settlement -in June were rejected on ballot of the operatives; and whilst signs -of weakening occurred among the operatives the National Federation of -Building Trade Employers had decided on a national lock-out throughout -the kingdom in order to secure the employers’ terms, when the outbreak -of war brought the struggle to an end, and work was resumed practically -on the old conditions. - -During the war, when the bulk of the operatives were enrolled in the -army, and building was restricted to the most urgently needed works, -disputes remained in abeyance. At the beginning of 1918 a new start -was made in the organisation of the industry by the establishment -of a National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, itself a -development from a previous National Building Trades Council, in -which all the national Trade Unions, 13 in number, for the first -time joined together. Notwithstanding great differences in numerical -strength, the Unions agreed to constitute the Federation Executive of -two representatives from each national union. The Federation is formed -of local branches, each of which is composed of the branches in the -locality of the nationally affiliated Unions, governed by the aggregate -of the “Trades Management Committee” of such branches, acting under -the direction and control of the Federation Executive. A significant -new feature, recalling an expedient of the Trade Unionism of 1834, -is the establishment of “Composite Branches” of individual building -trades operatives in localities where no branch of the separate -national unions exists. What success may attend this renewed effort at -unified national organisation of the whole industry it is impossible -to predict; there are signs of a movement for actual amalgamation. -The four principal Builders’ Labourers’ Unions are on the point of -uniting in a strong amalgamation with 40,000 members. Other attempts at -amalgamation, including one among the “house builders,” the societies -of bricklayers, masons and plasterers, have been voted. The Furnishing -Trades Association was only prevented from merging in the Amalgamated -Society of Carpenters by technical difficulties. On the other hand -the separate Scottish and Irish Unions (except for the merging of the -Associated Carpenters) stubbornly maintain their independence. Down to -the present it must be said that combination in the building trades, -torn by internecine conflicts and financially weakened by unsuccessful -strikes, has, on the whole, been falling back. The gradual change -of processes, and the introduction of new materials, with an actual -decline in the numbers employed, has not been met by any improvement -in the organisation of the older craft unions, whilst the workers in -the new processes have failed to achieve effective union. With the -great demand for building since the Armistice, the Building Trades -Unions have, however, shown increased vitality; and the position in -the negotiating Joint Boards, at which they are now regularly meeting -the employers’ representatives, has considerably improved. The latest -achievement of the industry is the establishment, jointly with the -employers, of a “Builders’ Parliament”--largely at the instance of Mr. -Malcolm Sparkes--which is the most noteworthy example of the “Whitley -Councils,” to which we shall refer later. - - -ENGINEERING AND THE METAL TRADES - -The large and steadily increasing army of operatives in the various -processes connected with metals (who are combined in Germany in a -single gigantic Metal Workers’ Union) can be noticed here only in its -three principal sections, the engineering industry, boilermaking and -ship-building, and the production of iron and steel from the ore. - -Trade Unionism in the engineering industry, though it has, during the -past thirty years, greatly increased in aggregate membership, notably -among the unskilled and semi-skilled workmen employed in engineering -shops, can hardly be said to have grown in strength, whether manifested -in effect upon the engineering employers, who have become very strongly -combined throughout the whole kingdom, or in influence in the Trade -Union world. This relative decline must be ascribed to the continued -lack of any systematic organisation of the industry as a whole; to a -failure to cope with the changing processes and systems of remuneration -which the employers have introduced; and to the persistence of -internecine war among the rival Unions themselves. - -The trouble in the engineering world came to a head in 1897, -precipitated perhaps by the employers, who wanted, as they said, to be -“masters in their own shops.” The Amalgamated Society of Engineers, -which had maintained its predominant position among the engineering -workmen, but only commanded the allegiance of a part of them, after a -series of bickerings with the employers about the technical improvement -of the industry, in which the workmen had shown themselves, to say the -least, very conservative, found itself involved in a general strike -and lock-out in all the principal engineering centres, nominally -about the London engineering workmen’s precipitate demand for an -Eight Hours Day, but substantially over the employers’ insistence on -being masters in their own workshops, entitled to introduce what new -methods of working they chose, and whatever new systems of remuneration -according to results that they could persuade the several workmen to -accept. The Union, to which apparently it did not occur to use the -methods of publicity on which William Newton and John Burnett would -have relied, failed to make clear its case to the public; and public -opinion was accordingly against the engineering workmen, believing -them to be at the same time obstructive to industrial improvements and -unable to formulate conditions that would safeguard their legitimate -interests. The result was that the prolonged stoppage, which reduced -the funds of the A.S.E. down to what only sufficed to meet the accrued -liabilities for Superannuation Benefit, ended in a virtual victory for -the employers. The A.S.E. quickly resumed its growth and stood, in the -autumn of 1919, at 320,000 members, or over five times its membership -of 1892. But the sectional societies also increased in size, and down -to 1919 they counted in the aggregate, as in 1892, about half as many -members as the A.S.E. itself.[605] Meanwhile, the great development of -the engineering industry, and the successive changes in the machinery -employed, have been accompanied by the introduction of various forms -of “Payment by Results,” in which the engineering Trade Unions have -not known how to prevent the reintroduction of individual bargaining. -Owing to its quarrels with the various sectional societies in the -industry, the A.S.E. has been alternately in and out of the Trades -Union Congress; and, on general issues, has seldom sought to influence -the Trade Union world as much as its magnitude and position would have -entitled it to do. The same may be said of the other Trade Unions -in the engineering industry, which were contented to hold their own -against their greater rival, and to see their membership progress with -the growth of the industry itself. - -The elaborate constitution of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, -which we described in a preceding chapter, has been, during the past -thirty years, repeatedly tinkered with by delegate meetings, but -without being substantially changed. There has been a perpetual balance -and deadlock of opinion, which has led to successive modifications -and reactions. Alongside the skilled engineering craftsmen, of -different specialities in technique, there has grown up a vast number -of unapprenticed and semi-skilled men, whom the Union has failed to -exclude, not only from the workshops but also from the jobs formerly -monopolised by the legitimate craftsmen. Should these interlopers be -admitted to membership? At one delegate meeting (1912) the rules were -altered so as to admit (“Class F”) not only all varieties of skilled -engineering craftsmen, but also practically any one working in an -engineering shop. This was counteracted by the tacit refusal of most -branches to carry out the decision of their own delegates; and “Class -F,” which never obtained as many as 2000 members, was abolished by -the next delegate meeting (1915.) The method of remuneration has been -another bone of contention. Especially since the disastrous conflict -of 1897, the employers have more and more insisted on the adoption of -systems of “payment by results” instead of the weekly time rates, to -which the engineering operatives, like those of most of the building -trades, devotedly cling. What is to be the Union policy with regard to -these varieties of piecework and “premium bonus” systems? Failing to -discover any device by which (as among the cotton operatives, the boot -and shoe makers, and the Birmingham brassworkers) “payment by results” -can be effectively safeguarded by being subjected to collective -bargaining, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers has wavered, in its -decisions and in the policy of its various districts, between (_a_) -refusing to allow any other system than timework; (_b_) limiting -systems of payment by results to “those shops in which they have -already been introduced”; (_c_) insisting, as a condition of permitting -payment by results, on the “Principle of Mutuality,” which amounts to -no more than the claim that the workman shall not have the piecework -rates or “bonus times” arbitrarily imposed upon him, but shall be -permitted individually to bargain with the foreman or rate-fixer -for better terms. The result is a chaos of inconsistent customs and -practices varying from shop to shop; and withal, a tendency to a -continuous decline in piecework rates (mitigated only by the greater -or less extent to which collective “shop bargaining” prevails, and by -its efficiency) which leads, in sullen resentment, to “ca’ canny,” or -slow working. The third bone of contention has been how to deal with -the competing Trade Unions, which are either societies of varieties of -skilled engineers who prefer to remain unabsorbed in the A.S.E., or -societies of new classes of operatives such as machine workers, workers -in brass and copper, electrical craftsmen, and others, with whom the -A.S.E. found itself disputing the control of the industry. Should -these much smaller organisations be (_a_) ignored and their members -treated as non-unionists; or (_b_) admitted to joint deliberation and -action in trade matters with the view to formulating a common policy; -or (_c_) dealt with by amalgamation on a still broader basis than that -of the A.S.E.? It would be useless to trace the results of the ebb -and flow of these contrary views, which were, in the autumn of 1919, -for the time being, partly reconciled by an agreement by which six of -the competing Unions[606] are in 1920, with the A.S.E., to be merged -in the Amalgamated Engineering Union with a membership of 400,000 -and accumulated funds amounting to nearly four millions sterling. -It remains to be seen whether this wider amalgamation will bring to -engineering Trade Unionism the formulation of a systematic policy, -national organisation, and competent leadership. - -Underlying all these issues, and aggravating all the disputes to which -they give rise, is the fundamental divergence between those who insist -on an extreme local autonomy--the district being free to strike, and -free to refuse to settle a local strike,--and those who maintain the -importance of a national unity in trade policy, and the necessity, -with centralised funds, of centralised control. Still more keen is the -controversy between those who wish to maintain the present craftsmen’s -organisation, and those who seek to enlarge it into an organisation -comprising all the workers in the industry, whether skilled or -unskilled. During the past decade the discontent against the Central -Executive, especially on the Clyde, has led to a so-called “rank and -file” movement; the development of the shop steward from a mere “card -inspector” and membership recruiting officer into an aggressive strike -leader; and the joining together of the shop stewards (as at Glasgow, -Sheffield, and Coventry) into such new forms of organisation as the -“Clyde Workers’ Committee,” actively promoting their own local trade -policies irrespective of the views of the Union as a whole. - -The “Shop Stewards’ Movement,” which assumed some importance in the -engineering industry in 1915-19, was a new development of an old -institution in Trade Unionism--we have referred elsewhere to the -“Father of the Chapel” among the compositors, and to the checkweighman -among the coal-miners--which acquired a special importance owing to -the growing lack of correspondence between the membership of the Trade -Union Branch or District Council and the grouping of the workmen in -the different establishments, and also from the fact that the workmen -in each establishment found themselves belonging to different Trade -Unions. “The shop steward,” it has been pointed out, “was originally -a minor official appointed from the men in a particular workshop and -charged with the duty of seeing that all the Trade Union contributions -were paid. He had other small duties. But gradually, as the branch got -more and more out of touch with the men in the shop, these men came to -look to the official who was on the spot to represent their grievances. -During the war the development of the shop steward movement was very -rapid, particularly in the engineering industry. In some big industrial -concerns, composed of a large number of workshops, the committees -of stewards from the various shops very largely took over the whole -conduct of negotiations and arrangement of shop conditions. Further, a -national organisation of shop stewards was formed, at first mainly for -propagandist purposes. The existing unions have considered some of the -activities of shop stewards to be unofficial, and there has been a good -deal of dissension within the unions on this score. Attempts have been -made to reach an agreement by which Shop Stewards’ Committees shall be -fully recognised at once by the unions and by the managements. So far -there has been no final settlement. An agreement was made in the early -summer of 1919 between the Engineering Employers’ Federation and the -Unions; how this will work in practice is not yet certain.”[607] - -It must, in fact, be said that although the Engineering Trade Unions -have during the past thirty years not taken much part in general -Trade Union issues, they have (in contrast with some other sections) -contributed freely in both men and ideas. We have already dwelt upon -the activities of Mr. John Burns and Mr. Tom Mann. We shall mention the -political progress of Mr. George Barnes, who is also of the A.S.E.; -whilst the Friendly Society of Ironfounders has given Mr. Arthur -Henderson to the Movement. And, in the long run possibly more important -even than men, the ideas emanating from the engineering workshops have -had a more than proportionate share in the ferment of these years. The -vacancy in the office of General Secretary, occasioned by the election -to the House of Commons of Mr. Robert Young, was filled in the autumn -of 1919 by the election of Mr. Tom Mann; and this election, together -with the great amalgamation of competing Unions brought about at the -same time, may perhaps open up a new era in engineering Trade Unionism. - -In contrast with the failure of Trade Unionism in the engineering -trades either to develop a systematic organisation or to cope with the -changes in processes and methods of remuneration, the two powerful -Unions of boilermakers and shipwrights have gone from strength to -strength, doubling their numbers, absorbing practically all the -remaining local societies in their industry, and closely combining -with each other in policy and other activities, concluding, indeed, -in the autumn of 1919 an agreement to submit to their respective -memberships a proposal for a formal amalgamation which may be joined -by the strong society of Associated Blacksmiths. This would mean the -consolidation, in one powerful Union of 170,000 members, of practically -all the skilled craftsmen working in the construction of the hulls of -ships, of boilers and tanks, and of steel bridge-work of all sorts. -Concentrated largely in the ports of the north-east coast and those of -the Clyde, with strong contingents in the relatively small number of -other shipbuilding centres, the boilermakers and shipwrights have held -their own in face of all the changes in their industry, and have known -how to maintain a fairly uniform national policy. - -Passing from engineering and shipbuilding to the smelting of the iron -and steel from the ore, the one marked advance in organisation is that -of the British Steel Smelters, which, established in 1886, and in -1892 having still only 2600 members, had by 1918, under the prudent -leadership of Mr. John Hodge, drawn to itself over 40,000. The British -steel smelters have the credit of equipping themselves with the most -efficient office in the Trade Union world, with a real statistical -department and a trained staff, including, for all their legal -business, especially that connected with compensation for accidents, -a qualified professional solicitor. Already before the outbreak of -war a far-seeing policy of amalgamation had been virtually decided -on; and in 1915 a scheme was prepared for the merging of all the six -important Unions in the industry of obtaining the metal from the ore, -including the operatives in the tinplate and rolling mills. The plan -for surmounting the legal and other difficulties of amalgamation, of -which we may ascribe the authorship to Mr. John Hodge, Mr. Pugh, and -Mr. Percy Cole, the able officials of the British Steel Smelters’ -Union, was one of extreme ingenuity as involving no more than a bare -majority of the members voting, which deserves the attention of other -societies as a “New Model.” Three only out of the six societies (the -British Steel Smelters’ Association, the Associated Iron and Steel -Workers of Great Britain, and the National Steel Workers’ Association) -were able to go forward in 1917,[608] when a new society, the British -Iron, Steel, and Kindred Trades Association, was formed. The four -societies then created the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, to -which they formally ceded powers and functions affecting the members -of more than one of the constituent bodies, and therefore all general -negotiations with the employers. The three old societies continued -formally in existence, but they bound themselves not to enrol any new -members, who were all to be taken by the new society, to which all the -existing members were to be continuously urged to transfer themselves -voluntarily. This process has already gone so far that the new society -has swallowed up the British Steel Smelters’ Society, which has been -wound up and completely merged in the new body, into which the empty -shells of the other two old bodies will presently fall. The Iron and -Steel Trades Confederation will then be composed of one society only, -and may be kept alive only to serve the same transitional purpose for -other incoming societies. - - -THE COMPOSITORS - -The printing trades have remained, during the past thirty years, -curiously stationary so far as Trade Unionism, is concerned, the -London Society of Compositors, the Typographical Association, the -Scottish Typographical Association, and the Dublin Typographical -Society having, in the aggregate, increased their membership by -three-fifths and steadily increased their rates of pay and strategic -strength against their own employers, but commanding little influence -in the Trade Union Movement as a whole, and in many small towns still -leaving a considerable portion of the trade outside their ranks. The -less-skilled workers in the papermaking and printing establishments -have greatly improved their organisation; and the National Union of -Printing and Paper Workers and the Operative Printers Assistants’ -Society--both of them including women as well as men--have become -large and effective Trade Unions. All the societies are united in the -powerful Printing and Kindred Trades Federation, to which the National -Union of Journalists, now a large society, has recently affiliated. - - -BOOT AND SHOEMAKING - -Among the other constituents of the Trade Union world in which a -relative decline in influence is to be noted, is that of the boot -and shoemakers. Thirty years ago the National Union of Boot and Shoe -Operatives had achieved a position of great influence in the trade. -It had joined with the Employers’ Associations in building up, as -described in our _Industrial Democracy_, an elaborate system of Local -Boards of Conciliation and Arbitration, united in a National Conference -of dignity and influence, with resort to Lord James of Hereford as -umpire, by means of which stoppages of work were prevented, and, more -important still, the illegitimate use of boy labour was restrained and -standard piecework rates were arrived at by collective bargaining, and -authoritatively imposed on the whole trade. In 1894 the whole machinery -was broken up, at the instance of the very employers who had agreed to -it, and had co-operated for years in its working, because they found -that, under the rules and at the piecework rates prescribed, the men -were “making too much.” - -After a prolonged stoppage in 1894 the dispute was patched up by the -intervention of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade; and the -National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives, with 80,000 members, has, -on the whole, held its own with the employers, with less elaborate -formal relations; but the work of the Union is impaired by the -weakness of the organisation in the smaller workshops and the less -important local centres of the trade. - -On the other side, we have the rise to influence, not only in the -Trade Union counsels but also in those of the nation, of the Women -Workers, the General Labourers, the “black-coated proletariat” of shop -assistants, clerks, teachers, technicians, and officials, the miners -and the railwaymen, which has been the outstanding feature of the past -thirty years. - - -WOMEN WORKERS - -In no section of the industrial community has the advance of Trade -Unionism during the last thirty years been more marked than among the -women workers. For the first half of this period, indeed--though the -aggregate women membership of Trade Unions approximately doubled--this -meant only a rise from about 100,000 in 1890 to about 200,000 in -1907, mostly in the textile industries; and the number of women Trade -Unionists outside those industries was in the latter year still under -30,000. But the long-continued patient work of the Women’s Trade Union -League was having its effect; and the idea of Trade Unionism was being -established among the women workers in many different industries. Much -is to be ascribed to the efforts during these years of Sir Charles and -Lady Dilke, who were unwearied in their assistance. In 1909, largely at -the instance of Sir Charles Dilke and the women’s leaders, especially -Miss Mary Macarthur, Miss Gertrude Tuckwell, and Miss Susan Lawrence, -Mr. Winston Churchill, as President of the Board of Trade, carried -through Parliament the Trade Boards Bill, which enabled a legal minimum -wage to be prescribed by joint boards in four specially low-paid -industries, in which mainly women were employed. This measure not only -considerably improved the position of the sweated workers in the chain -and nail trades, the slop tailoring trade, paper box making and machine -lace-making, but--as had been predicted on one side and denied on the -other--greatly stimulated independent organisation among the women -whose industrial status was raised. The extension of the Trade Boards -and of the legal minimum wage in 1913 to half a dozen other trades had -like effects, and the further extension of 1918 is already promising -in the same direction. Trade Union membership was further greatly -increased during 1912-14 as a result of the National Insurance Act, -which brought many thousand recruits to the Approved Society sections -of the Unions. It was, however, the Great War, with its unprecedented -demand for women workers, and their admission, in “dilution” of or -in substitution for men, to all sorts of occupations and processes -into which they had not previously penetrated, at earnings which they -had never before been permitted to receive, that brought the women -into Trade Unionism by the hundred thousand. The National Federation -of Women Workers--the largest exclusively feminine Union--rose from -11,000 in 1914 to over 60,000 in 1919. A small number of new Trade -Unions exclusively for women were established in particular sections, -such as the interesting little society of Women Acetylene Welders. The -bulk of the women, however, continued to be organised in Trade Unions -admitting both sexes. Besides the various Textile Unions, there are now -thousands of women in the National Union of Railwaymen, the Railway -Clerks’ Association, Boot and Shoe Operatives, and the Iron and Steel -Trades Confederation. Most of the general labour Unions, and others -like the National Union of Printing and Paper Workers, the National -Union of Shop Assistants, Warehousemen and Clerks, the Amalgamated -Union of Co-operative and Commercial Employees and Allied Workers, had -for a couple of decades been enrolling women members; and the female -membership of these societies now grew by leaps and bounds. But the -greater part of the field of women’s employment is still uncovered. -In 1920, though it may be estimated that the total women membership -of Trade Unions is nearly three-quarters of a million, this still -represents less than 30 per cent of the adult women wage-earners. - -The outstanding feature in women’s Trade Unionism during the past -decade has been its advance, not merely in numbers and achievements, -but also in status and influence. This has come with accelerating -speed. To the first Treasury Conference in 1915, at which the -Government sought the help of the Trade Unions in the winning of the -war, it apparently did not occur to any official to invite the National -Federation of Women Workers; but in all subsequent proceedings of the -same nature Miss Mary Macarthur and Miss Susan Lawrence, on behalf -of the women Trade Unionists in this and other societies, occupied -a leading position. Whether before the Munitions Act Tribunals, the -Committee on Production, or the Special Arbitration Tribunal set up -by the Government to deal with the conditions of employment of women -munition-workers, the women’s case, whether put by the representatives -of the Women’s Unions, or by those of the principal Unions of general -workers that included women, was so ably conducted as to secure for -the women workers, almost for the first time, something like the -same measure of justice as that which the men had wrested from the -employers for themselves. The result was not only a marked rise in -the standard of remuneration for women, the opening up to them of -many fields of work from which they had hitherto been excluded, and a -general improvement in their conditions of employment, but also a rapid -development of Trade Unionism among them--nine-tenths of the women -Trade Unionists being in societies enrolling both men and women--and -the winning, for women’s Trade Unions, of the respect of the Trade -Union world. For the first time a woman was elected in 1919 by the -Trades Union Congress to its Parliamentary Committee, Miss Margaret -Bondfield, of the National Federation of Women Workers, receiving over -three million votes. On the reconstitution in 1918 of the Labour Party, -in which women had always been accorded equal rights, provision was -made so that there should always be at least four women elected to the -Executive Committee. A Standing Joint Committee of Women’s Industrial -Organisations, established in 1916, now initiates and co-ordinates the -action of the principal women’s Trade Unions, the Women’s Co-operative -Guild (which organises the women of the Co-operative movement), the -Railway Women’s Guild, composed of the wives of railwaymen, and the -Women’s Labour League, now the women’s section of the Labour Party -itself. - - -THE GENERAL WORKERS - -In 1888 the leaders of the skilled craftsmen and better-paid workmen -were inclined to believe that effective or durable Trade Unionism -among the general labourers and unskilled or nondescript workmen was -as impracticable as it had hitherto proved to be among the mass of -women wage-earners. The outburst of Trade Unionism among the dockers -and gasworkers in 1888-89 was commonly expected to be as transient as -analogous movements had been in 1834 and 1871. In 1920 we find the -organisations of this despised section, some of them of over thirty -years’ standing, accounting for no less than 30 per cent of the -whole Trade Union membership, and their leaders--notably Mr. Clynes, -Mr. Thorne, and Mr. Robert Williams--exercising at least their full -share of influence in the counsels of the Trade Union Movement as a -whole. For a few years after 1889, indeed, the aggregate membership -of the newly-formed labourers’ Unions declined, and some of the -weaker ones collapsed, or became merged in the larger societies. But -the Gas-workers’ and General Labourers’ Union (established 1889), -which changed its name in 1918 to the National Union of General -Workers; and the Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General Workers’ Union -(established 1887) maintained themselves in existence; and already in -1907 there were as many as 150,000 organised labourers in half-a-dozen -well-established societies. The outburst of Trade Unionism among -the farm labourers in 1890 gradually faded away. But in 1906 a new -society, the National Agricultural Labourers and Rural Workers’ Trade -Union, was formed, which at once made headway in Norfolk and the -adjacent counties; to be followed in 1913 by the energetic Scottish -Farm Servants’ Trade Union. Organisation was, between 1904 and 1911, -steadily extending in all directions, when the passing of the National -Insurance Act, which practically compelled every wage-earner to join an -“Approved Society” of some kind, led to a dramatic expansion of Trade -Union membership, from which the various Unions of general workers, -as they now prefer to be styled, obtained their share of advantage. -The Workers’ Union, in particular, which had been established in 1898, -for the enrolment of members among the nondescript and semi-skilled -workers of all sorts not catered for by the craft Unions, had, after -twelve years’ existence, only 5000 members in 111 branches in 1910, -but grew during 1911-13 to 91,000 members in 567 branches. In three -years more it stood at 197,000 members in 750 branches, and by the -end of 1919 its membership had risen to about 500,000 in nearly 2000 -branches, comprising almost every kind and grade of worker, of any -age and either sex, from clay-workers and tin miners to corporation -employees and sanitary inspectors, from domestic servants and waiters -to farm labourers and carmen, and every kind of nondescript worker in -the factory, the yard, or on the road. The organising of the rural -labourers has been shared by nearly all the principal Unions of -General Workers. The passing of the Corn Production Act in 1917, with -its incidental establishment of Joint Boards in every county of the -United Kingdom, empowered to fix a legal minimum wage for a prescribed -normal working day, had the result of greatly extending Trade Union -membership among all sections of agricultural labourers, who are now -(1920), for the first time in history, more or less organised in every -county of Great Britain--partly in the very successful Agricultural -Labourers’ Union, which had, at the end of 1919, 180,000 members in no -fewer than 2700 branches; partly in the Workers’ Union, which has a -large number of agricultural branches; partly in the National Union of -General Workers, the Dock, Wharf and Riverside Labourers’ Union, and -the National Amalgamated Union of Labour; in all the Scottish counties, -in the powerful Scottish Farm Servants’ Union; whilst in Ireland the -agricultural wage-earners have been enrolled in the Transport and -General Workers’ Union. The total number of agricultural labourers -in Trade Unions in 1920 probably reaches more than three hundred -thousand, being about one-third of the total number of men employed in -agriculture at wages. - -Throughout the years of war the membership of the various Unions -classified under the head of Transport and General Labour (including -the dockers and seamen), which in 1892 was only 154,000, continued to -increase by leaps and bounds until, in 1920, their aggregate membership -considerably exceeds that of the entire Trade Union world of 1890, and -does not fall far short of a couple of millions. - -Of recent years there has been a steady pressure towards amalgamation -and consolidation of forces. Many small and local Unions have been -merged, and several of the larger bodies seem to be on the point of -union. Meanwhile the movement towards closer federation is strong. -In 1908 all the big general Labour Unions became associated in the -General Labourers’ National Council, a useful consultative body, -having for its principal function the prevention of overlapping and -conflict among the different Unions. It was successful in arranging for -freedom of transfer and mutual recognition of each other’s membership -among its constituent Unions, and in promoting a certain amount of -demarcation of spheres, and even of amalgamation. This Council in May -1917 developed into a National Federation of General Workers, which -includes eleven important general Unions of General Workers, having an -aggregate membership of over 800,000. This important federation took a -significant step towards unification in November 1919, in appointing -ten District Committees, consisting of two representatives of each of -the affiliated societies, charged to consult with regard to any local -trade dispute involving more than one society. - -Recent years have seen the rise of a new grouping. The several Unions -of seamen, lightermen, dock and wharf labourers, coal-porters and -carmen have asserted themselves as Transport Workers, seeking not -merely to take common action in matters of wages and hours, but also -to formulate regulations for the government of the whole industry of -transport (apart from that of railways), which is one more example of -the tendency to create “industrial” federations on a national basis. -The organisation for the purpose is the National Transport Workers’ -Federation, comprising three dozen of the Unions having among their -members men engaged in waterside transport work, including seamen, -dockers, and carters. It was formed in November 1910 at the instance -of the Dockers’ Union, and came at once into prominence during the -London strike of 1911, which it handled with great vigour.[609] This -was the first great fight in the Port of London since the upheaval -of 1889. The National Union of Sailors and Firemen, which had in -vain appealed to the Shipping Federation to unite in constituting a -Conciliation Board, in June 1911 struck for a uniform scale at all -ports and various minor ameliorations of their conditions. Largely -as a result of the excitement caused by the seamen’s strike, the -dockers in July came out for a rise from 6d. to 8d. per hour, with 1s. -per hour for overtime. The stevedores, the gasworkers, the carmen, -the coal-porters, the tug-enginemen, the grain porters, and various -other bodies of men engaged in or about the port, put forward their -own claims. Amid great excitement the whole port was stopped, great -meetings on Tower Hill were held daily, and processions of strikers, -said to have been as many as 100,000 in number, paraded through the -City. The unrest spread to most other ports, and there were some local -disturbances. The Port of London Authority, under Lord Devonport, -refused all parley, and the Government for some time practically -supported this great corporate employer, which had failed (and has to -this day failed) to comply with the section of the Act of Parliament -by which it was constituted directing it to institute a scheme for -more civilised conditions of employment for its labourers. The War -Office, at the request of Mr. Winston Churchill, who was then at the -Home Office, accumulated troops in London, and actually threatened to -put 25,000 soldiers to break the strike by doing the dockers’ work--a -step which would undoubtedly have led to bloody conflict in the -streets. Finally, however, the Cabinet gave way, and persuaded Lord -Devonport and his colleagues, together with shipowners, wharfingers, -and granary proprietors, to meet the representatives of the Unions -with a view to agreement. For three whole days they sat and argued, -ultimately arriving at an agreement under which the men returned to -work on the immediate concession of about half their demand and the -remission of the other half to arbitration. This was undertaken by Sir -Albert Rollit, M.P., at the instance of the London Chamber of Commerce, -his award eventually conceding to the men substantially their whole -claim; summed up in 8d. per hour for the dockers, with 1s. per hour -for overtime, other trades, and the men at other ports, obtaining, in -one or other form, analogous advantages.[610] In May 1912 the dispute -flared up again in the Thames and Medway, when a combined strike -and lock-out, in which 80,000 men were involved, stopped the work of -the port for six weeks. Sympathetic strikes in other ports led to -some 20,000 men being idle for a few days. The men asserted that the -employers had not in all cases fulfilled the agreement of the previous -year, and were discriminating against Trade Unionists. The employers -seem to have been concerned, in the main, to avoid recognition of the -Transport Workers’ Federation, and to check its growing authority. In -spite of the vigorous support of the _Daily Herald_; of pecuniary help, -not only from Australia and the United States, but also from the German -Trade Unions; and of the mediation of the Government, the strike failed -owing to the men breaking away, and to the stubborn obstinacy of Lord -Devonport, as Chairman of the Port of London Authority, who insisted -on a resumption of work upon the employers’ assurance that they would -respect all agreements and consider any grievances put forward by the -representatives of any section. Notwithstanding the failure of this -somewhat premature effort of the Transport Workers’ Federation, its -formation, together with that of the National Federation of General -Workers, have gone far to transform the position. For a couple of -decades the efforts of the General Labourers’ Unions took the form of -innumerable local and sectional demands, not merely for higher rates -of pay, though advances of several shillings per week have continually -been secured, but for mutual agreement of piecework rates, a reduction -of working hours, insistence on compensation for accidents, the -provision of better accommodation or greater amenity in work, and extra -allowances for tasks of peculiar strain or discomfort. The efforts of -the federations have raised these local and sectional arrangements -to the level of national questions; and the agreements now concluded -with the employers’ national representatives amount to an increasingly -effective control over the industry. - - -THE “BLACK-COATED PROLETARIAT” - -If Trade Unionism has, in the past thirty years, successfully -progressed downward to the women and the unskilled labourers, its -advance, in a sense upwards, among the various sections of the -“black-coated proletariat,” has been no less remarkable. In 1892 -there were only the smallest signs of Trade Union organisation among -the clerks and shop assistants, the various sections of Post Office -and other Government employees, the municipal officers, and the life -assurance agents. Among wage-earners in these various occupations, -numbering in the United Kingdom possibly several millions--badly paid, -working under unsatisfactory conditions, and sometimes subject to -actual tyranny--there were, thirty years ago, a few dozen small and -struggling Trade Unions, with only a few tens of thousands of aggregate -membership. In 1920 these have developed into powerful amalgamations -in most of the several sections, nearly all fully recognised by their -employers, whether private or public, with whom they enter into -collective agreements; and enrolling a total membership falling not far -short of three-quarters of a million. - -We may note first the army of shop assistants, warehousemen, and other -employees in the distributive trades, wholesale and retail.[611] -The National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants, Warehousemen, -and Clerks, established in 1891, made at first slow progress, and -counted in 1912, after a couple of decades of growth, fewer than -65,000 members. Partly as a result of the National Insurance Act, -which practically compelled all employees under £160 to join some -organisation, the Union went ahead by leaps and bounds, multiplying -its branches and swelling its numbers, until it counts now over -100,000 members. Meanwhile the Amalgamated Union of Co-operative -Employees (also established in 1891)--in 1918 adding to its title also -“Commercial Employees and Allied Workers”--has benefited by a similar -expansion, counting, in 1920, also about 100,000 members. This society -started on the basis of enrolling all employees of the Co-operative -Societies, whatever their crafts, and no other persons, a constitution -now disapproved of by the Trades Union Congress. It is, however, not -now confined to persons employed by co-operative societies; and whilst -it includes a number of carmen, tailors, bakers, bootmakers, and -others in co-operative employment who should more appropriately belong -to other Unions, the negotiations that have been for some time in -progress for the merging of both organisations in a single great Union -of persons employed in the distributive trades, and the transfer of -those belonging to specific crafts to their own societies, may probably -presently be successful. - -Of clerks, the most effective organisation is that of the clerical -service of the railway companies, the Railway Clerks’ Association, -which takes in also stationmasters, inspectors, and ticket-collectors -(who are all eligible also for the National Union of Railwaymen, which -some of them have joined). Established in 1897, it continued for a -decade insignificant in magnitude, and had not by 1910 enrolled as many -as 10,000 members. After the railway strike of 1911 it began to forge -ahead, passing from 30,000 in 1914 to 42,000 in 1915--a total doubled -by 1920, and with increasing strength it obtained gradually increasing -recognition from the railway companies, successfully maintaining its -right to enrol, not only clerks in the General Managers’ offices, but -also inspectors and stationmasters. As its membership grew, it was -able successfully to contest the elections for representatives on -the committees of the various superannuation funds instituted by the -companies, and thereby to demonstrate its right to speak for the whole -body of railway clerks. Whilst acting in friendly association with -the National Union of Railwaymen, the Railway Clerks’ Association -has latterly drawn to itself an ever-increasing proportion of the -inspectors and stationmasters; and in 1920, when it can count on a -membership of nearly 90,000, it is claiming to speak for all grades -of the Railway Clerical Administrative and Supervisory Staff. Since -1913, at least, it has been asserting a claim, as soon as the railways -are nationalised, to some participation in their management; and -at the end of 1919, it is understood, some promise was made by the -Minister of Transport that, in any Railway Board or National Advisory -Committee that may be constituted, the Railway Clerks’ Association -would, with the National Union of Railwaymen and the Associated Society -of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, be accorded its due share of -representation. - -The great army of clerks in commercial offices has made less progress -in organisation than the shop assistants and the railway clerks. For -years, indeed, it seemed as if commercial clerks would not form a Trade -Union; and the National Union of Clerks (established 1890) made little -headway. In 1912 it had still under 9000 members. In the past seven -years it has bounded up to 55,000 members.[612] There is also a small -Irish Clerical Workers’ Union, principally in Dublin, resulting from a -secession from the National Union. Most remarkable of all has been the -formation, during the war, of a Bank Officers’ Guild and an Irish Bank -Officials’ Association, having definitely Trade Union objects (though -not yet seeking to join the Trades Union Congress), both of them being -independent of the Bankers’ Institute, which retains the character of -a scientific and educational society. There is now even a Guild of Law -Court Officials, having definitely Trade Union objects. - -The great body of teachers of all kinds and grades, numbering -altogether about 300,000 men and women in the United Kingdom, have, -during the past thirty years, become strongly and very elaborately -organised in many different societies.[613] What is significant is -the extent to which many of these professional associations have -latterly adopted the purposes, and even the characteristic methods, -of Trade Unionism. The largest of these bodies, the National Union -of Teachers, established in 1890, has now over 102,000 members, and -exercises great influence upon the conditions of employment of the -teachers in elementary schools. During the past few years it has -supported various district or county strikes for better salary-scales. -The teachers in secondary schools are organised in four societies, -for headmasters, headmistresses, assistant masters, and assistant -mistresses respectively, united in a Federal Council of Secondary -School Associations, which, though it has not yet fomented or supported -a strike, has of late organised effective pressure to obtain greater -security of tenure for assistants, better salary-scales, and a -universal superannuation scheme. - -Equally significant is the recent development of organisation -among the industrial technicians, whether engineers, electricians, -chemists, or merely foremen and managers; among the workers in -scientific laboratories, whether for research, medical, teaching, -or administrative purposes; and among the junior lecturers and -assistants at University institutions. These organisations overlap -in their spheres, if not also in their memberships, and are not yet -stabilised, but most of them are united in the National Federation of -Professional Workers of even wider scope. What is important is the -growing divergence between what are essentially Trade Unions of the -brain-working professionals and the purely “scientific societies” to -which such persons have, until recent years, restricted their tendency -to professional association. Some of the new bodies (such as the -Society of Technical Engineers) have actually registered themselves -as Trade Unions, a step taken also by the Medico-Political Union, a -vigorous association of medical practitioners; whilst the newly formed -Actors’ Association, like the National Union of Journalists, has -applied for affiliation to the Trades Union Congress. - -The life assurance agents--principally those employed in “industrial” -insurance--number 100,000, and they have become organised in a score -of societies, restricted to the staffs of particular companies. These -organisations vary in their nature and in their degree of independence, -from mere “welfare societies,” dominated by the management, up to -aggressive Trade Unions--the strongest being the National Association -of Prudential Assurance Agents. They are mostly united in two different -federations. Another, and perhaps wholesomer, basis of organisation is -adopted by the National Union of Life Assurance Agents, which has now -some thousands of members. - -But the greatest development of Trade Unionism among the “black-coated -proletariat” has been among the employees of the National and Local -Government. This has been entirely a growth of the past thirty years. -Beginning among the manual working staff of the Postmaster-General, -and among the artisans and labourers of the Government dockyards, -arsenals, and other manufacturing departments, there are now a hundred -and seventy separate Trade Unions of State employees, from the crews -of the Customs launches and the boy clerks, up to the Admiralty -Constructive Engineers and the Superintendents of Mercantile Marine -Offices. Of recent years, organisation has spread to the higher grades -of the Civil Service, even to the “Class I.” clerks; and practically -no one below the rank of an Under-Secretary of State is held to be -outside the scope of the Society of Civil Servants. All the various -societies are grouped in federations, from the “Waterguard Federation” -and the Prison Officers’ Federation of the United Kingdom; through -the United Government Workers’ Federation and the Federal Council of -Government Employees, combining the various kinds of manual working -operatives; up to the Customs and Excise Federation, the Civil -Service Federation, the Civil Service Alliance, and even the “National -Federation of Professional Workers,” which includes also teachers. The -strongest of all these bodies is probably that of the various employees -of the Postmaster-General, whose fight to secure “recognition” and the -opportunity for “Collective Bargaining” has extended over a couple -of decades. There are about fifty separate Unions of Post Office -employees, mostly small and sectional bodies; but the three principal -societies (the Postal and Telegraph Clerks’ Association, the Postmen’s -Federation, and the Fawcett Association) were amalgamated in 1919 -into one powerful Union of Post Office Workers, with 90,000 members -with eleven salaried officers, and affiliated both to the Trades -Union Congress and the Labour Party, which can now meet the managing -officials of the Post Office on something like equal terms. - -The employees of the Local Authorities--thirty years ago entirely -without organisation--are still not so well combined as those of the -National Government. A score of different societies, from such grades -as school-keepers, police and prison officers and asylum attendants, -up to municipal clerks, share the work with the National Union of -Corporation Workers and the Municipal Employees’ Association. A large -proportion of the wage-earners employed by Local Authorities are to -be found in the Unions of General Workers. The National Association -of Local Government Officers and Clerks is a large and powerful body, -composed mainly of the clerical and supervisory grades. - -Trade Unionism in the public service received a great fillip after -1906, when Mr. Herbert Samuel at the Post Office, together with -some other Ministers, “recognised” the Unions of their employees, -considered their corporate representations, and agreed to meet their -officials. It was still further promoted when, in 1912, the Government -consented to the establishment of an independent Arbitration Tribunal -for determining the terms of employment in the Civil Service for -all grades and sections under £500 a year. Before this tribunal, -whose awards were definitively authoritative, the representatives of -any association could appear as plaintiffs, those of the Treasury -appearing always as defendants. Finally, after the promulgation in -1917 of the “Whitley Report,” which the Government, in impressing -on other employers, found itself constrained to adopt in its own -establishments, there was established during 1919 an elaborate series -of joint councils (including even the civil departments of the War -Office and the Admiralty) for particular branches of establishments; -for whole departments, and for whole grades of the service throughout -all departments, in which equal numbers of persons nominated by the -employees’ associations, and of superior officers chosen by the -Government, representing the management, meet periodically to discuss -on equal terms questions of office organisation, professional training, -conditions of service, methods of promotion, and what not.[614] - - -THE MINERS - -The outstanding feature of the Trade Union world between 1890 and -1920 has been the growing predominance, in its counsels and in its -collective activity, of the organised forces of the coal-miners. -Right down to 1888, as we have seen, the coal-miners of England, -Scotland, and Wales, though sporadically forming local associations -and now and again engaging in fierce conflicts with their employers, -first in this coalfield and then in that, had failed to maintain -any organisation of national scope. Though their representatives -participated from time to time in the general activities of the Trade -Union Movement, and sat in the Trades Union Congress; though with the -guidance of W. P. Roberts in the ’forties, and under the successive -leadership of Alexander Macdonald and Thomas Burt in the ’sixties and -’seventies, they exercised intermittently a considerable influence -on its Parliamentary action--the miners, for the most part, kept to -themselves, framed their own policy, and fought their own battles, in -which, owing to an apparently incurable “localism,” their success was -not commensurate with their strength. The change came with the growing -dissatisfaction with the policy of the Sliding Scale. This device for -making the rate of wages vary in proportion to the selling price of -coal, the adoption of which between 1874 and 1880--against the wish -of Alexander Macdonald, and contrary to the advice of such friends as -Professor Beesly and Lloyd Jones--we have already described, produced -in the ’eighties an ever-increasing discontent. In 1881 the miners of -Yorkshire merged their two Unions of South and West Yorkshire into the -Yorkshire Miners’ Association, which began its successful career by -terminating the local Sliding Scale agreement, and resolutely refused -all future attempts to make wages depend on selling prices. The -Lancashire and Cheshire Miners’ Federation, a less well-organised body, -presently followed its example. In 1885 a Midland Federation was formed -by a number of smaller local associations for the purpose both of -abolishing the Sliding Scale and of promoting the movement for an Eight -Hours Day by legislative enactment. Three years later, at a conference -at Manchester, the associations of Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire, -the Midlands, and Fifeshire, with a nascent local organisation in -South Wales, established the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain.[615] -The aggregate membership of all these bodies was amazingly small--at -the start only 36,000--but the new Federation had, from the first, a -definite policy and great driving force. Outside it there remained -the solid and numerically strong Durham Miners’ Association and the -Northumberland Miners’ Mutual Confident Association, which (together -with a surviving remnant of the Amalgamated Association in South -Staffordshire, and the purely nominal Sliding Scale Associations which -then characterised most of the South Wales coalfield) still clung -together as the National Union. It was the National Union which played -the leading part in securing reforms in the Coal Mines Regulation Act -of 1887, which firmly established the checkweigher in practically -every colliery of any importance. But this was its last constructive -effort. Its subsequent history is little more than the long-drawn-out -resistance of the able and respected leaders of the Northumberland and -Durham miners to the new ideas of Labour policy which were, as we have -described, becoming dominant in the Trades Union Congress, and which -were from the first adopted, if not by all the leaders, at least by the -successive delegate conferences of the Miners’ Federation. - -The establishment of the Federation coincided with a period of rapid -expansion in the coal-mining industry. The number of persons employed -rose considerably year after year, and Trade Unionism spread rapidly -among them. An effective local organisation was built up in district -after district, everywhere based on the autonomy in local concerns of -the “lodge” or branch, consisting of the workers at a given colliery, -and governed by mass meetings of the members, who elect a committee, -which usually meets at least weekly. But although the National Union -declined steadily in influence, it took twenty years to bring all -the district associations into the Miners’ Federation, the aggregate -membership of which did not reach 200,000 until 1893, and seven years -later was still only 363,000. Even so, the miners were, as we described -them in 1892, in some ways the most effectively organised of the -industrial groups into which we divided the Trade Union world of that -date. With the adhesion of Northumberland and Durham in 1908, when the -National Union came finally to an end, the membership of the Federation -rose to nearly 600,000, whilst the next twelve years’ growth of the -industry, and the inclusion of a large proportion of the sectional -unions among different grades of mine-workers,[616] have brought it in -1920 to nearly 900,000. - -Meanwhile issue was joined by the mine-owners, who insisted everywhere -in 1893 on considerable reductions in the wage-rates, on the plea that -selling prices had fallen. The great strike that followed involved -400,000 men, and lasted from July to November. In the end the men -had to submit to reductions, though they gained the important point -of the practical though not explicit recognition of a minimum below -which there was to be no fall. The next great achievement of the -Federation was the carrying into law of the Eight Hours Bill, which, -mainly owing to the opposition of the leaders of the Northumberland and -Durham Miners, was not accomplished until 1908; and their influence -in improving the Mines Regulation Act of 1911. Their third success, -the outcome of a decade of successful organisation and intellectual -leadership by Mr. Robert Smillie, who since 1912 has been annually -elected to the presidency, was attained only at the cost of the -greatest industrial struggle that Great Britain had yet experienced. - -The national strike of miners in 1912, when practically every mine -was stopped, and nearly a million miners suspended work for more -than a month, arose out of the failure of the colliery companies to -make adequate provision for repeated cases of individual hardship -and injustice. The piecework rates of the hewers or getters of coal -might be satisfactorily adjusted to the agreed day-wage standard of -the district, though the arrangements for this adjustment vary from -district to district, and even from mine to mine, and are very far -from complete or satisfactory. But what was to happen when, from -circumstances beyond his own control, the miner found himself unable -to get enough coal to produce a subsistence wage? If he is assigned -an “abnormal place”--where the seam is thin or crushed into small -coal (for which, in South Wales, the hewer is not paid at all); or -where exceptional timbering is required to prevent dangerous falls; -or where there is much “stone” or water: or if, in “normal places,” -the colliery management does not keep him regularly supplied with -“trams” or “tubs” into which to load the coal; or with a sufficient -provision of timber for props and sleepers; or of rails--no amount of -skill, strength, or assiduity will prevent his earnings from falling -away, it may be to next to nothing. What had long been customary -was, in some coalfields, the casting of lots for “places,” and thus -a periodical exchange of opportunities; and in others the granting -of an allowance, or “consideration,” to hewers who complained of -insufficient earnings. These allowances were granted irregularly, -without the protection of Collective Bargaining, with insufficient -provision for ensuring the avoidance of injustice; and it is not now -denied that, in some collieries, particularly in South Wales, the -owners resorted to the simple expedient of restricting the manager to a -fixed maximum sum each “measuring-up day,” irrespective of the number -and extent of the men’s reasonable claims. These sums, moreover, were -much reduced in times of bad trade, when profits were at a minimum, -especially in collieries which were actually working at a loss. The -agitation for securing a prescribed minimum of daily earnings for all -the piece-workers continued for a whole decade without much result, -producing not a few local stoppages, especially in South Wales. These -flared up, in the latter part of 1910, in the Aberdare and Rhondda -valleys, into an almost continuous series of disputes. The Miners’ -Federation found itself compelled in July 1911 to take the matter up -as a national question; and a ballot of its whole membership decided -for a national strike if the universal adoption of the principle of a -prescribed daily minimum, not merely for hewers but for all grades, was -not conceded. The owners quibbled and eventually refused; and after a -further ballot a national strike was decided on, which the Government -negotiations failed to avert, and which, after long and repeated -notice, began at the end of February 1912, and rapidly extended to -practically every colliery in the kingdom. As neither the employers nor -the workmen would give way, the Government then announced its intention -of introducing a Bill to provide for the payment, to all underground -workers in the mine, not of the prescribed minimum rates which the -several districts had formulated, nor yet of the overriding national -minima of 5s. for a man and 2s. for a boy which were being demanded, -but of district minima, to be prescribed in each coalfield by a Joint -Board of employers and workmen, presided over by an impartial chairman. -These provisions were bitterly opposed, not only by the coal-owners, -who objected to any legal minimum, but also by the workmen’s -representatives in the House of Commons, who demanded a prescribed -national minimum; but they were carried into law by substantial -majorities. The Federation Executive was perplexed as to the line to -take, as half the membership wanted to carry on the struggle; but it -was eventually decided to give the Act and the Joint Boards a chance, -and the strike was declared at an end. The district minima and the -rules applicable thereto had, in most cases, to be decided by the -impartial chairmen; and they varied considerably from district to -district, being usually a little less than the workmen had claimed. But -when the working of the system was understood, and it was got smoothly -into operation, it was recognised that the Miners’ Federation had -achieved a very substantial victory. The miners had brought to their -aid, in enforcing the payment of a periodically prescribed Minimum -Day Wage to all underground workers, the strong arm of the law--not, -it is true, as under the Mines Regulation Acts and the Factory and -Workshop Acts, the criminal law, enforced by Government inspectors -and prosecutions, but the civil law of contract, which they could -themselves enforce by actions in the County Court. What the Federation -extorted from the Government and the Legislature was “an extraordinary -piece of hastily prepared legislation rushed through Parliament in -the shadow of an unprecedented national calamity.”[617] It has been -found by experience that this Act, which is nominally only temporary, -does secure to the hewers a substantial minimum of day wages, however -unremunerative their conditions of work; and the fixing of rates by the -Joint Boards has, on the whole, considerably increased the wages of the -various grades of the less skilled workers. But more important than -these immediate results was the demonstration and the consolidation of -the national strength of the Miners’ Federation itself; and the respect -which its great power henceforth secured for it, alike in the Trade -Union Movement, with the employers, and at the hands of the Government -and the House of Commons. - -The miners’ organisations were fully occupied for a year or two -in putting into operation the Act of 1912, and in enforcing the -determinations of the Joint Boards. But in 1913 the delegate conference -made a new move in authorising the Executive Committee to enter into -relations with other Trade Unions with a view to joint action for -mutual assistance. A formal alliance had been made between the Miners’ -Federation, the National Union of Railwaymen, and the Transport -Workers’ Federation--commonly referred to as the Triple Alliance--when -everything was suddenly changed by the breaking out of the Great War. -The 1500 colliery companies and individual colliery owners, most of -whom are united in the Mining Association of Great Britain, as well as -in district associations, have, throughout, steadfastly refused to meet -the Miners’ Federation for the negotiation of any national agreement, -or the concession of national advances; although there has long been -elaborate machinery for negotiation in each district. - -During the four and a quarter years that the world conflict lasted -(1914-18), the miners, like the rest of the British working class, -patriotically subordinated their interests to those of the nation as -a whole. They volunteered for military service in such numbers that -they had to be forbidden to leave the mines, and numbers of them were -sent back from the armies in order to maintain the output of coal. -Where, as in Durham, they had agreements securing them advances of -wages in proportion to the rise in the selling price, they forewent -these advances; and they contented themselves everywhere with less -substantial percentages of rise in rates, and with the two successive -war bonuses of eighteen pence a day each--much below the rise in the -cost of living--which the Government accorded to them in 1917 and 1918. -With the cessation of hostilities at the end of 1918, as the cost of -living continued to advance, the Miners’ Federation (which had elected -for its new secretary a young South Wales miner, Mr. Frank Hodges, -who had educated himself at Labour Colleges; and had also converted -its presidency into a full-time salaried post, and for the first time -acquired an office in London) again took up the forward movement -which it had been concerting five years before; and in February 1919, -after balloting its whole membership, and giving elaborate notice, -it demanded from the employers a general advance of wages of 30 per -cent, the reduction of the hours of labour by an average of one-fourth -(the nominal Eight Hours Day to be made a nominal Six Hours Day), -and--most momentous of all--the elimination of the profit-making -capitalist from the industry by the Nationalisation of the Mines, -for which the Trades Union Congress had been vainly asking for over -twenty years. As the railwaymen and the transport workers were at the -same time in negotiation for improvements in their condition, there -seemed, in March 1919, every prospect of the outbreak of a general -strike on a scale even greater than that of 1912, the “Triple Alliance” -uniting a membership of more than a million and a half, and wielding -in combination the adult male labour of something like one-sixth of -the whole nation. The Government, which was still, under war powers, -directing both the mines and the railways, responded by the offer -of a Statutory Commission, under a Judge of the High Court, with -practically unlimited powers of investigation and recommendation; at -the same time giving the Federation publicly to understand that, whilst -a strike would be suppressed with all the powers of the State, the -recommendations of the Commission would be accepted by the Cabinet. The -conference of the Miners’ Federation spent many hours in deliberation. -A large section of the delegates was for an immediate strike. The men -had, indeed, an extraordinarily advantageous strategic position. The -nation’s stocks of coal were at a minimum, London having only three -days’ supply in hand. Ultimately the advice of the leaders prevailed; -and it was decided to postpone the withdrawal of labour for three -weeks, and to take part in the Statutory Commission, on the express -condition that this body presented an Interim Report within that time; -and--most revolutionary of all--that the Federation should be allowed -to nominate to the Commission, not only three of its own members to -balance the three coal-owners who had been informally designated by -the Mining Association of Great Britain, but also three out of the -six professedly disinterested members, so as to balance the three -capitalists whom the Government had already chosen as representing the -principal industries dependent on the supply of coal at a moderate -price. To these terms the Prime Minister acceded. The Miners’ -Federation, setting a new precedent of far-reaching effect, thereupon -nominated, along with its President, Vice-president, and Secretary, not -three other workmen, but three economists and statisticians belonging -to the Fabian Society, known to them by their lectures and writings. - -The proceedings of this Commission, which sat daily in public in the -King’s Robing-Room at the House of Lords, created an immense sensation. -Instead of the Trade Union, it was the management of the industry that -was put upon its trial. The large profits of the industry under war -conditions were revealed, and especially the enormous gains of the most -advantageous mines; and although the Government itself had benefited -through the Excess Profits’ Duty by 50, 60, and eventually 80 per cent -of these gains, it became apparent to every one that, but for this -abstraction, the price of coal might have been reduced and the miners’ -conditions improved to an extent never before suspected. It was seen, -too, that it was the separate ownership of the mines which stood in -the way of the national sharing of the advantages of the best among -them. The chaotic state of the industry, with 1500 separately working -joint-stock companies operating at very different costs--with no -co-ordination of production, and with extremely wasteful arrangements -for transport and retail distribution--was vividly presented. At -the same time the unsatisfactory conditions under which the miners -lived were impressively demonstrated, the scandalously bad housing of -the mining community in Lanarkshire and elsewhere making a national -sensation. Prompt to the appointed day the Commission presented -three Reports. The three mine-owners proposed no improvement in the -organisation of the industry, and offered an advance of eighteen pence -a day and a reduction of hours by one per day, being only half what -was demanded. The six representatives of the miners presented a long -and reasoned justification of the men’s case; arguing that, with a -unification of the industry in national ownership, with the adoption -in all the mines of the mechanical improvements already in use in the -best-managed among them, with a more carefully concerted transport -system, and with a municipal organisation of retail distribution, -it was practicable to concede the men’s full claim of 30 per cent -advance and a two hours’ shortening of the working day without any -increase in the price of coal to the consumer. The Chairman of the -Commission presented a third report, intermediate in its tenour, in -which he was joined by the three disinterested capitalist members, -proposing an immediate advance of two shillings per day, or 20 per -cent, and an immediate reduction of one hour per day, with a promise -of a further reduction by an hour in 1920, if the condition of the -industry warranted it. With regard to nationalisation, this Report -declared that, as there had not been sufficient time to investigate -the proposal, the Commission would continue its sittings, and promptly -present a further report; but that it was plain, even on the evidence -so far submitted, that the present system stood condemned, and -that some other system must, by national purchase of the mines, be -substituted for it--either State administration, or some plan by which -the mines could be placed under a joint control in which the miners -would share. This impressive declaration by the judicial Chairman, -supported by the three capitalist members who were not mine-owners, -made a great public sensation. The Cabinet immediately accepted the -Chairman’s Report, pledging itself to carry it out “in the letter and -in the spirit.” The Miners’ Federation hesitated, but ultimately, in -consideration of the offer of an immediate further examination of -nationalisation, in the light of Mr. Justice Sankey’s significant -findings, decided to ballot its members, who, to the great relief -of the public, by large majorities agreed to accept the Government -proposal. - -The Coal Industry Commission accordingly continued its sittings, now -concentrating upon the issue of Nationalisation and the participation -of the miners in control. The dramatic feature of the inquiry was -the summoning of a succession of peers and other magnates owning -mining royalties to the witness-chair, there to explain to the -Commission and the public, under the sharp cross-examination of the -Miners’ Federation officials, how they or their ancestors had become -possessed of these property rights, how much they yielded in each -case, and what social service the recipients performed for their huge -incomes. Much evidence was taken for and against State administration. -Within a couple of months of almost incessant daily sittings this -indefatigable Commission presented its further Report, again hopelessly -divided. On the question of ownership of minerals, indeed, the whole -thirteen Commissioners were unanimous--a momentous decision--in -recommending that the royalty owners should be at once expropriated -in favour of the State. All thirteen Commissioners were unanimous, -too, in recommending the admission of the workmen to some degree of -participation in the management by Pit and District Committees. But -there the Commissioners’ agreement ended. What was significant was that -not the miners’ representatives only, but eight out of the thirteen -(including the Chairman) reported in favour of expropriating all the -existing colliery companies and other coal-owners. The Chairman, -supported (in general terms and subject to additional suggestion) -by the six miners’ representatives, proposed an elaborate scheme of -Nationalisation, with administration under a Minister of Mines by -joint District Councils and Pit Committees, in which the men would be -largely represented. The other expropriating Commissioner preferred to -vest the mines in a series of District Coal Corporations of capitalist -shareholders, limited as to dividend, and working under public control, -with a restricted participation of the men in the administration. Five -Commissioners, including all three coal-owners, whilst agreeing to the -Nationalisation of Minerals, refused to contemplate any substantial -change in the working of the mines, least of all any effective sharing -of the workmen in the administration; though even this capitalist -minority gave lip-homage to the principle by recommending the formation -of purely Advisory Pit and District Committees. - -The Government, which had continued in administrative and financial -control of all the collieries of the United Kingdom, whilst agreeing -to adopt, in the spirit and in the letter, the terms of Mr. Justice -Sankey’s first Report, took no steps to bring it into effect, and left -the local mine-owners and miners’ Unions to adjust for themselves -the hours and new rates of pay which it involved. Suddenly, a few -weeks before the new arrangements were to come into force, the Coal -Controller issued an order that no increase of rates was to exceed 10 -per cent--a patent blunder, as it was the average reduction of output -that Mr. Justice Sankey had estimated at 10 per cent, and it was the -actual reduction in each district that had to be compensated for. The -Yorkshire Miners’ Association had almost completed its arrangements -with the Yorkshire mine-owners for a higher percentage of increase -when the Government prohibition was received. The result was an -angry strike which stopped the whole Yorkshire coalfield for several -weeks, and spread to Nottinghamshire. In the end the Government had -to withdraw its mistaken prohibition; and the increase of rates, in -Yorkshire as elsewhere, was, as the miners had asked, made as nearly as -possible proportionate to the expected local reduction in output caused -by the reduction of hours. The hasty action on both sides and the -misunderstandings due to imperfect knowledge, or imperfect expression, -lost the nation some four million tons of coal, and cost the Yorkshire -Miners’ Association about £356,000. - -In October 1919 Mr. Lloyd George announced that whilst the -Government would propose the nationalisation of mining royalties, -and some-undefined “trustification” of the mines by districts, there -would be no adoption of Mr. Justice Sankey’s Report. The Miners’ -Federation refused to accept anything in the nature of capitalist -“trustification,” and called in vain on the Government to fulfil its -pledge to carry out the Report. In December 1919 the Federation, in -conjunction with the Labour Party, the Parliamentary Committee of the -Trades Union Congress, and the Co-operative Union, began a campaign -of propaganda in favour of the Nationalisation of the Coal Supply, -the effect of which, industrially and politically, has yet to become -manifest. We have to break off the story in the middle of a critical -period. - - -THE RAILWAYMEN - -Another great industry, that of the operating staff of the railway -system--scarcely mentioned in the first edition of our _History_--has -come forcibly to the front. Right down to the end of the nineteenth -century, indeed, the railway guards and signalmen, engine-drivers and -firemen, shunters and porters, mechanics and labourers--though they -numbered something like 5 per cent of all the male manual-working -wage-earners--played hardly any part in the Trade Union Movement. -Scattered in small numbers all over the country, and divided among -themselves by differences of grade, conditions, and pay, they long -seemed incapable of organisation as a vocation. For a whole generation -after the establishment of railways no one appears to have thought -Trade Unionism any more permissible among their employees than -among the soldiers or the police. In 1865 an attempt to establish -“The Railway Working Men’s Provident Benefit Society”--which soon -became virtually a Trade Union--by Charles Bassett Vincent, a clerk -in the Railway Clearing House, was ruthlessly crushed by summary -dismissals. In the same year an Association of Engine-drivers and -Firemen on the North-Eastern Railway actually started a strike, but -perished of the attempt. Not until the end of 1871 was a lasting -Trade Union established, and then only by the assistance of Michael -Bass, M.P., a large railway shareholder, by whose long-continued -and entirely disinterested financial and other help the Amalgamated -Society of Railway Servants struggled into being, with Frederick -Evans as its first effective secretary. Other societies followed, of -local or sectional character; but even in 1892, after twenty years -of organisation, and various abortive strikes, there were fewer than -50,000 railwaymen in any sort of Trade Union, or less than one in seven -of the persons employed.[618] - -The objects of such railwaymen’s societies as existed were for many -years confined to the protection of members from “victimisation” or -other tyranny; to the provision of friendly benefits; and to spasmodic -attempts to get accidents prevented or compensated for, and hours -of labour reduced. Wages questions took up little of the attention -of the railway Unions of these years; but strikes on particular -railways--sometimes of particular grades or at particular centres only -of a single railway--now and then occurred; usually in resentment -of some act of tyranny, or against some specially oppressive hours -of labour, and often without the prior approval of the Executive -Committee. In 1890 the Amalgamated Society for the first time launched -an aggressive policy, mainly as regards the hours of labour, which were -indeed scandalous.[619] A prolonged strike for a shorter working day on -the Scottish lines at Christmas 1890 ended in failure, and the merging -of the remnant of the Scottish Society of Railway Servants in the -larger Union. But it aroused public attention and led to an effective -exposure by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1891-92. As -a result the Board of Trade was given certain statutory powers in 1893 -to remedy this tyranny--powers of which, unfortunately, little use was -made. Not for nine years afterwards did the Board of Trade even call -upon the railway companies for a return showing in how many cases men -were kept on duty in excess of twelve hours at a stretch. Four-fifths -of the railwaymen were still outside the ranks of Trade Unionism and -could therefore be both oppressed by their employers and flouted by -the Government Department. Their very right to combine was denied. Sir -George Findlay, the General Manager of the London and North-Western -Railway, voiced the common opinion of the Companies when he declared -that “you might as well have a Trade Union or an ‘Amalgamated Society’ -in the Army, where discipline has to be kept at a very high standard, -as have it on railways.” - -In December 1896, indeed, a determined attempt was made to root out -Trade Unionism in Sir George Findlay’s own railway company by the -dismissal of men discovered to be Trade Unionists. Through the activity -of the Society these victims found influential friends, who by public -and private pressure compelled their reinstatement. The excitement -caused by this incident had some share in swelling the membership of -the Amalgamated Society, which doubled its numbers during the year -1897; and made its first big stride in the “All Grades Movement” in -that year. Previous movements had been local and sectional, and nearly -always in the interests of particular grades. For the first time all -the railway companies were approached simultaneously, with a request -for improvements in all grades from one end of the service to the -other--a reduction of the time of duty, so as to bring the working -day down to ten, and for some grades eight hours; extra payments for -overtime, and a uniform advance of 2s. per week for all grades except -those for whom an eight hours day was sought. The Companies refused -even to consider this very moderate request, and nearly a decade was -to pass--a decade of slow building up of the organisation, first under -Mr. Richard Bell and Mr J. E. Williams, and then under Mr. J. H. -Thomas--before the Trade Unions of railwaymen were able to compel a -hearing for their case.[620] - -Meanwhile the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, and with it the -whole Trade Union Movement, suffered in the law courts a temporary -set-back. An impulsive strike on the Taff Vale Railway in South Wales, -accompanied by extensive and successful picketing, was not countenanced -by the Executive, but was eventually endorsed by its decision to take -up the men’s case; and the Railway Company sued the Society for the -loss occasioned by what were alleged to be the unlawful acts of its -officers. To the surprise of the lawyers, as well as of the public, the -judges held that--in spite of what had seemed the explicit provisions -of the Trade Union Acts of 1871-76--a Trade Union could be made -answerable in damages for all the acts of its officials, central or -local, as if it were a corporate body, whilst still being denied the -privileges of a corporate body. The strike and legal proceedings cost -the Society from first to last nearly £50,000, whilst the danger to the -corporate funds of all Trade Unions that the decision revealed put a -damper on even the best justified strikes until, under persistent Trade -Union pressure, strengthened by the entry into the House of Commons of -a reinforced Labour Party, the Trade Disputes Act of 1906 restored the -law to its state prior to the judicial decisions of 1902. - -The railwaymen could then renew their “All Grades Movement” which the -Companies in January 1907 again declined to consider, steadfastly -refusing any recognition of the men’s Trade Unions, and callously -denying their grievances.[621] Ballots of the membership of the -Amalgamated Society and the General Union decided on a strike by 80,026 -to 1857 votes, and in November 1907 a national stoppage was at hand -when Mr. Lloyd George intervened as President of the Board of Trade, -compelled the Companies to listen to reason, and persuaded both parties -to accept an elaborate scheme of Local and Central Conciliation Boards, -composed of equal numbers representing management and men, with an -impartial chairman and authority to decide on wages and hours. These -Conciliation Boards, unsatisfactory as they proved, represented a real -triumph. For the first time the autocracy of the railway management -was broken. There was, it is true, still no express recognition of -the Trade Unions, but the men’s representatives were to be freely -elected on each railway by all the employees grouped according to -their grades; and these elected representatives met the management on -professedly equal terms. The elections showed how thoroughly justified -was the claim of the Railwaymen’s Trade Unions that they were voicing -the wishes of practically the whole body of railwaymen. In spite of -strenuous efforts by the management on most of the lines, and of the -unfortunate jealousies among the different societies, in nearly all -cases the nominees of one or other of the Unions were elected, often by -large majorities. For the next few years the Amalgamated Society and -the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen were busy -in fighting the cases of the various grades through the Conciliation -Boards, and in securing thereby many small increases of wages and -reductions of hours. But matters did not go smoothly. The Companies, -for the most part, pursued a policy of obstruction and postponement, -delaying the awards, quibbling about their application, and in some -cases deliberately evading their terms, notably by inventing new -grades to which men could be appointed at lower rates of pay than -those prescribed. The “impartial” chairmen, moreover, differed among -themselves in the assumptions on which they proceeded, and some of -the awards caused great resentment. Meanwhile the cost of living was -steadily rising, and railwaymen as a whole were falling further behind -other organised workers. Progress was delayed in 1909-10 by a new -set-back which the Amalgamated Society suffered in the law courts, in -the prolonged litigation carried by one of its members, with capitalist -assistance, right up to the House of Lords, by which the participation -of any Trade Union in political activity was declared invalid--a -piece of “judge-made law” to which we shall recur, and for which the -Government and Parliament at first refused all redress. Suddenly, in -August 1911, the pot boiled over. There was a spirit of revolt in the -Labour world. In June and July the seamen and the dockers had struck, -and stopped the port of London. There was an outburst of “unauthorised” -railway strikes at Manchester, Liverpool, and some other big towns, -and a general demand for a national strike. The Executives of the four -principal railwaymen’s Unions, for once acting closely in concert, gave -the Companies twenty-four hours to decide whether they would consent -to meet the men’s representatives, or face a national stoppage. Once -more the Government intervened, Mr. Asquith offering a Royal Commission -of indefinite duration and issue, merely to propose amendments in -the scheme of Conciliation Boards, and at the same time definitely -informing the men--a fact which they judiciously refrained from -publishing--that the Government would not hesitate to use the troops -to prevent the commerce of the country from being interfered with.[622] -The Unions refused the illusory offer, and a national strike began, -which, although far from universal, was sufficient to disorganise -the whole railway service--as many as 200,000 men stopping work--and -was rapidly bringing industry to a standstill. At the instance of -Mr. Winston Churchill, who was then Home Secretary, an overpowering -display was made with the troops, which were sent to Manchester and -other places, without requisition by the civil authorities, at the -mere request of the Companies. In fact, a policy of repression had -been decided on, and bloodshed was near at hand. In vain did the Union -leaders ask Mr. Asquith, as Prime Minister, to take steps to obtain a -meeting between the Companies’ managers and the Union representatives. -Wiser counsels seem to have prevailed in the Cabinet, which -peremptorily instructed the Companies to let their General Managers -meet the men’s representatives face to face at the Board of Trade. -For just upon twelve hours these managers, thus coerced, negotiated -with four representatives of the Unions, together with Mr. Henderson -and Mr. J. R. MacDonald of the Parliamentary Labour Party. At last -an agreement was made--the first ever concluded between the Railway -Companies as a whole and the Trade Unions of their employees--for -an ending of the strike, on terms of complete reinstatement of the -strikers; an immediate consideration by the Conciliation Boards of -all grievances; and a prompt investigation by a bipartite Royal -Commission of the dissatisfaction with these Boards, and the best way -of amending the scheme.[623] When the Commission reported--it was -ultimately termed a Special Committee of Inquiry--the Railwaymen’s -Union once more asked the Companies to meet them for negotiation, which -the Companies again refused to do. On the Unions resolving to ballot -their members as to a national strike, the House of Commons set a new -precedent by passing, at the instance of the Government, a resolution -formally recommending a joint meeting, whereupon the Companies gave -way. At the meeting that ensued a new scheme of Conciliation Boards -was jointly agreed to, amending the 1907 scheme generally on the line -of the Special Committee’s report, but introducing most of the other -modifications that the Unions thought necessary. The machinery was made -more rapid in action, and the scope of the Boards was extended. Most -important of all, the men’s side of each Board was allowed to choose as -secretary a person not in the employ of the Company; and it accordingly -became possible for a Trade Union official to take up this work, and -that not only for a single grade but, by acting for several Boards, -simultaneously for all grades. This was not “recognition” in form, but -at any rate the Trade Union official was let in. During the next two -years, in spite of incredible obstructions, quibblings, and evasions by -the Companies, a number of small improvements in the terms of service -were obtained from the Boards for all the grades on practically all -the lines. A result of this joint working of even greater importance -was the merging, in 1913, after prolonged negotiations, of three out -of the four principal societies of manual railway workers[624]--the -Amalgamated, the General Union, and the United Pointsmen and -Signalmen--into a new Trade Union upon a carefully revised basis, under -the title of the National Union of Railwaymen. - -The “New Model” for Trade Union structure thus deliberately adopted -merits attention. In contrast with what we have called the “New -Model,” in 1851 of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, that of 1913 -represents an attempt to include, in a single “amalgamated” Union, -all the various “crafts” and grades of workers engaged in a single -industry throughout the whole kingdom. The declared object of the -National Union of Railwaymen is “to secure the complete organisation -of all workers employed on or in connection with any railway in the -United Kingdom.” It thus definitely negatives both “sectionalism” -and “localism” in favour of “Industrial Unionism.” Indeed, it may be -suggested that the new constitution passes, by definition, even beyond -the “Industrial Unionism,” to which the most advanced section of Trade -Unionists were aspiring, into what has been termed “Employmental -Unionism,” in that it seeks to enrol in one Union, not merely all -sections of railway workers, but actually all who are employed by any -railway undertaking--thus including, not only the engineering and -wood-working mechanics in the railway engineering workshops,[625] but -also the cooks, waiters, and housemaids at the fifty-five railway -hotels; the sailors and firemen on board the railway companies’ fleets -of steamers, and (though no trouble has actually arisen about them) -the compositors, lithographers, and bookbinders whom the railway -printing works employ in the production of tickets, time-tables, -office stationery, and advertisement posters; even the men whom one, -at least, of the largest companies keeps in constant employment at -the manufacture of crutches and wooden legs for the disabled members -of its staff. This all-inclusiveness has, since 1913, brought the -National Union of Railwaymen into conflict with many other Trade -Unions; and the question of the proper lines of demarcation has so -far remained unsettled. The principal new feature in constitutional -structure was the establishment of a distinct legislature--the Annual -General Meeting--consisting, in addition to the President and General -Secretary, of sixty representatives elected by the membership in -geographical constituencies of approximately equal size. Subordinate -to the Annual General Meeting (which can be summoned specially when -required) is the Executive Committee of the President, General -Secretary, and twenty-four other members, the latter being severally -elected by the device of the Single Transferable Vote by each of four -prescribed departments of members in each of six gigantic geographical -constituencies; one-third of such representatives retiring annually, -and after each triennial term of service, becoming ineligible for three -years, whilst the Branches to which they belong also become unable to -nominate representatives for a like term. The Executive Committee, -which, like the Annual General Meeting, consists of working railwaymen, -paid only for their days of service, meets quarterly and appoints four -sectional sub-committees, which must also meet at least quarterly. -Noteworthy, too, is the District Council, which--constitutionally -only a voluntary federation of geographically adjacent Branches for -propagandist and purely consultative purposes--has, with an unofficial -National Federation of District Councils, developed into an active -“caucus” of the more energetic members for discussing and promoting -“forward movements” in the Annual General Meeting, and “organising” the -elections to the Executive Committee. - -With such a constitution, and the administration of extensive friendly -benefits in a society now approaching half a million members, it is -inevitable that the Executive Committee should wield extensive powers. -It initiates and conducts all trade movements, and can therefore call -a national strike, even without a ballot vote; and whilst it may take -a ballot vote at any time on any question, the rules expressly provide -that it is not to be bound by the members’ decision. Originally the -Executive Committee had power also “to settle” any dispute; but this -was withdrawn by resolutions of the Annual General Meetings of 1915 -and 1916, which required all settlements to be reported to itself for -ratification. In practice very large powers, both of office management -and of negotiation, are necessarily exercised by the six salaried -officers, the President, the General Secretary, and the four Assistant -Secretaries, each of whom is responsible for a separate branch of the -Union’s work. They have, however, not been able to prevent a series of -“unauthorised” strikes, local or sectional in character. - -At the beginning of 1914 everything pointed to a further forward -movement by the N.U.R. Its Annual General Meeting cordially accepted -the Miners’ proposal to unite with them and the Transport Workers in -the so-called Triple Alliance. Moreover, its desires now began to go -beyond improvements in wages and hours. Its representatives had, for -twenty years, sometimes moved and always supported the resolutions -of the Trades Union Congress in favour of the Nationalisation of -Railways. In 1913 the Railway Clerks’ Association had gone a step -further, and had asked also for participation in control. In 1914 the -resolution intended to be submitted on behalf of the N.U.R. declared -that “no system of State Ownership of the railways will be acceptable -to organised railwaymen which does not guarantee to them their full -political and social rights, allow them a due measure of control -and responsibility in the safe and efficient working of the railway -system, and assure to them a fair and equitable participation in -the increased benefits likely to accrue from a more economical and -scientific administration.” Here we have the first expressions of -the desire for participation in the management of the railways.[626] -From that time forward the demand has become ever more explicit -and determined. Meanwhile, however, the first step was plainly the -drastic amendment of the scheme of Conciliation Boards; and proposals -were under consideration when war broke out. In marked contrast with -their previous action, the Railway Companies were actually meeting -the Union representatives in a joint committee of seven a side. The -growth in membership of the National Union of Railwaymen at that date -to over 300,000, and its entry into the “Triple Alliance” of miners, -railwaymen, and transport workers, had, in fact, at last compelled the -Companies, in fact, to concede “recognition,” although they denied at -the time that they were so doing. During the war the actual alteration -of the scheme was to remain in abeyance, but the Executive Committee -came in 1915 to a provisional agreement with the Companies as to -certain amendments, which the Annual General Meeting of that year -considered inadequate and refused to sanction. Meanwhile, in view of -the rising cost of living, successive war bonuses, uniform throughout -the Kingdom for all grades of the traffic staff, were obtained from the -President of the Board of Trade--the cost, in effect, falling on the -Government under its arrangement for guaranteeing to the shareholders -the net revenue of 1913--amounting altogether to 33s. per week for men, -16s. 6d. per week for women and boys, and 8s. 3d. per week for girls, -thus more than doubling the average pre-war wages. The Government, -moreover, promised sympathetic consideration of the men’s demand for an -Eight Hours’ Day immediately on the termination of the war. - -When the Armistice in November 1918 brought hostilities to an end, -negotiations were at once begun for a settlement of the outstanding -questions. The National Union of Railwaymen, in more friendly -conjunction with the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and -Firemen, whilst gaining advances fully equivalent to the increase in -the cost of living, had secured in principle not only recognition, but -also the valuable right of entering into negotiation with the united -management of all the railways, instead of always being referred to -the several companies; and even more important, it had obtained, in -the uniform war bonuses, the basis of national rates of wages for -the several grades, instead of rates and classes of workers varying -from company to company. It was now to secure, without an effort, the -Eight Hours’ Day, to come into operation on February 1, 1919, which -the Government, not even consulting the Railway Companies, singly or -collectively, in December 1918, conceded in principle without reduction -of wages, whilst the necessary reclassification of workers and -adjustment of times and wages on a national system became the subject -of prolonged and difficult negotiations between the Railway Executive -Committee and the two principal Unions. - -The negotiations for “standardisation” which necessarily involved -the amalgamation of the uniform war bonus with the varying basic -rate, were dragged out by the Government from February to the end of -August, to the growing irritation of the railwaymen. What occurred, -as Ministers subsequently confessed, or rather boasted, was that, -beginning actually in February, the Government made extensive secret -preparations to break the strike which it was foreseen would occur when -the Government’s decisions were made known. The railwaymen themselves -confidently expected, seeing that the cost of living had not fallen, -but was officially certified, in September 1919, at 115 per cent above -that of July 1914, that their rates would be “standardised upwards,” so -as both to adopt the scales of the best companies for all the staff, -and to include the whole of the war bonus. But this automatic inclusion -of the war bonus in the Standard Rate, which some trades had already -secured, was exactly what the leading industrial employers were, for -their own trades, anxious to prevent. They counted, indeed, on bringing -about throughout British industry, during 1919 or 1920, irrespective of -any change in the cost of living, a general reduction of the “swollen” -wages of war-time; and there was a prevalent feeling among them, which -is known to have been shared by some, at least, of the Ministers, and -quite frankly expressed, that a big “fight with the Trade Unions” -was inevitable, and that it would be “better to get it over” before -industry had generally restarted under peace conditions. How far Sir -Auckland Geddes, who as President of the Board of Trade was responsible -for the negotiations, and his brother, Sir Eric Geddes, who as Minister -of Transport took over the work, shared this view, and allowed it to -inspire their official action, has not been revealed. The historian -can only note that the Government proceedings appear consistent with -this hypothesis. The Government deliberately separated from the mass -of railwaymen the locomotive drivers and firemen, whose services were -regarded as specially indispensable, and whose allegiance was divided -between the two rival Unions. In August acceptable terms were proposed -for these two classes, which conceded not only the absorption of the -whole war bonus in the new scale of wages, but also certain further -increases of pay, coming near to the Union’s full claims. Such a -concession, it was subsequently noted, was admirably calculated, in -the event of a strike, to detach the drivers and firemen from their -fellow-members; to divide the two Unions, and to arouse expectations -in the other grades which would make it practically certain that they -would indignantly refuse the offer that was to be made in a few weeks. -When the “definite” decision of the Government was sent to the Union, -in a letter in which Sir Auckland Geddes with his own hand altered the -word to “definitive,” as if in order to ensure an explosion, it was -found that by the new scale, beginning on January 1, 1920, every grade -was to suffer a reduction of existing earnings, varying from only -a shilling or two per week in some cases up to as much as sixteen -shillings per week--the new standard rate of the porter, for instance, -being fixed at 40s., as compared with the 51s. or 53s. that he was -actually receiving, or with the 60s. per week for which the Union had -asked. No explanation was given by the brothers Geddes that what was -intended was that there should be on January 1, 1920, no reduction -whatever in the men’s earnings, and that the Government’s policy was -(as subsequently stated by Mr. Lloyd George, but only on the very -morning of the strike, which was the first revelation of it) that there -should never be any reduction at all unless the cost of living fell -for over three months below 110 per cent in excess of pre-war prices, -and that (as was announced only in the Government advertisements on -the eighth day of the strike) the future “sliding scale,” which had -never been definitely formulated, would be allowed to work upwards as -well as downwards. Unless the intention of the “definitive” offer was -then and there to provoke an indignant strike, why was no hint of this -“policy for 1920” included; why was it left to be only incidentally -revealed, in such a way as not to be easily understood, in the final -personal discussion with the Prime Minister; and, seeing that the -Minister of Food himself had publicly announced that what was probable, -from January 1920, was not a fall but a further rise in the cost of -living, why was the alarming suggestion of a reduction to 40s. per -week ever made at all? It is almost impossible to avoid the inference -that the Government, which certainly decided the date and the issues, -decided also the strike itself, with a view to “beating the Union,” -in order to get a free hand for railway reorganisation without the -necessity of consulting the operatives; in order, probably, to fit in -with the general capitalist project of a scaling down of the “swollen” -war-wages; and, as some say, in order to supply Mr. Lloyd George with a -useful “election stunt,” with which, in the eyes of the middle class, -irretrievably to damage the Labour Party. - -Whether intentionally on the part of the Ministers, or by reason -of an amazing maladroitness in their negotiations, what had been -foreseen and expected by the Government, and for six months secretly -prepared for, actually came to pass. On Wednesday, September 24, the -Executive Council of the National Union of Railwaymen issued orders -for a national strike to begin at midnight on Friday, September 26, -unless countermanded by telegraph. So little had the Union intended -or contemplated such action that absolutely no notice of the crisis -had been given to the Miners’ Federation or the Transport Workers’ -Federation, who were the railwaymen’s colleagues in the Triple -Alliance; and the Union had only some £3000 available in cash. Efforts -were made by the men to avert the stoppage, which it was recognised -would be a national calamity. The Executive Council sought and obtained -long interviews with the Prime Minister himself on Thursday, and even -on the Friday morning; and the verbatim reports of these discussions -reveal (_a_) that the Government showed no inclination to meet the -men’s case--Sir Eric Geddes peremptorily intervening at one point even -to prevent a criticism of the “definitive” new scale being adduced; -(_b_) that the Government did not even then set forth what subsequently -turned out to have been the proposal that the Ministry of Transport had -really intended to make (unless, indeed, we are to assume that the -“definitive” offer was silently changed in the course of the strike). -Again, it can only be inferred that Mr. Lloyd George either did not -wish to prevent the strike or else was quite exceptionally below his -usual level of lucidity in explanation of any scheme that he wished to -have accepted. What the Prime Minister did was immediately to denounce -to the public the National Union of Railwaymen as engaged in an -anarchist conspiracy! - -The nine days’ stoppage that ensued was, in many respects, the most -remarkable industrial conflict that we have yet seen. Half a million -railwaymen left their work at midnight on the 26th of September, the -Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen at once joining -loyally with the N.U.R., and very nearly every member of either Union -coming out. The men on the Irish railways were directed to remain at -work. Never before had there been so nearly a complete stoppage of the -railway service from one end of Great Britain to the other. It is to be -noted that the third Union, the Railway Clerks’ Association (which had -come to include the Clerical, Administrative, and Supervisory Staffs), -directed its members to remain absolutely neutral, and not to do any of -the strikers’ work. The various Unions of Post Office employees sought -and obtained an official decision that they were not to be called upon -to do any service hitherto done by men on strike. The Government, which -sent soldiers to guard some of the railway stations,[627] hastened -to announce publicly--in significant contrast with its decision of -1912--that in no case would the troops be employed to run trains. For -the first time the Government found itself liable to pay unemployment -benefit to all other workers who were stopped as a result of the -strike; and for the enormous extension of the State Unemployment -Benefit that was expected to be required, arrangements were promulgated -under which the Benefit would be issued by each employer to his own -wage-earners, when these were thrown idle by the strike; and that -whilst such persons might be called upon to take temporary employment -in handling food supplies, they would not be required to accept service -on the railways themselves. - -There was, in spite of wild newspaper exaggerations, practically no -disorder and no attempt to injure property. Except in a very few cases, -in which local mishandling of the situation by the authorities led to -resentment and misunderstanding, the Executive Council’s order that -the horses were not to be allowed to suffer was cordially acted on by -the men. The Government was allowed, without attempt at obstruction, -to bring at once into operation the elaborate arrangements it had long -been preparing, for ensuring the regular supply of London and other -large towns with milk and other foodstuffs by means of an extensive -motor-lorry service. Volunteers for railway work were called for, and -with the aid of the small remnant of non-unionists a tiny trickle of -trains was set going, which provided for the local passenger service -in London and some other cities; and gradually accomplished one or -two long-distance trains per day, which carried the mails and were -crowded with venturous passengers. What stopped almost completely -was the mineral and heavy goods traffic, and by the end of the week -so many industries had come to the end of their fuel, and so many -coalpits were short of waggons and of room at the pithead, that, -whilst nearly 400,000 workmen in collieries and factories were already -idle, the next week would have seen literally millions unemployed. -Meanwhile, in spite of press reports to the contrary, the Union -Executives knew that, whilst a few men returned to work, each day more -joined the strikers, so that there were actually a greater number -signing the book at the end than at the beginning of the struggle. -But the National Union of Railwaymen found considerable difficulty in -realising from its investments, and in making locally available at a -couple of thousand centres, sufficient cash to pay immediately the -half a million pounds of strike pay that was required; and only the -prompt and cordial assistance of the Co-operative Wholesale Society’s -printing department, which got out the necessary supply of cheques in -marvellously quick time, and of the Co-operative Wholesale Society’s -Bank, which made the N.U.R. cheques payable at the several Co-operative -Societies themselves, averted a breakdown. Food was in some cases -refused to the strikers by shopkeepers; and it may be that it was only -the prompt assistance of the Co-operative Societies, which agreed to -honour vouchers issued by the local strike committees, that prevented -the Government from putting in operation a project of starving out the -railwaymen’s families by withdrawing their ration cards or withholding -the food supplies under Government control. One blow below the belt -the Government did strike in arbitrarily commanding the withholding -from the strikers of a whole week’s pay which they had earned by their -service prior to the stoppage, and which it was the custom of the -companies always to keep in hand for a week by way of security against -theft or embezzlement. This had never been done in any previous railway -strike. Whether or not the railwaymen had broken any legal contract -of service by giving only three days’ notice of their strike, is not -clear--the point appears never to have been raised or decided,--but in -any case the companies had only a right to sue each man for any damages -that might be shown to be caused by such a breach of contract; and the -Government had plainly no legal warrant for becoming the judge in its -own cause, and itself arbitrarily assessing the damages due from each -man at precisely one week’s earnings. This action, coupled with the -evasive and ever-changing terms of the Government’s wage proposals, -and the campaign of abuse that the Government organised throughout the -press--personally directed by Sir William Sutherland, one of the Prime -Minister’s secretaries--had a great influence in rallying the Trade -Union world in support of the railwaymen. - -The “publicity campaign,” by which, for the first time in an industrial -struggle, a persistent organised appeal was made by both sides to -public opinion, was, indeed, the most remarkable feature of the -struggle. At the outset the Government, in spite of the outspoken -advocacy of the _Daily Herald_, had it all its own way. The public, -seriously inconvenienced by the stoppage, was told by nearly every -newspaper in the Kingdom--daily supplied by a Government office with -a lengthy bulletin of “Strike News”--that the strike was the result -of an “anarchist” conspiracy among the railwaymen; that the Union had -wantonly broken off negotiations without cause because it positively -wished to “hold up” the whole community; that the Government had -not really intended any reduction of wages at all, and that the -figure of 40s. had reference only to the contingency of the cost of -living reverting to what it was before the war; that, in fact, the -Government were positively doubling the railwaymen’s wages, and that -the men, realising this, and discovering how they had been deceived -by their Executive Council, were resuming their duties at all points. -To counteract this Government propaganda, the _Daily Herald_ made -the most enterprising arrangements for getting its issue distributed -all over England, and more than doubled its circulation, whilst the -National Union of Railwaymen employed its own Publicity Department, -utilising for this purpose the Labour Research Department.[628] A -number of competent writers, cartoonists, and statisticians belonging -to the Labour Party placed their services in this way at the Research -Department’s disposal, so that the Executive Council was able, within a -couple of days, to pour forth a stream of articles, letters, speeches, -and cartoons, for which the newspapers generally accorded space.[629] -Every move of the Government, and every statement that it issued, -was immediately countered by an appropriate answer. When Mr. Lloyd -George supplied a message denouncing the strikers which appeared on -the film in every cinema, Mr. J. H. Thomas was himself filmed in the -act of delivering a cogent reply. But the Union’s Publicity Department -found the space given by the newspapers inadequate, and started -placing full-page advertisements in the _Times_ and other newspapers, -in which the Government’s equivocations and evasions as to the wages -offered were effectively exposed. The Government followed suit, -and presently the two advertisements appeared on successive pages, -with the unforeseen result that the Government’s statement of its -proposals to the men was detected in changing from day to day as the -strike continued, growing progressively more favourable to the men, -but professing still to be the “definitive” decision of Sir Auckland -Geddes which had provoked the strike. The outcome of a week’s skilfully -organised “publicity” was a steady shifting of public opinion, and even -a distinct change in the newspaper editorials. By the end of the week -the men’s case was winning. - -Meanwhile, the leaders of the principal Trade Unions indirectly -affected by the railway stoppage, notably the various sections of -Transport Workers, together with officials or representatives of the -Miners, the Parliamentary Committee, and the Labour Party, had been -meeting in anxious conclave--summoned, it should be stated, by the -Executive of the National Transport Workers’ Federation--with a view to -restraining their own members from impetuous action in support of the -railwaymen, and to bringing pressure to bear on both parties to secure -a settlement. At first the prospect seemed hopeless. The Government -took up an attitude of defiance. Mr. Lloyd George declared that he -would not enter into any negotiations with the railwaymen’s Unions -until the men had unconditionally returned to their duty. A national -appeal was made to all the Local Authorities--not to strengthen the -police force by special constables, as is the constitutional procedure, -but to institute a “Citizen Guard,” in order to repel the forces of -disorder; a wild use of a term of bad omen, which was calculated, -if not intended, to bring the “class war” into the streets. It was -known that measures of arbitrary confiscation of the Union funds -were seriously under consideration, together with discriminatory -issues of food supplies. On the other side, the feeling of the Trade -Unionists was rising to anger. The position could not well have been -more serious. But the “eleven”--afterwards the “fourteen”--Trade -Union mediators were patient and persistent. They had long interviews -with the railwaymen’s Executive. They had long discussions with the -Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Minister -of Transport. They cleared up misunderstandings. They eliminated -provocative expressions. They brought the Government to admit -that there was no present chance of reducing wages. They got the -railwaymen to see that merely to postpone the issue was to strengthen -their grip upon what they were actually receiving. Notwithstanding -the Government’s defiant words, the Trade Union mediators got the -railwaymen’s Executive Council into prolonged and repeated discussions -at 10 Downing Street with the Prime Minister and his colleagues.[630] -At last, on Sunday morning, October 3, Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Thomas -were closeted together for the final stage; the news was immediately -flashed all over the kingdom that the strike was settled, and in the -evening Mr. Thomas announced to a mass meeting of railwaymen in the -Albert Hall the terms of settlement. These included an immediate -resumption of work without victimisation or recrimination; payment of -the impounded arrears of wages; “stabilisation” of existing earnings -of all rates (except where improved) until September 30, 1920; -negotiations as to “standardisation” and settlement of wage scales to -be begun again, and a settlement to be come to before December 31, -1919; and the lowest adult railwayman to be raised forthwith to 51s. -per week as a minimum. Before the end of 1919 it was announced that the -Government had agreed to concede, for the future, that all questions -relating to the conditions of service should be dealt with, not by -the railway companies but by a Central Board of ten members (with -power to increase by a further one on each side), five nominees of the -National Union of Railwaymen and the Associated Society of Locomotive -Engineers and Firemen, and five representatives of the railway -management. In case of disagreement, reference will be made to an -Appeal Board of twelve members, four nominated by these Trade Unions, -four representing the management, and four the general public, with a -chairman nominated by the Government. What is specially significant -is that it is recognised that “the public” does not consist merely of -the upper and middle, or of the capitalist and professional classes. -Of the four representatives of the public, two are to be nominated, -respectively, by the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the Federation -of British Industries, and two, respectively, by the Parliamentary -Committee of the Trades Union Congress and the Co-operative Union, who -are thus taken to represent the four-fifths of the population (and -therefore of the railway users) who are manual working wage-earners. -At the same time it was conceded that the Advisory Committee for -Railway Management, which replaces under the Minister of Transport -the Railway Executive Committee, is to include, from the start, three -representatives of the railwaymen’s Unions, all the members having -equal and identical functions and rights. - -We do not yet know what agreement will be reached about -“standardisation” or the future scale of wages, but the Ministry of -Transport is not likely to try another fall with the railwaymen’s Trade -Unions. The strike has had, indeed, results of the first importance. -The Government has learnt that Trade Unionism is not easily beaten, -even when all the resources of the State are put forth against it, and -when public opinion is incensed. The great capitalist organisations -have seen the warning against their projects of a general reduction of -wages; and this is postponed, at least, for a year. On the other hand, -the railwaymen’s Unions have realised the magnitude of the struggle -into which they so precipitately entered, or into which they were so -artfully inveigled. The need for, and the potency of, skilled publicity -work, and the possibilities of a highly organised and adequately -supported Labour Research Department, are commonly recognised. Finally, -it is seen that national industrial conflicts of such a magnitude are -matters of wider concern to the Trade Union world than any one Union -can appreciate; and an attempt was made, to be subsequently described, -if not to continue in existence the group of “Fourteen Mediators,” at -least to get established some authoritative standing Council, by which -the approach of an impending industrial crisis of national scope could -be closely watched, so that all the necessary steps may be taken in -time to deal with the situation in the best possible way. The Trade -Union world realised its need for what was called a General Staff. - - -AMALGAMATIONS AND FEDERATIONS - -Whilst the numerical strength and industrial and political influence -of the several Trade Unions have thus steadily increased during the -past thirty years, it is less easy to characterise the changes in the -relations of Trade Unions with each other. - -The multiplicity of separate organisations in which the six or seven -million Trade Unionists are grouped, and the complication and diversity -of the relations among the various societies, continue to-day, as they -did thirty years ago, to baffle classification, and almost to defy -analysis. It remains as impossible as it was in 1890 to state precisely -how many distinct Trade Unions are in existence, because the endless -variety of their federal organisations makes it uncertain which -of the local or sectional Unions are to be counted as independent -societies. We estimate, however, that upon any computation the number -of financially distinct organisations, which we may put at about 1100, -remains approximately what it was thirty years ago. The tendency to -amalgamation, that is to say, has just about kept pace, arithmetically, -with the starting of new organisations, whilst the average membership -of each unit has more than quadrupled. - -Such a statement fails, however, to do justice to the change that -has come over the Trade Union world. Thirty years ago it was, on the -whole, a congeries of numerically small units, only two or three of -which counted as many as 50,000 members. To-day there are nearly a -dozen which severally manage memberships of a quarter of a million, -and probably fifty which deal with more than 50,000 each. A few other -national societies of smaller membership are of some importance. -Scattered up and down the United Kingdom a thousand other local or -sectional societies exist, with memberships from a few dozen to a -few thousand, but these play no part and exercise no influence in -the movement as a whole. Probably five-sixths of all the Trade Union -membership, and practically all its effective force, are to be found -among the hundred principal societies to which the Ministry of Labour -has long confined its detailed statistics.[631] - -The movement for the amalgamation of competing societies has, during -the past decade, been specially energetic and persistent. This has -arisen, partly spontaneously, from the obvious disadvantages attendant -both on rivalry between Trade Unions seeking to enrol the same classes -of members throughout the kingdom--such as that between the various -societies of railway employees--and on the division of workmen of the -same craft among a number of independent local societies, such as the -Coopers, the Chippers and Drillers, and the Painters and other branches -of the Building Trades. But during the past decade the movement has -been reinforced by the desire for an organisation based on the whole -of an industry, such as engineering, housebuilding, mining, or the -railway service, in which all the co-operating crafts and grades of -workers would be associated in a single Industrial Union; in contrast -with the earlier conception of the separate organisation of each craft -throughout the whole kingdom; such as that of the carpenters, the -enginemen, the engineering mechanics, the clerks, and by analogy the -general labourers, in whatsoever industry they may be working. The case -for the Industrial Union in such an industry as mining, for example, -merely from the standpoint of Collective Bargaining, and for the sake -of getting effective Common Rules, has always been a strong one; but -the movement for the substitution of “Industrial” for “Craft” Unionism -has been strengthened since about 1911 by the aspirations of those who -saw in Trade Unionism something more than an organisation for raising -wages and shortening the working day. If the wage-earners were ever to -obtain, through their own voluntary associations, the control of their -own working lives, and to obtain a steadily increasing participation -in the direction of industry; if a Vocational Democracy were to be -superimposed on a Democracy based on geographical constituencies; it -seemed as if this could be done only by Trade Unions co-extensive with -each separate industry. The influence of the movement known as “Guild -Socialism” has accordingly been exercised, on the whole, in favour -of Industrial Unionism, not so much for the sake of its immediate -advantages in improving the conditions of the wage-contract, as because -it was only in this form that Trade Unionism could become the vehicle -of aspirations to the control of each industry by the whole mass of the -workers employed therein. - -Except in the way of industrial federations, to be hereafter referred -to, it is only in mining and the railway service that any great -progress has been made in this direction. The Miners’ Federation of -Great Britain, established, as we have seen, only in 1888, with no -more than 36,000 members, has attracted to itself, year by year, an -almost continuous stream of local or sectional organisations among -the 1,200,000 workers in and about the coal and iron-stone mines; -successively absorbing into one or other of its local units or -affiliating directly to itself, not only all the district associations, -old or new, of coal-hewers and other underground workers, but also -some of the separate organisations of enginemen and firemen, mine -mechanics, deputies and overmen, colliery clerks, cokemen, and others -employed in or about the mines, until its aggregate membership in 1920 -is somewhere about 900,000. And though the Miners’ Federation is still -only a Federation of fully autonomous district associations--some -of these, too, being themselves federations of the organisations of -lesser localities; and although it still depends for its funds almost -entirely upon specific levies upon its constituents, it has found -means, by its frequently meeting delegate conferences, controlling -the strong Executive Committee which they elect, to centralise very -effectively the general policy of the whole mining industry, notably -with regard to the hours of labour, the conditions of safety, the -percentage of general advances of wages and the amount of the national -war bonuses, and last, though not least, on the burning issue of -nationalisation of the mines and the participation of the miners in -their administration. But although the Miners’ Federation embodies in -its constitution the principles of federalism and an extreme local -autonomy, it takes no account of sectional differences, and makes no -provision for the representation at its delegate conferences, or upon -its Executive Committee, of any distinct grades or sections. Perhaps, -for this reason, the Federation does not yet speak directly for all -the organised manual working wage-earners in the industry. There are -at least forty separate Trade Unions of enginemen, boilermen and -firemen, colliery mechanics, cokemen, under-managers, deputies, overmen -and other officials, colliery clerks, and surface-workers of various -kinds, not yet affiliated to the Miners’ Federation, either locally or -nationally; these have formed National Federations, parallel with the -Miners’ Federation of Great Britain, of enginemen, deputies, colliery -mechanics and under-managers respectively; and in February 1917 -seventeen of the societies drew together to form the National Council -of Colliery Workers other than Miners, for the purpose of maintaining -their separate influence. - -In the railway service, as we have already described, the merging in -the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, first of the Scottish -Society in 1892, and then of the General Railway Workers’ Union, and -the United Signalmen and Pointsmen’s Society in 1913, made possible the -establishment of the National Union of Railwaymen on the basis of an -organisation co-extensive with the industry, with the embodiment in the -constitution of sectional representation. The four “departments” into -which the members are divided vote separately in the elections. Under -these provisions the National Union of Railwaymen, though hampered -by the continuance of the separate Associated Society of Locomotive -Engineers and Firemen, has been able to make effective not only its -claims for higher remuneration, but also its demands for a normal -Eight Hours Day, a national system of classification, and national -wage scales for the several grades; though still not its aspirations -(expressed since 1914) to participation in management, or those -(expressed for over a decade) to the elimination from industry of the -capitalist profitmaker by the scheme of Railway Nationalisation. - -In other industries, too, the concentration of Trade Union forces -during the past decade has increasingly taken the form of an -amalgamation of rival sectional organisations, sometimes in response -to a demand from the rank and file. Thus the Ship Constructors’ and -Shipwrights’ Association, established in 1888, has successfully -absorbed not only the very old Shipwrights’ Provident Union of London, -but also all the remaining local Trade Unions of shipwrights that long -lingered in Liverpool, Dublin, etc. The National Amalgamated Furnishing -Trades Association has taken over a number of small societies of French -polishers, gilders, and upholsterers. The United Garment Workers’ Trade -Union was formed in 1915 by the amalgamation of a number of societies -in the various sections of the tailoring trade; and in 1919 it was -agreed that this, together with the Scottish Society of Tailors and -Tailoresses, should be merged in the old Amalgamated Society of Tailors -and Tailoresses, which would then include practically all the organised -workers in the making of men’s and women’s clothing in Great Britain. -Many small Unions of machine workers, minor craftsmen, and general -labourers have been absorbed in one or other of the half-a-dozen large -Labour Unions. The Amalgamated Card and Blowing-Room Operatives have -taken over various small sectional societies in the Cotton trade. In -Sheffield thirteen small Unions, catering for different sections of -the gold and silver workers, joined together in 1910 in the Gold, -Silver, and Kindred Trades Society, which in 1913 absorbed several more -societies in this industry. In the autumn of 1919, as we have already -mentioned, six of the sectional societies in the engineering industry -decided to merge themselves, with the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, -in a new and more gigantic amalgamation with 400,000 members; the -United Pattern Makers’ Society, the Electrical Trades Union, and many -small and specialised societies of mechanics in iron still standing -aloof. In the same month three of the principal Unions of postal and -telegraph employees united in a single Union of Post Office Workers, -with 90,000 members. Other amalgamations among small or local -societies took place among the Basketmakers, the Block Printers, the -Leather-workers, the Dyers, the various sections in the Pottery Trade, -etc. - -Such amalgamation is greatly obstructed by legal requirements. -Down to 1917 the law demanded that each society desiring to unite -should ratify the decision by a two-thirds majority not merely of -those voting, but of the entire membership. Such a poll is almost -impossible of attainment by Trade Unions, whose members cannot usually -be individually communicated with, owing not only to their frequent -changes of residence and the absence of many of them abroad, but also -to the lack, in most cases, of any complete register of addresses. In -1917 the Government at last permitted the passage of an Amending Act -for which Trade Unionists had often pressed; but even then insisted -on any amalgamation being carried, at a 50 per cent poll of the whole -membership, by at least 20 per cent majority, conditions which make -amalgamation everywhere difficult, and in some Unions (such as those -of seamen) quite impossible. In several cases Unions in which the -general opinion has been in favour of amalgamation have failed to get -the necessary vote. We have already described the ingenious device by -which the British Steel Smelters’ Society and the Iron and Steel Trades -Confederation surmounted this difficulty. - -Meanwhile, of federations as distinct from amalgamations the Trade -Union world has a variety more bewildering than ever, some of which -have already been referred to. We have to note that the Engineering and -Shipbuilding Trades Federation, the establishment of which in 1889 we -described in _Industrial Democracy_, has continued in existence, doing -useful work from time to time in connection with demarcation disputes -and other subjects of inter-union controversy, especially on the -North-East Coast, notably contributing also in 1905 to the successful -claim of the Clyde trades to weekly instead of fortnightly pays, -which the employers had stubbornly resisted for a whole decade, but -continuing to be weakened by the abstention, except for a few years, -of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, which, however, now frequently -consents to act in conjunction with it in general trade questions. - -What is significant is the change in type and purpose of these -multifarious industrial federations, which have now come to form -an important element in the Trade Union world.[632] Federation, in -fact, has undergone a subtle change of character. Instead of loose -alliances for mutual support in disputes, or for the adjustment of -mutual differences as to “demarcation” and transfer of members, the -federations of all the craft or sectional Unions engaged in particular -industries--notably those of the Building Trades, the Transport -Workers, and, though not yet to the same extent, the Printing Trades -and the Woollen Workers, like the older organisation of the Cotton -Operatives--have become increasingly, themselves negotiating bodies, -recognised by the equally organised employers, and concerting with -these what are, in effect, national regulations governing their -industries throughout the whole kingdom. The later development of the -Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades Federation has been in the same -direction. In the case of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain -the development has gone still further; and this great organisation, -whilst retaining the federal form, and, even now, not completely -admitted to “recognition” by the Mining Association of Great Britain, -unquestioningly acts for the whole industry in national issues, as -if it were an “amalgamated” Union. Whether or not we are to see all -the rival and sectional Unions in each industry amalgamating into a -single “Industrial Union,” as many Trade Unionists desire, it must be -recognised that the development, during the past decade, of active -negotiating federations for the several industries goes far to supply -the most urgent need. In short, although financially distinct Trade -Unions remain, on the whole, as numerous as ever, the number of -separate negotiating bodies, so far as concerns matters relating to an -industry as a whole, becomes steadily smaller. - -We pass now to federal bodies of a different character. - - -THE GENERAL FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS - -In 1899, arising out of the losses caused by the costly engineering -dispute of 1897-98, the Trades Union Congress established a General -Federation of Trade Unions, largely at the instance of Robert Knight, -the able secretary of the Boilermakers, designed exclusively as a -mutual reinsurance agency against the heavy financial burden to which, -in the form of Strike Pay, or Dispute or Contingent Benefit, labour -disputes subject every active trade society.[633] By means of a small -contribution from a large aggregate membership (1s. or 2s. per year per -member), the General Federation is able to recoup to its constituent -societies 2s. 6d. or 5s. per week per member affected towards their -several expenditures upon disputes. Beginning with 44 societies, -having a total membership of 343,000, it steadily increased the number -of its adherents until, in 1913, it had affiliated as many as 150 -societies, having at that date 884,291 members. Since that time the -number of societies has dropped to 141 in 1919; but their increase -in membership had raised the aggregate affiliation to 1,215,107, the -largest ever recorded. The General Federation, whilst suffering for the -past seven years from an arrest of growth, has to its credit twenty -years’ success in surmounting the difficulties which have destroyed -every previous attempt of the kind, and its prudent management is shown -by the fact that it was able, from its normal revenue, to discharge -all its obligations down to 1905, and to accumulate a reserve of -£119,656. In that year the members rashly insisted on a reduction of -the contribution by one-third, not foreseeing the outburst of disputes -in 1908-9, which caused the Federation to pay out for 638 disputes -no less than £122,778, and necessitated in 1913 the doubling of the -contribution. Since that date, in spite of payments to societies -averaging £1500 every week of the year, the Federation has not only -met its engagements, but also built up a reserve exceeding a quarter -of a million sterling. In 1911 it formed an Approved Society under the -National Insurance Act, with the object of relieving the separate Trade -Unions, and notably the thousand small ones, from the onerous task of -separately administering the Act, and to ensure that their members did -not go off to the Industrial Insurance Companies, an effort which has -failed to attract more than a few thousand members. An extension of -the effort to the provision of death benefits, by the formation of a -Friendly Society section in 1913, has proved scarcely more successful. - -It must be recognised that during the past six or seven years the -Federation has lost favour with important sections of the Trade Union -world. It was probably inevitable that its inclusion of small sectional -societies should eventually bring it into conflict with the larger -Unions by whom such societies are often regarded as illegitimate -competitors. Grounds of this kind may be assigned for the secession -of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and the Amalgamated Society -of Tailors in 1915; and for the powerful hostility shown since 1913 -by the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain. But this feeling has been -accentuated by a growing resentment of the part played by the General -Federation--not unconnected with the forceful personality of the -General Secretary--first in international relations, and secondly in -the representation of Trade Union opinion to the Government and to the -public. - -The General Federation, from its very establishment, affiliated -itself to the International Trade Union Federation, which aimed at -the collection and publication of statistics of Trade Unionism all -over the world by an International Trade Union Secretariat, and at -the mutual interchange of Trade Union information. For the first -fifteen years of its existence this action of the General Federation -was not objected to, although the fact that it represented only 25 -to 30 per cent of British Trade Unionism impaired the value of its -statistical contributions. The Parliamentary Committee of the Trades -Union Congress, which might well have undertaken the task, long ignored -its international interests; but during the Great War increasingly -resented the appearance of the General Federation as the representative -of British Trade Unionism, and especially the almost continuous -negotiations between its secretary, Mr. Appleton, and Mr. Gompers, the -Secretary of the American Federation of Labor, and with M. Jouhaux, the -Secretary of the _Confédération Générale du Travail_ of France, along -lines not consistent with those of the Labour Party and the Trades -Union Congress. When, in 1918, attempts were made to reconstitute the -International Federation of Trade Unions, the Parliamentary Committee -claimed at first to be itself the representative of Great Britain; but -presently compromised on a joint and equal representation by the two -bodies. - -But more serious than the question of international representation was -the resentment at the ever-widening range of subjects at home on which -Mr. Appleton, the Management Committee, and the Conferences of the -General Federation claimed to voice the feelings of Organised Labour. -It was urged that the Federation was formed exclusively for the purpose -of mutually reinsuring Strike Benefit, and that it had accordingly no -mandate, and did nothing but weaken the Trade Union forces, both in the -narrow field of the conditions of the wage contract, and on the broader -issues of Labour’s political aspirations, whenever it entered into -rivalry with the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress -on the one hand, or with the Labour Party on the other. It looks as if -the General Federation must in future either restrict itself to the -limited range of its original purpose, or else run the risk of being -financially weakened by the secession of influential Trade Unions, -which will not permanently remain affiliated to all three national -bodies, when finding these speaking on the same subjects with different -voices. - - -TRADES COUNCILS - -Of another form of loose federation of the branches of all the Trade -Unions within a given area we have already described the origin and the -development in the local Trades Councils. These have gone on increasing -in number, much more than in strength, until in 1920 we estimate that -more than 500 are in existence, with an aggregate affiliated membership -running into several millions of Trade Unionists. The character of -their active membership, their functions, and their proceedings have -remained much as we described them thirty years ago; but they have, -on the whole, increased in strength and local influence, as well as -in numbers and membership. They were, as we shall presently mention, -somewhat arbitrarily excluded in 1895 from the Trades Union Congress, -of which they were actually the originators; and although they have -since joined in various provincial federations of Trades Councils,[634] -these have never acquired any great strength, and do little more than -arrange for co-operation in local demonstrations. An attempt to form a -National Federation of Trades Councils did not succeed. On the other -hand, as we shall describe in Chapter XI., the Trades Councils were, -from its establishment in 1900, admitted, equally with Trade Unions, -as constituents of the Labour Representation Committee (now the Labour -Party), and whether as Trades Councils, or (notably with the smaller -ones) in their new form of “Trades Councils and Local Labour Parties,” -they are coming slowly to form its geographical basis. It is more and -more on the political side that they are in some degree succeeding in -uniting the energies of the Trade Unions of a particular town. This -is especially the case so far as municipal politics are concerned. -They have, for instance, been the main force in securing the general -adoption of the Fair Wages Clause, and in furthering the election of -Labour Candidates to local governing bodies. But they are rigidly -excluded from all participation in the government or trade policy -of the Unions; and, so far as Trade Unionism itself is concerned, -their direct influence on questions of national scope is not great. -Consisting, as in the main they do, of the delegates elected by -branches of national societies, they are hampered by the narrow limits -of the branch autonomy. For in trade matters the branch can bring to -the Council no power which it does not itself possess, whilst towards -any action involving expense by the Council it can, in many Unions, -contribute only the voluntary extra-subscriptions of its members. -During the present century, however, many Unions have started paying -from central funds the affiliation fees of their branches to Trades -Councils. Down to the end of the Nineteenth Century, however, the -resources of the Councils accordingly seldom sufficed for more than the -hire of a room to meet in,[635] the necessary postage and stationery, -and the payment of a few pounds a year for the “loss of time” of their -principal officers. In no case except London does a Trades Council as -such, even in 1920, pay a “full-time” salary, so as to command the -whole time of a single salaried official, though the Trades Councils of -cities like Glasgow, Manchester, and Bradford have salaried secretaries -who have other duties; and where the Trades Council is combined with -the Local Labour Party it is more and more coming to have the services -of a Registration Officer or Election Agent, whose salary is usually -provided as part of the election expenses of the Labour candidate. - -For a long time it could hardly be said that the Trades Councils -enjoyed even the moral support of the great Unions. The central -executives of the national societies were apt to view with suspicion -and jealousy the existence of governing bodies in which they were not -directly represented. The local branches, if not actually forbidden, -were not encouraged to adhere to what might conceivably become a rival -authority. The strong county Unions frequently stood aloof unless they -were allowed an overwhelming representation. One of the notable changes -of the present century has been the diminution of this jealousy of the -Trades Councils. We know of no case in which branches are now forbidden -to join a Trades Council. In most cases, although permission may have -to be obtained from the Executive Council or Committee, it is nowadays -readily granted, and with the recognition of the need for political -action, between 1901 and 1913, came positive encouragement to the -branches to affiliate to the Trades Councils of their localities.[636] - -It remains, however, true in 1920 as in 1890 that the Trades Councils -do not include the national leaders of the Trade Union world. The -salaried officials of the old-established societies seldom take part -in their proceedings. The London Trades Council, for instance, the -classic meeting-place of the Junta, has long since ceased to be able -to count among its delegates the General Secretaries of the Engineers, -Bricklayers, Railwaymen, Steel-smelters, or of any other of the great -Societies having their head offices in London. The powerful coterie -of cotton officials forms no part of the Manchester Trades Council. -Of the boilermakers, neither the General Secretary nor any one of the -nine District Delegates is usually to be found on a Trades Council. -The Miners’ Agents are notorious for abstention from the Councils in -their localities. This, however, is due nowadays, whatever may once -have been the reason, principally to the enormous additions to the work -of all the salaried officials of the Trade Union world, which make it -impossible for the majority of them to attend Trades Council meetings. -The Trades Councils now serve as a useful training-ground, wider than -that of the Trade Union Branch, for those whom we have elsewhere -described as the non-commissioned officers of the Movement, from whose -ranks nearly all the Trade Union leaders emerge. - -Apart from their constant activity in municipal politics, and their -energetic support of the Labour Party in all elections, the Trades -Councils have, in the present century, considerably increased in -usefulness. They have given valuable assistance in Trade Union -propaganda, alike within their own districts and in the adjacent rural -districts. No small part of the increase in Trade Union membership, -notably among nondescript workers in the towns, and the agricultural -labourers in the country, is to be ascribed to the constant work and -support of some of the more active among them. They have done much to -appease quarrels among the local branches of different Unions, and they -are occasionally able to intervene successfully as arbitrators.[637] -Even without formal arbitration they bring warring parties together. -They nominate working-class representatives to many local committees -and conferences, and serve, in this way, as useful links with public -administration. Some of them have, of recent years, done a great deal -to promote the better education of the artisan class. They affiliate to -the Workers’ Educational Association or the Labour College, and support -its classes; they arrange public meetings and obtain outside speakers; -they affiliate to the Labour Research Department, which has a special -“Trades Councils and Local Labour Parties Section”; they subscribe to -the travelling library of book-boxes maintained by the Fabian Society; -they frequently issue their own monthly bulletin of Trade Union and -Labour news, or journal of local government information, or at least -their annual _Year-Book_; and they act as distributing centres for the -nationally published pamphlets and leaflets--sometimes even for the -more popular books on Labour questions.[638] They have come, in several -centres, to form, by Joint Councils, an indispensable connecting link -between the Trade Union and Co-operative Movements, and they serve, -more than any other agency, as the cement between the local branches of -these two movements and the Labour Party itself. To what extent they -are destined, in their character of constituent members of the Labour -Party, sometimes actually combined with Local Labour Parties (in the -latter cases with the inclusion, since 1918, of a section of individual -members, Trade Unionists or others, “workers by hand or by brain”), -to develop an effective political organisation, drawing together the -whole of the supporters of the Labour Party in each Parliamentary -constituency, remains yet to be demonstrated. - - -THE TRADES UNION CONGRESS - -But the most extensive federation of the Trade Union world is to-day, -as it has always been, the Trades Union Congress, which could count in -September 1919 an affiliated membership of more than five and a quarter -millions, a number never paralleled in this or any other country. We -have described in previous chapters the origin and development of this -federal body, its uses in drawing together the scattered Trade Union -forces, and its failure either to help in the solution of the problems -of industrial organisation or to give an intellectual lead to the rank -and file.[639] - -We drew attention in the first edition of this book in 1894 to the -weakness of the organisation of this imposing annual Congress; and, -from 1895 onward, certain changes have been successively made in its -constitution and procedure, not always, as we think, for the better. -At the Norwich Congress in 1894 the Parliamentary Committee, which the -Congress annually elects as its executive, was charged by a resolution -proposed by W. J. Davis to consider the amendment of the Standing -Orders, and to make the amended orders applicable to the next Congress. -On the authority of this ambiguous resolution, which seems to have had -in view only the establishment of Grand Committees to deal with the -multiplicity of resolutions on the annual agenda, the Parliamentary -Committee, of which the Chairman was then John Burns, M.P., decided -forthwith to expel all the Trades Councils from the Congress, to -make obligatory the “vote by card” according, not to the number of -delegates, but to the aggregate membership of each Union, and to -confine the delegates rigidly to the contemporary salaried officers and -the members of Trade Unions actually working at their crafts--thereby -excluding not only the veteran Henry Broadhurst, M.P., with John Burns -himself, but also Keir Hardie, Tom Mann, and other leaders of the new -movement that was seeking to make Trade Unionism a political force. -Who, exactly, was responsible for this _coup d’état_ was not officially -revealed. It was said, with some authority, that James Mawdsley, the -rough and forceful secretary of the Cotton-spinners, was at the bottom -of the move, and that he made use of the personal rivalry between Henry -Broadhurst and John Burns to get them both, and also the rebellious -element from the Trades Councils, which all three disliked, excluded -from future Congresses.[640] The Congress at Cardiff in 1895 was -very angry, and, in effect, rebuked the Parliamentary Committee, but -allowed the new Standing Orders to be confirmed on the newly adopted -“card vote.” In so far as the intention was to keep the new ideas out -of Congress, the result was plainly a failure, as within four years -(to be described in Chapter XI.) there was a majority in Congress -for the creation of the independent organisation entitled the Labour -Representation Committee, which became in due course the present Labour -Party. The effect was merely to weaken the intellectual influence on -the Trade Union world of the Congress and its Parliamentary Committee. - -With this exception of the exclusion of the Trades Councils, and of the -outstanding personalities whom they occasionally sent as delegates, -the visitor to the Trades Union Congress in 1919 would have found very -little difference between it and the Congresses of thirty years before, -except for an increase in the size of the gathering and in the number -of members represented; and, as must be added, an all-round improvement -in the education and manners, especially of the younger delegates. As -an institution it can hardly be said to have shown, between 1890 and -1917 at least, any development at all. - -It must be admitted that, with all its shortcomings, the Congress, -which has now for over fifty years continued to meet annually in some -industrial centre, serves many useful purposes. It is, to begin with, -an outward and visible sign of that persistent sentiment of solidarity -which has throughout the whole of the past century distinguished the -working class. Composed of delegates from all the great national and -county Unions and an increasing number of local societies, and largely -attended by the salaried officials, the Congress, unlike the Trades -Councils, is really representative (except for the absence of most -of the political side of its organisation) of all the elements of the -Trade Union world. Hence its discussions reveal, both to the Trade -Union Civil Service and to party politicians, the movement of opinion -among all sections of Trade Unionists, and, through them, of the great -body of the wage-earners. Moreover, the week’s meeting gives a unique -opportunity for friendly intercourse between the representatives of the -different trades, and thus leads frequently to joint action or wider -federations. Nevertheless the Congress remains, as we have described it -in its early years, rather a parade of the Trade Union forces than a -genuine Parliament of Labour.[641] - -All the incidental circumstances tend to accentuate the parade -features of Congress at the expense of its legislative capacity. The -Mayor and Corporation of the city in which it is held are frequently -permitted to give a public welcome to the delegates, and to hold a -sumptuous reception in their honour. The Strangers’ Gallery is full -of interested observers, Distinguished foreigners, representatives of -Government departments, “fraternal delegates” from America and the -Continent, and from the Co-operative Union and the National Union of -Teachers, inquisitive politicians, and popularity-hunting ministers -sit through every day’s proceedings. The press-table is crowded with -reporters from all the principal newspapers of the kingdom, whilst -the local organs vie with each other in bringing out special editions -containing verbatim reports of each day’s discussions. But what more -than anything else makes the Congress a holiday demonstration instead -of a responsible deliberative assembly is its total lack of legislative -power. The delegates are well aware that Congress resolutions on -“subjects” have no binding effect on their constituents, and therefore -do not take the trouble to put them in practicable form, or even to -make them consistent one with another. From the outset the proceedings -are unbusiness-like. Much of the first day is consumed in pure routine -and a lengthy inaugural address from the President, who has been -since 1900 always the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of -the preceding year. The rest of the agenda consists of resolutions -sent in by the various Unions and brought higgledy-piggledy before -the Congress in an order determined by the chances of the ballot. -These resolutions are subjected to no selection or revision beyond an -attempt by subcommittees to merge in one the several proposals on each -subject. The delegates have at their disposal about twenty-five hours -to discuss every imaginable subject, ranging from the nationalisation -of the means of production down to the prohibition of one carter -driving two vehicles at a time. To enable even a minority of those -present to speak for or against the proposals, each speaker is limited -to five, or perhaps to three minutes, a rule which is more or less -rigidly enforced. But, in spite of this vigorous application of the -closure, the President is seldom able to get the business through, -and has frequently as much as he can do to maintain order. The -Standing Orders Committee is entirely taken up with its mechanical -business, and is not authorised, any more than is the Parliamentary -Committee itself, to formulate a programme for the consideration of -the delegates. Nor does the Congress receive much guidance from -experienced officials of the old-established Unions. Whether from a -good-natured desire to let the private members have their turn at -figuring in the newspapers, or from a somewhat cynical appreciation -of the fruitlessness of Congress discussions, many of them habitually -lie low, and seldom speak except to defend themselves against attacks. -Moreover, they are busily engaged, both in and out of Congress hours, -in arranging for the election of themselves or their friends on the -Parliamentary Committee, which has hitherto always been governed by -mutual “bargaining” for votes.[642] When the four days’ talk draws near -to an end, many of the resolutions on the agenda are still undisposed -of. On the Saturday morning, when most of the delegates have started -for home, a thin meeting hurries rapidly through the remainder of -the proposals, speeches are reduced to sixty seconds each, and the -Congress adopts a score of important resolutions in a couple of hours. -From first to last there is no sign of a “Front Bench” of responsible -leaders. As a business meeting the whole function of the Congress is -discharged in the election of the Parliamentary Committee, to which -the representation of the Trade Union world for the ensuing year is -entrusted. - -In the first edition of this book, in 1894, we gave a description of -the work of the Parliamentary Committee which it is interesting to -recall: - - The duties of the Parliamentary Committee have never been - expressly defined by Congress, and it will easily be - understood that resolutions of the kind we have described - afford but little guidance for practical work. But there is - a general understanding that the Committee is to watch over - the political interests of its constituents, in much the - same way as the Parliamentary Committee of a town council - or a railway company. It is obvious that, in the case of - the Trade Union world, such a mandate covers a wide field. - The right of Free Association, won by Allan, Applegarth, - Odger, and their allies, is now a past issue, but the Trade - Union interest in legislation has, with the advance of - Democracy, extended to larger and more complicated problems. - The complete democratisation of the political machinery, - the duty of the Government to be a model employer, - the further regulation of private enterprise through - perfected factory legislation, the public administration - of monopolies, are all questions in which the Trade Union - world of to-day considers itself keenly interested. To - these distinctly labour issues must be added such interests - of the non-propertied class as the incidence of taxation, - the public provision for education and recreation, and the - maintenance of the sick and the aged. We have here an amount - of Parliamentary business far in excess of that falling upon - the Parliamentary Committee of any ordinary town council or - railway company. To examine all bills, public or private, - introduced into Parliament that may possibly affect any of - the foregoing Trade Union interests; to keep a constant - watch on the administration of the public departments; to - scrutinise the Budget, the Education Code, and the Orders - of the Local Government Board; to bring pressure to bear on - the Ministry of the day, so as to mould the Queen’s Speech - into a Labour Programme; to promote independent Bills on all - the subjects upon which the Government refuses to legislate; - and, lastly, to organise that persistent “lobbying” of - Ministers and private members which finally clinches a - popular demand--all this constitutes a task which would tax - the energies of half a dozen highly trained Parliamentary - agents devoting their whole time to their clients. This - is the work which the Trade Union Congress delegates - to a committee of busy officials, all absorbed in the - multifarious details of their own societies, and served only - by a Secretary who is paid for a small part of his time, and - who accordingly combines the office with other duties.[643] - - The whole organisation is so absurdly inadequate to the - task, that the Committee can hardly be blamed for giving up - any attempt to keep pace with the work. The members leave - their provincial headquarters fifteen or twenty times a year - to spend a few hours in the little offices at 19 Buckingham - Street, Strand, in deliberating upon such business as their - Secretary brings before them. Preoccupied with the affairs - of their societies, and unversed in general politics, they - either confine their attention to the interests of their - own trades, or look upon the fortnightly trip to London as - a pleasant recreation from hard official duties. In the - intervals between the meetings the Secretary struggles with - the business as best he can, with such clerical help as he - can afford to pay for out of his meagre allowance. Absorbed - in his own Parliamentary duties, for the performance of - which his constituents pay him a salary, he can devote - to the general interests of the Trade Union world only - the leavings of his time and attention. It is therefore - not surprising to learn that the agenda laid before the - Parliamentary Committee, instead of covering the extensive - field indicated by the resolutions of the Congress, is - habitually reduced to the barest minimum. The work annually - accomplished by the Committee during the last few years - has, in fact, been limited to a few deputations to the - Government, two or three circulars to the Unions, a little - consultation with friendly politicians, and the drafting - of an elaborate report to Congress, describing, not their - doings, but the legislation and other Parliamentary - proceedings of the session. The result is that the executive - committee of the United Textile Factory Workers’ Association - and the Miners’ Federation exercised a far more potent - influence in the lobby than the Committee representing the - whole Trade Union world; whilst such expert manipulators as - Mr. John Burns, Mr. Havelock Wilson, or Mr. George Howell, - can point to more reforms effected in a single session than - the Parliamentary Committee has lately accomplished during a - whole Parliament. - - It is therefore not surprising that there exists in the - Trade Union world a growing feeling of irritation against - the Parliamentary Committee. In each successive Congress - the Committee, instead of taking the lead, finds itself - placed on its defence. But it is obvious that Congress - itself is to blame. The members of the Committee, including - the Secretary, are men of quite as sterling character and - capacity as a board of railway directors or a committee - of town councillors. But whereas a railway company or a - town council places at the disposal of its Parliamentary - Committee the whole energies of a specially trained town - clerk or solicitor, and allows him, moreover, to call to - his aid as many expert advisers as he thinks fit, the - Trades Union Congress expects the Parliamentary affairs of - a million and a half members to be transacted by a staff - inferior to that of a third-rate Trade Union. At one period, - it is true, the leaders of the Trade Union world as a whole - successfully conducted a long and arduous Parliamentary - campaign. We have described in a previous chapter the - momentous legislative revolution in the status of Trade - Unionism which was effected between 1867 and 1875. But the - Conference of Amalgamated Trades, and its successors the - Parliamentary Committee, had in these years at their command - the freely given services of such a galaxy of legal and - Parliamentary talent as Mr. Frederic Harrison, Professor - E. S. Beesly, Mr. Henry Crompton, Mr. Thomas (now Judge) - Hughes, Messrs. Godfrey and Vernon Lushington, and Mr. (now - Justice) R. S. Wright. The objection felt by the present - generation of Trade Unionists to be beholden to middle-class - friends is not without a certain validity. But if the Trade - Union Congress wants its Parliamentary business done it - must, at any rate, provide such a salary as will secure the - full services of the ablest man in the movement, equip his - office with an adequate number of clerks, and authorise the - Parliamentary Committee to retain such expert professional - assistance as may from time to time be required. - -Such was the position as we saw it in 1894. The Trades Union Congress -did not in any important respect improve its organisation, nor equip -its Parliamentary Committee with any adequate staff. Its failure to -cope with the Parliamentary business in which the Trade Union world -was interested became more and more manifest; and the discontent was -increased by the disinclination felt by many of the leading members of -the Committee for the larger aspirations and more independent attitude -in politics that marked the active spirits of the rank and file of -Trade Union membership. All this co-operated to produce the vote of -the 1899 Congress in favour of some definite step to increase the -number of Labour Members in the House of Commons, out of which sprang -the independent organisation subsequently known as the Labour Party, -which we shall describe in Chapter XI. But although the Trades Union -Congress thus created, at the very end of the nineteenth century, a -separate political organisation for the Trade Union world, into which -the steadily increasing political activity of the Trade Unions has -since flowed, the Congress and its Parliamentary Committee made no -change in their own work. There has accordingly continued to be the -same stream, year after year, of miscellaneous resolutions before -Congress, 99 per cent of them dealing with political issues, involving -either legislation or a change of Government policy, resolutions which -have continued to be presented and discussed without any regard to -their place in any consistent programme for the Trade Union world as -a whole. The Parliamentary Committee has continued to regard itself -almost entirely as a Parliamentary Committee, just as if the Trade -Unions had not united in a distinct political organisation and had -not created their own Parliamentary Labour Party. The futile annual -deputations to Ministers have continued to present to them the crude -resolutions of the Trades Union Congress, without regard to the -contemporary situation in the House of Commons, or the action taken by -the Parliamentary Labour Party, and without taking into account in what -relation they stand to the political programme of the Trade Union world -as formulated, year by year, in the Conferences of the Labour Party. -Meanwhile the essentially industrial work of the national organisation -of Trade Unions has continued to be neglected. Both the Trades Union -Congress and the Parliamentary Committee have shown the greatest -disinclination to tackle such essentially Trade Union problems as -those presented by the existence in the same trade of competing Trade -Unions;[644] by the formation of separate Unions on overlapping and -mutually inconsistent bases; by the growing rivalry between the warring -conceptions of organisation by craft and organisation by industry; by -the increasing failure of the membership of each branch to correspond -with the staffs of the separate gigantic establishments characteristic -of the present day; by the “rank and file movement,” demanding a -greater direct control of workshop conditions than can easily be -made compatible with the centralisation of policy in the national -executives; by the development of the “Shop Stewards’” organisation; -by the spread in different industries of systems of “payment by -results,” unsafeguarded by the necessary adaptations of the Standard -Rate and Collective Bargaining; by the tendency of the employers to -make deductions from the Standard Rate when it suits them to take on -individuals or new classes of workers whom they declare to be inferior, -whether women or boys, old men or partially incapacitated workers of -any sort; and by the introduction of “Scientific Management.”[645] - -During the whole of this century, in fact, the Parliamentary Committee -of the Trades Union Congress, and the Congress itself, have failed -to grapple with the work that calls out to be done by some national -organisation of the Trade Union world. After allowing to be created, -on the one hand, the General Federation of Trade Unions, abandoning to -it the whole function of insurance, together with the representation -of British Trade Unionism in the International Federation of Trade -Unions, and, on the other, the Labour Party, with its inevitable -absorption of the political activity of the Trade Union world, the -Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress has failed to -recognise, and to concentrate upon, the sphere that it had left to -itself, namely, to become the national organ for the improvement and -development of British Trade Unionism in its industrial aspect. Whilst -the Trades Union Congress has continued anxiously and nervously to -abstain from any attempt to demarcate the spheres of rival Unions or -to improve their mutual relations, action which would have brought the -Parliamentary Committee dangerously into conflict with one or other of -its constituents, and has confined its attention as much as ever to the -statutory and governmental reforms which its various sections desired, -it has been progressively overshadowed, on the political side, by the -rise of the Labour Party, to be described in a subsequent chapter. - -Towards the end of 1919 the discontent of the Trade Union world -with the position and attitude of the Parliamentary Committee came -to a head. The sudden railway strike, described in this chapter, -revealed the lack of any organ of co-ordination in industrial -movements which inevitably affected the whole Trade Union Movement. -The Parliamentary Committee itself laid before a special Trades Union -Congress in December 1919 a report declaring that “the need has long -been recognised for the development of more adequate machinery for -the co-ordination of Labour activities, both for the movement as a -whole, and especially for its industrial side. Again and again the -lack of co-ordination has resulted, not only in the overlapping of -administrative work, but also in unnecessary internal and other -disputes, involving vast financial and moral damage to the whole Labour -Movement. To do away with some of this overlapping and to provide means -of co-ordinating the work of certain sections was the object with which -the Triple Industrial Alliance was founded by the Miners, Railwaymen, -and Transport Workers, and the same object is behind the numerous steps -towards closer unity which have been taken in various industries and -groups. The Negotiating Committee, hastily improvised to deal with the -situation created by the railway strike this autumn, was generally felt -to have fulfilled, however imperfectly, a vital need of Labour; but it -is clear that it ought not to have been necessary to create a new and -temporary body to do this work; the necessary machinery should have -been already in existence in the form of a really effective central -co-ordinating body for the movement as a whole. - -“It appears to us that the body which is required should and must -be developed out of the existing organisation of the Trades Union -Congress and out of its closer co-operation with other sections of the -working-class movement. At present, the Standing Orders do not permit -the Parliamentary Committee to undertake the work which is required. -Indeed, its functions, as they are now defined, are in great measure a -survival from a previous period, when the chief duties of the Congress -were political, and there existed no separate political organisation -to express the policy and objects of Labour. We accordingly suggest -that the whole functions and organisation of the Parliamentary -Committee demand revision, with a view to developing out of it a real -co-ordinating body for the industrial side of the whole Trade Union -Movement. It is also necessary to take into account the relation of the -reorganised Central Industrial Committee to the other sections of the -movement, and especially to the Labour Party and to the Co-operative -Movement. - -“If a better central organisation could be developed both on the -industrial side and by the closer joint working with the other wings of -the working-class movement, a vast development of the very necessary -work of publicity, information, and research would at once become -possible. The research, publicity, and legal departments now working -for the movement require co-ordination and extension equally with its -industrial and political organisation. The research, publicity, and -legal work now done by the Trades Union Congress, the Labour Party, -and the Labour Research Department must be co-ordinated and greatly -enlarged in close connection with the development of the executive -machinery of the movement.” - -The proposal did not secure the approval of the Miners’ Federation, but -the special Congress, by a very large majority, passed the following -resolution: - -“That in view of the imperative need and demand for a central -co-ordinating body representative of the whole Trade Union Movement and -capable of efficiently dealing with industrial questions of national -importance, the Parliamentary Committee be instructed to revise the -Standing Orders of Congress in such manner as is necessary to secure -the following changes in the functions and duties of the Executive body -elected by Congress: - - “(1) To substitute for the Parliamentary Committee a Trades - Union Congress General Council, to be elected annually by - Congress. - - “(2) To prepare a scheme determining the composition and - methods of election of the General Council. - - “(3) To make arrangements for the development of - administrative departments in the offices of the General - Council, in the direction of securing the necessary - officials, staff, and equipment to secure an efficient Trade - Union centre. - -“Further, in order to avoid overlapping in the activity of -working-class organisations, the Parliamentary Committee be instructed -to consult with the Labour Party and the Co-operative Movement, with a -view to devising a scheme for the setting up of departments under joint -control, responsible for effective national and international service -in the following and any other necessary directions: - - “(_a_) _Research_: To secure general and statistical - information on all questions affecting the worker as - producer and consumer by the co-ordination and development - of existing agencies. - - “(_b_) _Legal advice_ on all questions affecting the - collective welfare of the members of working-class - organisations. - - “(_c_) _Publicity_, including preparation of suitable - literature dealing with questions affecting the economic, - social, and political welfare of the people; with machinery - for inaugurating special publicity campaigns to meet - emergencies of an industrial or political character.” - - -THE OFFICERS OF THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT - -If we survey the growth of the British Trade Union Movement during the -past thirty years, what is conspicuous is that, whilst the Movement -has marvellously increased in mass and momentum, it has been marked -on the whole by inadequacy of leadership alike within each Union and -in the Movement itself, and by a lack of that unity and persistency -of purpose which wise leadership alone can give. Hence, in our -opinion, the organised workers, whilst steadily advancing, have not -secured anything like the results, either in the industrial or in the -political field, that the individual sacrifices and efforts in their -cause might have brought about. This deficiency in the brain-work of -successful organisation is very marked in the various sections of the -building trades, with their chaos of separate societies, and in the -engineering industry, with its persistence of competing Unions formed -on inconsistent bases, its lack of uniformity in Standard Rates, and -its failure to devise any plan of safeguarding Collective Bargaining in -the various systems of “Payment by Results.” But it has been equally -apparent in the incapacity of the Trade Union Movement as a whole to -establish any central authority to prevent overlapping organisations -and demarcation disputes, and to co-ordinate the efforts of the various -sections of workers towards a higher standard of life and greater -control over the conditions of their working lives. The British -workmen, it must be said, have not become aware of the absolute need -for what we may call Labour Statesmanship. They have not yet learnt -how, either in their separate Trade Unions or in the Labour Movement -as a whole, to attract and train, to select and retain in office, to -accord freedom of initiative to and yet to control, a sufficient staff -of qualified officials capable not merely of individual leadership, but -also of well devised “team play” in the long-drawn-out struggle of the -wage-earning class for its “place in the sun.” To this constant falling -short of the reasonably expected achievements is, we think, due the -perpetual see-saw in Trade Union policy: the Trade Unionists of one -decade relying principally on political action, to the neglect of the -industrial weapon, whilst those of a succeeding decade, temporarily -disillusioned with political action, rush wildly into strikes and -neglect the ballot-box. This change of feeling is due each time to the -failure of the results to come up to expectation. We shall understand -some of the reasons for this shortcoming if we examine how the Trade -Union Movement is, in fact, officered. - -The affairs, industrial and political, of the six million Trade -Unionists, enrolled in possibly as many as fifty thousand local -branches or lodges (including a thousand independent small local -societies), are administered by perhaps 100,000 annually elected -branch officials and shop stewards. These may be regarded as the -non-commissioned officers of the Movement; and it is fundamentally -on their sobriety and personal integrity, combined with an intimate -knowledge of their several crafts and a steadiness of judgement, -that the successful conduct of the branch business depends. They -continue to work at their trades, and receive only a few pounds -a year for all their onerous and sometimes dangerous work. It is -these non-commissioned officers of the Trade Union army who keep the -Trade Union organisation alive. But they have neither the training, -nor the leisure, nor even the opportunity, so long as they remain -non-commissioned officers, working at their trades, to formulate a -detailed policy, or to supply the day-by-day executive leadership to -the particular Trade Union, or to the Trade Union Movement. For the -work of translating into action, industrial or political, the desires -or convictions of the whole body of the members, the Trade Union world -necessarily depends, in the main, on its salaried officers, who devote -the whole of their time to the service of the Movement, in one or other -capacity. Such a whole-time salaried staff was slow to be formed. In -1850 it did not exist at all. It probably did not in 1860 number as -many as a hundred throughout the whole kingdom. In 1892, in the first -edition of this book, we put it approximately at 600. In 1920, with a -fourfold growth in membership, and (under the National Insurance Act) a -vast increase in the office and financial business of the Trade Unions, -we estimate the total number of the salaried officers of all the Trade -Unions and their federations (not including mere shorthand typists -and office-boys) at three or four thousand, of whom perhaps one-tenth, -in or out of Parliament, are engaged exclusively on election and other -political work. But even on the industrial side, Trade Union officials -differ considerably in the work they have to do, and the differences in -function result in marked varieties of type. - -We have first the salaried officials of the skilled trades. They are -broadly distinguished from the officers of the Labourers’ Unions by -the fact that they are invariably men who have worked at the crafts -they represent, and who have usually served their society as branch -secretaries. We may distinguish among them two leading types, the -Administrator of Friendly Benefits, and the Trade Official. - -To the type of Administrator of Friendly Benefits, the school of -William Allan, belong most of the General and Assistant Secretaries at -the head offices of the great Trade Friendly Societies organisations -in which the mass of routine, financial, and other office business has -become so great that only the ablest men succeed in rising above it. -Owing to the continued increase in membership of the principal Unions, -to their tendency to amalgamate into larger and larger aggregations, -to the constant extension of friendly benefits, and since 1911 to -the enormous addition to the work made by the National Insurance -Act, the administrative staffs of the Unions have had to be doubled -and quadrupled. But the Trade Union official of this type, however -great may be his nominal position, has, during the past thirty years, -come to exercise less and less influence on the Trade Union world. -Rigidly confined to his office, he becomes in most cases a painstaking -clerk, and rises at the best to the level of the shrewd manager of an -insurance company. He passes his life in investigating the claims of -his members to the various benefits, and in upholding, at all hazard of -unpopularity, a sound financial system of adequate contributions and -moderate benefits. Questions of trade policy interest him principally -so far as they tend to swell or diminish the number of his members in -receipt of “Out of Work Pay.” He is therefore apt to be more intent on -getting unemployed members off the books than on raising the Standard -Rate of wages or decreasing the length of the Normal Day. For the same -reason he proves a tenacious champion of his members’ rights in all -quarrels about overlap and demarcation of work; and it may happen that -he finds himself more often engaged in disputes with rival Unions than -with employers. He represents the most conservative element in Trade -Union life. On all occasions he sits tight, and votes solid for what he -conceives to be the official or moderate party. - -More influential in Trade Union politics is the salaried officer of -the other type. The Trade Official, as we have called him, is largely -the result of the prevalence, in certain industries, of a complicated -system of “Payment by Results.” We have already described how the -cotton lists on the one hand and the checkweigher clause on the other -called into existence a specially trained class, which has since been -augmented by the adoption of piecework lists in boot and shoemaking -and other industries. The officers of this type are professionals in -the art of Collective Bargaining. They spend their lives in intricate -calculations on technical details, and in conducting delicate -negotiations with the employers or their professional agents. It -matters little whether they are the general secretaries of essentially -trade societies, such as the federal Unions of Cotton-spinners and -Cotton-weavers, or the exclusively trade delegates of societies with -friendly benefits, such as the Steel-smelters, the Boilermakers, -and the Boot and Shoe Operatives. In either case their attention is -almost entirely devoted to the earnings of their members. Alert and -open-minded, they are keen observers of market prices, employers’ -profits, the course of international trade, and everything which may -affect the gross product of their industry. They are more acutely -conscious of incompetency, whether in employer or employed, than they -can always express. Supporters of improved processes, new machinery, -and “speeding up,” they would rather see an antiquated mill closed or -an incompetent member discharged than reduce the Standard Rate. Nor -do they confine themselves exclusively to the money wages of their -clients. Among them are to be found the best advocates of legislative -regulation of the conditions of employment, and whilst they have during -the present century fallen somewhat into the background when wider -political issues have come to the fore, the elaboration of the Labour -Code during the past fifty years has been due, in the main, to their -detailed knowledge and untiring pertinacity. - -The Trade Official, however, has the defects of his qualities. The -energetic workman, who at about thirty years of age leaves the factory, -the forge, or the mine, to spend his days pitting his brains against -those of shrewd employers and sharp-witted solicitors, has necessarily -to concentrate all his energies upon the limited range of his new -work. As a Branch Secretary, he may have taken a keen interest in the -grievances and demands of other trades besides his own. Soon he finds -his duties incompatible with any such wide outlook. The feeling of -class solidarity, so vivid in the manual working wage-earner, tends -gradually to be replaced by a narrow trade interest. The District -Delegate of the Boilermakers finds it as much as he can do to master -the innumerable and constantly changing details of every variety of -iron-ship, boiler, and bridge building in every port, and even at -every yard. The Investigator of the National Union of Boot and Shoe -Operatives is often hard put to it to estimate accurately the labour -in each of the thousand changing styles of boots, whilst at the same -time keeping pace with ever-increasing complexity both of machinery -and division of labour. The Cotton Official, with his bewildering -lists, throws his whole mind into coping with the infinite variety -of calculations involved in new patterns, increased speed, and every -alteration of count and draw and warp and weft. The Miners’ Agents can -seldom travel beyond the analogous problems of their own industry. Such -a Trade Official, if he has any leisure and energy left at the end of -his exhausting day’s work, broods over larger problems, still special -to his own industry. The Secretary of a Cotton Union finds it necessary -to puzzle his head over the employers’ contention that Bimetallism, or -a new Indian Factory Act, deserves the operatives’ support; or to think -out some way of defeating the evasions of the law against over-steaming -or of the “particulars clause.” The whole staff of the Boilermakers -will be absorbed in considering the effect of the different systems -of apprenticeship in the shipyards, or the proper method of meeting -the ruinously violent fluctuations in shipbuilding. The Miners will be -thinking only of the technical improvement of the conditions of safety -of the mine, or of the way to protect the interests of the hewer in -an “abnormal place.” And the modern Knight of St. Crispin racks his -brains about none of these things, but is wholly concerned with the -evil of home work, and whether the inspection of small workshops would -be more rigidly carried out under the Home Office or under the Town -Council. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Trade Officials -are characterised by an intense and somewhat narrow sectionalism. The -very knowledge of, and absorption in, the technical details of one -particular trade, which makes them such expert specialists, prevents -them developing the higher qualities necessary for the political -leadership of the Trade Union world. - -In another class stand the organisers and secretaries of what used -to be called the Labourers’ Unions, and are now styled Unions of -General Workers--a less stable class, numbering in 1892 about two -hundred, and in 1920 possibly ten times as many. In contrast with -the practice of the old-established societies these officers have -at no time been always selected from the ranks of the workers whose -affairs they administer.[646] In “revivalist” times the cause of the -unskilled workers attracts, from the ranks of the non-commissioned -officers of other industries, men of striking capacity and missionary -fervour, such as John Burns and Tom Mann, who organised and led the -dock labourers to victory in 1889. But these men regarded themselves -and were regarded more as apostles to the unconverted than as salaried -officers, and they ceded their posts as soon as competent successors -among their constituents could be found. In the main the unskilled -workmen have had to rely for officers on men drawn from their own -ranks. In not a few cases a sturdy general labourer has proved himself -a first-rate administrator of a great national Union. But it was a -special drawback to these Unions in the early days of their development -that the “failures,” who drift from other occupations into the ranks of -general labour, frequently got elected, on account of their superior -education, to posts in which personal self-control and persistent -industry are all-important. Nor were the duties of an organiser of -unskilled labourers in old days such as developed either regular -habits or business capacity. The absence of any extensive system of -friendly benefits reduced to a minimum the administrative functions -and clerical labour of the head office. The members, for the most -part engaged simply in general labour, and paid by the day or hour, -had no occasion for elaborate piecework lists, even supposing that -their Unions had won that full recognition by the employers which such -arrangements imply. On the other hand, the branches of a Labourers’ -Union in those days were, for one reason or another, always crumbling -away; and the total membership was only maintained by perpetually -breaking fresh ground. Hence the greater part of the organiser’s -time was taken up in maintaining the enthusiasm of his members, and -in sweeping in new converts. This involved constant travelling, and -the whirl of excitement implied in an everlasting round of missions in -non-Union districts. The typical organiser of a Labourers’ Union in -1889-94 approximated, therefore, more closely than any other figure in -the Trade Union world, to the middle-class conception of a Trade Union -official. He was, in fact, a professional agitator. He might be a saint -or he might be an adventurer; but he was seldom a man of affairs.[647] - -During the past quarter of a century these Unions of Labourers, which -are now better styled Unions of General Workers, have changed in -character, and are now often huge national organisations of financial -stability, administered by men as competent as any in the Trade -Union world. Their officers, who have greatly increased in number, -have elaborated a technique of their own, combining an efficiency in -recruiting with an effective representation of their members’ case in -negotiations with the employers, and before arbitration tribunals, -which, particularly in such influential bodies as the National Union -of General Workers, the Dock, Wharf and Riverside Labourers’ Union, -the Workers’ Union and the National Federation of Women Workers, -brings them much nearer what we have described as the Trade Official -than the typical labourers’ organiser of 1889. The exclusively women’s -Unions, among which the National Federation of Women Workers is the -only one of magnitude, have been exceptionally fortunate in attracting -and retaining women of outstanding capacity--good organisers and -skilled negotiators--who have not only obtained for their members a -remarkable improvement in the conditions of employment, but have, -by their statesmanship, won a position of outstanding influence in -the Trade Union Movement. It is, indeed, important to note that the -accomplished officials of the larger Unions of General Workers, and -not those of women only, have become aware of a diversity of view -between the skilled craftsman with a “vested interest” in his trade, -and the unskilled or, as they prefer to call them, the semi-skilled -or general workers, bent on being considered qualified for any work -which the employer has to give. Hence these officials sometimes take a -larger view of Labour questions than the trade officials of the skilled -crafts. They tend to be in favour of the amalgamation of separate -societies into “One Big Union”; of much more equality of remuneration -among all manual workers; of the “open door” to capacity; of equal -rates for men and women on the same job; and of a levelling up of the -Standard of Life of the lowest section of the workers. This leads them -instinctively to a co-ordinated use of the industrial and the political -weapons. - -Some of these officials, however, are paid in a manner which may -exercise an adverse influence on their activity. A new method of -remuneration of the officers of a Trade Union has been devised. -In one case the very able General Secretary of a Union of skilled -craftsmen, whose services have been in the past most valuable to the -trade, is reputed to be paid so much per member per annum, and with -the great increase in membership to be making an income four times -as large as the salaries of the General Secretaries of great Trade -Unions. In another very extensive Union of unskilled and semi-skilled -workers, practically the whole staff is paid “by results,” the Branch -Secretaries, for instance, by rule retaining for themselves “six per -cent on the contributions, levies and fines received from the members -of the Branch on behalf of, and remitted to, the Chief Office”; and -being paid also “a procuration fee of 1s.” for “introducing new -members” into the Approved Society; and for the extra work involved -in disputes, a further “6d. when under 25 members are affected, and -1s. for the first 25 or over; 2s. for the first 50; 6d. per 50 or -part thereof afterwards.” This method of remunerating Trade Union -officials--analogous to that successfully employed by the Industrial -Insurance Companies for their agents--has certain attractions. A fairly -adequate remuneration for the position and work can thus be allotted -to the officer, without its amount being specifically voted by the -members or appearing in the accounts in such a way as to offend the -rank and file by a contrast between their weekly wage for manual labour -and the Standard Rate of what is essentially a different occupation. -It is, however, rightly regarded as a pernicious system. The practice -of “paying by results” is alleged to lead sometimes to reckless -recruiting, to “in and out” Trade Unionism, and even to wholesale -poaching among the membership of other Unions; and it produces in the -Trade Union world a type of “business man” more concerned for numbers -than for raising the Standard of Life of the members he has enrolled, -or for co-operation with other Trade Unions for their common ends. - -Quite another type, of more recent introduction, is the Political -Officer of the Trade Union world. He may be merely the Registration -Officer or Election Agent serving the local Labour Party and the -Labour Candidate in a particular constituency; he may be simply a -Labour M.P.; he may be the secretary or staff officer of a great Trade -Union or powerful federation, or, indeed, of the Labour Party itself, -devoting himself to political functions; he may combine with one or -other of these posts, or some other Trade Union office, that of a -Member of Parliament; but he is distinguished from the typical General -Secretary, Trade Official or Labour Organiser--from one or other of -which he has usually developed--by his absorption in the political work -of the Movement, either inside the House of Commons or outside it, -within one constituency or in a wider field. He may not always hold -a political office. A marked feature of the past decade has been the -frequency and the amount of the calls upon the time of the Trade Union -leaders who are not in Parliament, for public service in which their -own Unions have no special concern. The Trade Union official has to -serve on innumerable public bodies, nearly always without pay of any -kind, from local Pension or Food or Profiteering Act Committees, or -the magisterial bench, up to National Arbitration Tribunals, official -Committees of Enquiry or Royal Commissions. Such a man is perpetually -devoting hours every day to the consideration and discussion, and -sometimes to the joint decision, of issues of public character, in -which it is his special function to represent, not the opinions and -interests of the particular Trade Unionists by whom he is paid, but -the opinions and interests of the whole wage-earning class. All this -important work, a twentieth century addition to the functions of the -Trade Union staff, and not alone the increasing calls of Parliament, -is tending more and more to the development of what we have called the -Political Officer of the movement. - -These three or four thousand salaried officials of the Trade Union -world, whatever their several types, and whatever the duties to which -they are assigned, are, with insignificant exceptions, all selected -in one way, namely by popular election by the whole body of members, -either of their respective Unions, or of particular districts of those -Unions. They are, in the skilled trades, required to be members of the -Union making the appointment; and in order to gain the suffrages of -their fellow-members they must necessarily have made themselves known -to them in some way. They are, accordingly, selected almost invariably -from among what we have described as the non-commissioned officers -of the Movement, those who are serving or who have served as Branch -Secretaries, or other local officers. They have thus all essentially -the same training--a training which has no more reference to the work -of an administrator of Friendly Benefits than to that of a Political -Officer. What happens is that the popular workman is, by the votes of -his fellow-workers, taken suddenly from the bench, the forge or the -mine, at any age from 30 to 50, with no larger experience than that of -a Branch Official, and put to do the highly specialised work of one -or other of the types that we have described.[648] It is a further -difficulty that such training and experience that an individual Trade -Unionist may have had, and such capacity as he may have shown, whilst -they may secure his election to a salaried office, or his promotion -from one such office to another, will be held to have no bearing on the -question of which office he will be chosen to fill. The popular Branch -Secretary, who has led a successful strike, may be elected as General -Secretary in a head office where his work will be mainly that of the -manager of an insurance company. The successful Trade Official, expert -at negotiating complicated changes in piecework lists, may find himself -elected as the Union’s candidate for Parliament; and will, in due -course, be sent to the House of Commons to deal on behalf of the whole -wage-earning class, with political issues to which he has never given -so much as a thought. The Trade Union secretary, whose daily work has -trained him to the meticulous supervision of the friendly benefits, may -find himself perpetually called away from his office to represent the -interests of Labour as a member of Royal Commissions and Committees of -Enquiry on every imaginable subject. - -With such imperfect methods of selection for office, and with so -complete a lack of systematic training for their onerous and important -functions, it is, we think, a matter for surprise that Trade Union -officials should have won a well-deserved reputation for knowledge and -skill in negotiations with employers. But their haphazard selection -and inadequate training are not the only difficulties that they have -to overcome. Trade Union officials are nearly always overworked and -expected to become specialist experts in half-a-dozen techniques; they -are exposed to harassing and demoralising conditions of life, and they -are habitually underpaid. The conditions of employment and the terms -of service which the Trade Unions, out of ignorance, impose on those -who serve them, far from being conducive to efficient administration -and wise leadership, are often disgracefully poor. In November 1919 -the National Union of Railwaymen set a notable example in raising -the salaries of their two principal officers to £1000 a year each. -But this is wholly exceptional. Even now, after the great rise in -the cost of living, the salary of the staff officer of an important -and wealthy Trade Union rarely exceeds £400 or £500 a year, without -any provision for any other retiring allowance than the Union’s own -Superannuation Benefit of ten or twelve shillings per week, if such -a benefit exists at all. The average member forgets that what he has -to compare the Secretary’s salary with is not the weekly wage of the -manual working members of the Union, but--on the very doctrine of -the Standard Rate in which they all believe--the remuneration given -by “good employers” for the kind of work that the Secretary has to -perform. When we remember that the modern Trade Union official has to -be constantly travelling and consorting with employers and officials of -much higher standards of expenditure than his own, and when we realise -the magnitude and financial importance of the work that he performs, -the smallness of the salary and the lack of courtesy and amenity -accorded to the office is almost ludicrous. The result is that the able -and ambitious young workman in a skilled trade is not much tempted by -the career, even if he regards it as one of Trade Union leadership, -unless he is (as so many are) an altruistic enthusiast; or unless his -ambitions are ultimately political in character. The able young workman -will both rise more rapidly and enjoy a pleasanter life by eschewing -any ostensible service of his fellow-workmen, and taking advantage -of the eagerness of intelligent employers to discover competent -foremen and managers, nowadays not altogether uninfluenced by the -sub-conscious desire to divert from Trade Unionism to Capitalism the -most active-minded of the proletariat. Nor does the danger to the Trade -Union world end with the refusal of some of its ablest young members -to become Trade Union officials. The inferiority of position, alike in -salary, in dignity and in amenity, to which a Trade Union condemns its -officers, compared with that enjoyed by men of corresponding ability -and function in other spheres, puts a perpetual strain on the loyalty -of Trade Union officials. They are constantly being tempted away from -the service of their fellows by offers of appointments in the business -world, or by Employers’ Associations, or in Government Departments. And -there are other evils of underpayment. A Trade Union official whose -income is insufficient for his daily needs is tempted to make unduly -liberal charges for his travelling expenses, and may well find it more -remunerative to be perpetually multiplying deputations and committee -meetings away from home than to be attending to his duties at the -office. He may be driven to duplicate functions and posts in order to -make a living wage. The darkest side of such a picture, the temptation -to accept from employers or from the Government those hidden bribes -that are decorously veiled as allowances for expenses or temporary -salaries for special posts, is happily one which Trade Union loyalty -and a sturdy sense of working-class honour have hitherto made it seldom -necessary to explore. But such things have not been unknown; and their -underlying cause--the unwise and mean underpayment of Trade Union -officials--deserves the attention of the Trade Union world. - -We have so far considered the officials of the Trade Union world merely -as individual administrators. This, indeed, is almost the only way -in which their work is regarded by their members. It is remarkable -how slow the Trade Union world is to recognise the importance, -to administrative or political efficiency, of the constitution -of a hierarchy, a group or a team. Where a great society has a -salaried staff of half-a-dozen to a score of officials--under such -designations as General Secretary, Assistant Secretaries, President, -Members of Executive Council or District Delegates, Organisers or -Investigators--it is almost invariable to find them all separately -elected by the whole body of members, or what is even more destructive -of unity, by different district memberships. We only know of one -example in the Trade Union world--that of the Iron and Steel Trades -Confederation--in which the responsible Executive Committee itself -appoints the official staff upon which the performance of the work -depends. All the salaried officers of a Trade Union, whatever their -designations or functions, can usually claim to have the same, and -therefore equal authority, namely, their direct election by the -members. This results in the lack of any organic relation not only -between the Executive Committee and the District Officers who ought -to be its local agents, but even between the Executive Committee -and the General Secretary and Assistant Secretaries. The Executive -Committee can shunt to purely routine work a General Secretary whom it -dislikes, and an unfriendly General Secretary can practically destroy -the authority of the Executive Committee. In some cases the work of -the office is in practice divided up amongst all the salaried staff, -Executive Councillors, General Secretary, and Assistant Secretaries -indiscriminately, each man doing his own job in the way he thinks -best, and any consultation or corporate decision being reduced to a -minimum. There is, in fact, no guarantee that there will be any unity -of policy within an Executive Committee elected by a dozen different -districts, or between an Executive Committee and its leading officials, -who are elected at different times for different reasons. The members -may choose a majority of reactionary Executive Councillors and -simultaneously a revolutionary General Secretary. In nearly all Unions -any suggestion as to the desirability of adopting the middle-class -device of entrusting a responsible Executive Committee with the power -of choosing its own officers has been resented as undemocratic.[649] In -some Unions the indispensable amount of unity is secured, not without -internal friction, by the presence of some dominant personality, who -may be a secretary or president, or merely a member of the Executive -Committee. The same drawback is seen in the constitutions of such wider -federations as the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party. The -result is that the Trade Union Movement has not yet evolved anything in -the nature of Cabinet Government, based on unity of policy among the -chief administrators, nor do we see any approach to the Party System, -which in our national politics alone makes Cabinet Government possible. -It looks as if any Democracy on a vocational basis must inevitably be -dominated by a diversity of sectional interests which does not coincide -with any cleavage in intellectual opinions. From the standpoint of -corporate efficiency the drawback is that the sectional divergencies -are always interfering with the formulation and unhesitating execution -of decisions on wider issues, on which it would be advantageous for -the Movement as a whole, in the interests of all, to have an effective -general will, even if it be only that of a numerical majority. - -Finally, it is a great drawback to the Trade Union world that it -possesses no capital city and no central headquarters even in London. -Its salaried officials, on whom it depends for leadership and policy, -are scattered all over the country. The General Secretaries of the -great Trade Friendly Societies and of the Unions of General Workers are -dispersed between London, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Aberdeen, -Liverpool, and Leicester. The officials of the Cotton Operatives -are quartered in a dozen Lancashire towns, and those of the Miners -in every coalfield. The District Delegates of the Engineering and -Shipbuilding Trades and the organisers of the Dockers and the Seamen -are stationed in all the principal ports. We have seen how little -the Trades Union Congress, meeting once a year for less than a week, -supplies any central organ of consultation or direction. The meeting -in London, every few weeks, of the two or three dozen members of the -Parliamentary Committee and the Executive Committee of the Labour Party -is wholly inadequate for the constant consultation upon policy, the -mutual communication of each other’s immediate projects, and the taking -of decisions of common interest that the present stage of the Trade -Union Movement requires. Probably no single thing would do so much -to increase the efficiency of the Trade Union world as a whole as the -provision of an adequate Central Institute and general office building -in Westminster, at which could be concentrated all the meetings of -national organisations, federations and committees; and which would -make at any rate possible the constant personal communication of all -the different headquarters.[650] - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[599] It is doubtful whether, in any country in the world, even in -Australia or Denmark, there is in 1920 so large a proportion of -the adult male manual workers enrolled in Trade Unions as in the -United Kingdom; and--Ireland being still relatively unorganised -industrially--certainly not so large a proportion as in Great Britain -alone. - -The Trade Union Movement in Ireland has, apart from the Irish branches -of British Unions, largely concentrated in the Belfast area, little -connection with that in Great Britain, but its progress during the past -thirty years has been scarcely less remarkable. The Irish railwaymen -have abandoned their attempts at organisation in an Irish Union, and -have lately swarmed into the National Union of Railwaymen to the -number of over 20,000. The engineers in Ireland, whether at Belfast or -elsewhere, are, to the number of 9000, in the Amalgamated Society of -Engineers and other British Unions. The other great Unions have nearly -all their Irish branches. But the great transformation has been in the -foundation and remarkable development of the Transport and General -Workers’ Union, built up by James Connolly and James Larkin, which has -survived both its tremendous Dublin strike of 1913 and the loss of both -its leaders, and claims in 1920 over 100,000 members in 400 branches, -being half the Trade Unionists in all Ireland. The only other Irish -Trade Unions exceeding 5000 members are the Flax Roughers’ Union, -included with other Unions in an Irish Textile Workers’ Federation, -and the Clerical Workers’ Union, together with the Irish Teachers’ -Society, which (unlike the National Union of Teachers in England -and the Educational Institute of Scotland) is frankly affiliated -with the (Irish) Labour Party. Scores of other Irish Trade Unions -exist, practically all small, local, and sectional in character, and -almost confined to the ten towns of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, -Waterford, Dundalk, Derry, Clonmel, Sligo, and Kilkenny. The total -Trade Union membership in Ireland, which thirty years ago was only put -at 40,000, may now exceed 200,000, about one-fifth of which is in and -about Belfast. The Irish Trades Union Congress, established in 1894, -and the Irish Labour Party meet annually. - -The Irish Trade Union Movement, emerging from handicraftsmen’s local -clubs, some of them dating from the middle of the eighteenth century, -and monopolist and sectional in policy, has, during the present -century, become fired with nationalist spirit and almost revolutionary -fervour. Its heroes are Michael Davitt, James Connolly, and James -Larkin. The story of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, with its -extraordinary extension to all grades of wage-earners all over Ireland, -and its sensational strikes in Dublin in 1913-14, is an epic in itself. -Some idea of this development may be gathered from _The Irish Labour -Movement_, by W. P. Ryan, 1919; _Labour in Irish History_, by James -Connolly; _Socialism Made Easy_, by the same (about 1905); the Annual -Reports of the Irish Trades Union Congress since 1895; and those of the -Irish Labour Party. - -[600] Statistics of aggregate membership in the past are lacking. But -we suggest that after the transient mass enrolments of 1833-34 had -lapsed, the total membership in Great Britain of such Trade Unions as -survived probably did not reach 100,000. It is doubtful whether, as -late as 1860, there were half a million Trade Unionists. We give in an -Appendix such past statistics as we have found. - -[601] _Industrial Democracy_, pp. 38, 92, 103, 123, 258, etc. - -[602] The Amalgamated Association of Card and Blowing Room Operatives -is (1920) not now a member. A further development of federal complexity -is the formation of a Federation of Kindred Trades connected with the -Export Shipping Industry of Manchester. - -An invidious feature, in which the textile industry is unique, is the -appearance during the present century, as the result of a quarrel as -to “political action,” of half-a-dozen separate local Trade Unions -of Roman Catholic weavers, which are united in what is termed the -Lancashire Federation of Protection Societies. These, which are neither -numerous nor of extensive membership, remain outside the Amalgamated -Association of Weavers; and are watchful critics of any proposals, -at the Trades Union Congress (to which they do not seek admission) -or elsewhere, that offend the Roman Catholic Church (notably any -suggestion of “Secular Education,” or educational changes deemed -inimical to the Roman Catholic schools). There is a National Conference -of Catholic Trade Unionists having similar objects. - -There was, in 1919, also a Jewish National Labour Council of Great -Britain; and from time to time Unions are formed, especially in the -clothing trade (such as the Amalgamated Jewish Tailors, Machinists, and -Pressers, established 1893), and in baking and cabinetmaking, aiming -at enrolling Jewish workers. But this is not really a religious, or -even primarily a racial, cleavage, but merely sectional organisation, -usually transient, among particular branches of industry which happen -to be principally carried on by Jews. At present most such societies in -the clothing trade have been absorbed in the United Garment Workers’ -Trade Union, which, with upwards of 100,000 members, is actively -negotiating for a merger with the older Amalgamated Society of Tailors -and Tailoresses (established 1865) and the effective Scottish Operative -Tailors’ and Tailoresses’ Association, with 5000 members, under the -title of the United Tailors and Garment Workers. - -[603] A recent case in which the Trade Union Assistant Secretary left -the weavers for the employers, in the midst of a crisis, with the Union -affairs in confusion, was stigmatised as desertion. - -[604] The workers in the woollen and worsted trades, whose organisation -went to pieces early in the nineteenth century on the extensive -introduction of women and the successive transformations of the -industry by machinery, have, during the past thirty years, developed -extensive Trade Unions, which have steadily gained strength. In 1892 -we could count only 18,000 Trade Unionists in the whole industry. In -1920, whilst the National Society of Woolcombers and Kindred Trades -has 12,000 members and there are strong organisations of wool-sorters, -warp-dressers, and over-lookers, the General Union of Textile Workers, -established in 1881, now includes a membership, in the West of England -as well as in Yorkshire, principally male and female weavers, numbering -more than 100,000 (_The Heavy Woollen District Textile Workers’ Union_, -by Ben Turner, 1917). During the war these Unions were accorded equal -representation with the employers and with the Government on the Wool -Control Board, by which the Government supplies of wool were “rationed” -among the manufacturers, and the prices fixed. - -In the dyeing and finishing branch of the textile industry the -Amalgamated Society of Dyers, Bleachers, Finishers, and Kindred -Trades (established 1878), with 30,000 members, has outstripped the -older National Society of Dyers and Finishers (established 1851; -12,000 members), and has entered into remarkable agreements with the -monopolist combination of employers. (The Amalgamated Association of -Bleachers and Dyers, centred at Bolton, which has over 22,000 members, -occupies a similar leading position as regards the dyeing of cotton -goods.) A recently formed National Association of Unions in the -Textile Trades seeks to co-ordinate the influence of all the woollen -workers and dyers, and counts a membership of about 150,000, in 35 -societies, which are grouped in four sections (“Raw Wool,” “Managers -and Overlookers,” “Textile Workers,” and “Dyers’ Societies”). - -[605] The history of the struggles in the engineering industry may -be gathered from the monthly _Journal_ of the A.S.E. and the Annual -Reports of this and other engineering Trade Unions; from the references -in _Engineering_ and other employers’ periodicals. For the lock-out -of 1897, see also the _Times_ and _Labour Gazette_ for that year, and -also an anonymous volume, _The Engineering Strike_, 1897. See also for -some of the points at issue, _Industrial Democracy_, by S. and B. Webb, -1897; _An Introduction to Trade Unionism_, by G. D. H. Cole, 1917, and -_The Works Manager To-day_, by Sidney Webb, 1918. - -[606] The Unions which, along with the A.S.E., ratified the agreement -were the Steam Engine Makers’ Society, the United Machine Workers’ -Association, the United Kingdom Society of Amalgamated Smiths and -Strikers, the Associated Brassfounders and Coppersmiths’ Society, the -North of England Brass Turners’ Society, and the London United Metal -Turners, Fitters and Finishers, having an aggregate membership of -70,000. - -The societies which failed to secure ratification on the members’ -vote, in some cases merely by the failure to obtain a sufficiently -large poll, were the Amalgamated Toolmakers’ Society, the Electrical -Trades Union, the United Brass Founders and Finishers’ Association, -the Amalgamated Instrument Makers’ Society, the United Pattern -Makers’ Association, the Associated Smiths and Strikers, the National -Brassworkers and Metal Mechanics, the Association of Engineering and -Shipbuilding Draughtsmen, and the Scale and Beam Makers’ Society, with -something like 100,000 members in the aggregate. Probably some of these -will take another vote in the near future. - -The old-established Friendly Society of Ironfounders (35,000 members) -continues quite apart, though joining freely in engineering trade -movements. An unusually protracted national strike in 1919, which is -likely to end in a compromise, may possibly lead to proposals for -closer union. - -[607] _Trade Unionism: a New Model_, by R. Page Arnot, 1919; and -_Is Trade Unionism played out?_ 1919, by the same. Some “extremist” -thinkers among workmen have put their hopes of achieving the -“Industrial Democracy” that they desire upon a development of the -Shop Stewards’ Movement, which should become, together with a “Works -Committee,” the instrument of transferring the management of each -undertaking from its present capitalist owners and directors to the -elected representatives of the persons employed. See _The Workers’ -Committee, an Outline of its Principles and Structures_, by J. T. -Murphy (1918), and _Compromise or Independence, an Examination of the -Whitley Report_ (1918), by the same, both published by the Sheffield -Workers’ Committee. - -[608] The Amalgamated Society of Steel and Ironworkers and the -Tin and Sheet Millmen’s Association failed to secure their -members’ ratification by vote, whilst the National Association of -Blastfurnacemen withheld its adhesion. These may be expected to adhere -in due course. - -[609] The London dock labourers found themselves in 1911, with an -increased cost of living and the virtual abandonment of attempts to -improve their method of employment, little better off than in 1889. -See _Casual Labour at the Docks_, by H. A. Mess, 1916; and, for the -position at other ports, _Le Travail casuel dans les ports anglais_, by -J. Malégue, 1913; _The Liverpool Docks Problem_, 1912, and _The First -Year’s Working of the Liverpool Dock Scheme_, 1914, both by R. Williams -(of the Labour Exchange); and “Towards the Solution of the Casual -Labour Problem,” by F. Keeling, in _Economic Journal_, March 1913. - -[610] _History of the London Transport Workers’ Strike_, by Ben -Tillett, 1911; _The Great Strike Movement of 1911 and its Lessons_, by -H. W. Lee, 1911; _The Times_ for June-August 1911; _Labour Gazette_, -1911-12. - -[611] _The Working Life of Shop Assistants_, by Joseph Hallsworth and -R. J. Davis, 1913. - -[612] A separate Association of Women Clerks and Secretaries, long -small in membership, has also risen to 4500 members. - -[613] See _English Teachers and their Professional Organisations_, by -Mrs. Sidney Webb, published as supplements to _The New Statesman_ of -September 25 and October 2, 1915. - -[614] From 1913 onward a persistent attempt to establish a Trade -Union was made by many of the Police and Prison Officers, which was -resisted by the Home Secretary, as responsible for the Metropolitan -Police, and by all the Local Authorities. In 1913 the Police and Prison -Officers’ Union was formed by ex-Inspector Symes, and in 1917 it was -reorganised, without securing either recognition or sanction. Cases of -“victimisation” having occurred, there was a sudden strike on August -29, 1918, which was participated in by nearly the whole of the police -in many London divisions. This took the world (and also the criminal -population) by surprise; but through good-humoured handling by the -Prime Minister (who received the Executive Committee of the Union and -told them that “the Union could not be recognised during the war”), the -Government persuaded the men promptly to resume their duties, with a -cessation of “victimisation” for joining the Union and a substantial -increase of pay. When hostilities ceased, the Union expected some -measure of official sanction, but none was accorded, and grievances -remained unredressed. On July 31, 1919, a second strike was suddenly -called, which resulted in failure, only a couple of thousand men -coming out in London, and a few hundred in Liverpool, Birkenhead, and -elsewhere, together with a small number of prison warders. At Liverpool -and Birkenhead there was serious looting of shops and public-houses -by turbulent crowds. The authorities stood firm, the Home Secretary -refusing all sanction for the establishment of a Trade Union in the -police force and prison staff, and summarily dismissing all the -strikers, at the same time announcing large concessions in the way of -wages, promotion, and pensions, and conceding, not a Trade Union, but -the establishment of an elective organisation of the police force, by -grades, entitled to make formal representations and complaints. This -concession was embodied in the Police Act, 1919, which explicitly -prohibited to the police either membership of, or affiliation to, any -Trade Union or political organisation. The dismissed policemen were -not reinstated, but the Government informally assisted some of them to -obtain other employment. - -[615] For the history of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain and -the contemporary District Unions, we have drawn on the voluminous -printed minutes of proceedings and reports which are seldom seen -outside the Miners’ Offices; the various publications of the Labour -Department of the Board of Trade (now the Ministry of Labour) and -the Home Office; _The British Coal Trade_, by H. Stanley Jevons -(1915); _The British Coal Industry_, by Gilbert Stone (1919); _Labour -Strife in the South Wales Coalfield, 1910-11_, by D. Evans (1911); -_The Adjustment of Wages_, by Sir W. J. Ashley; _Miners’ Wages and -the Sliding Scale_, by W. Smart (1894); _Miners and the Eight Hours -Movement_, by M. Percy; _History of the Durham Miners’ Association_, -by J. Wilson (1907); _A Great Labour Leader_ [Thomas Burt], by Aaron -Watson (1908); _Memoirs of a Miners’ Leader_, by J. Wilson (1910); -_Industrial Unionism and the Mining Industry_, by George Harvey (1917); -_A Plan for the Democratic Control of the Mining Industry_, by the -Industrial Committee of the South Wales Socialist Society (1919); the -Reports and evidence of the Coal Industry Commission, 1919, and the -voluminous newspaper discussion to which it gave rise, together with -_Facts from the Coal Commission_ and _Further Facts from the Coal -Commission_, both by R. Page Arnot (1919). - -[616] The enginemen, boilermen and firemen, colliery mechanics, -cokemen, under-managers, deputies, overmen and other officials, -colliery clerks and various kinds of surface-workers about the mines -have all their own Unions, which have greatly developed of recent -years, and are in many districts not very willing to join the county -miners’ associations, though they often act in conjunction with these. -Their own federations are referred to on p. 550. - -[617] _The British Coal Trade_ (by H. Stanley Jevons, 1915), p. 599. - -[618] The other railwaymen’s Unions are the Belfast and Dublin -Locomotive Engine-drivers’ and Firemen’s Trade Union, founded in 1872, -and still existing (1920) with a few hundred members; the Associated -Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, founded in 1880, a -powerful sectional society with 33,000 members, which long maintained a -jealous rivalry with the Amalgamated; the Railway Clerks’ Association, -founded in 1897, remaining very small for a whole decade, absorbing -in 1911 the Railway Telegraph Clerks’ Association, founded 1897, with -85,000 members; the Irish Railway Workers’ Trade Union, founded in -1910, tiny and insignificant; the National Union of Railway Clerks, -formed in 1913, a tiny local body, arising out of the suspension of the -Sheffield Branch of the Railway Clerks’ Association, temporary only. - -We may mention the Scottish Society of Railway Servants, founded in -the eighteen-eighties, merged in the Amalgamated Society in 1892; the -United Signalmen and Pointsmen, founded in 1880, merged in the N.U.R. -in 1913; the General Railway Workers’ Union, founded in 1889, merged in -the N.U.R., 1913. - -For the development of Trade Unionism in the railway world, and the -various controversies, we have drawn mainly on the numerous reports and -other publications of the Unions themselves; the _Railway Review_ and -the _Railway Clerk_ (the pleading for the Companies being found in the -_Railway News_, subsequently incorporated in the _Railway Gazette_); -_Trade Unionism on the Railways, its History and Problems_, by G. D. -H. Cole and R. Page Arnot (1917); the _Souvenir History_, published by -the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (1910); _Men and Rails_, -by Rowland Kenney (1913); _Der Arbeitskampf der englischen Eisenbahner -im Jahre 1911_, by C. Leubuscher, 1913; the various publications on -the legal proceedings, for which see the next chapter; the Reports of -the Board of Trade on Railway Accidents, hours of labour, etc., of the -Select Committee of 1892, and the Special Committee of Inquiry of 1911; -_An Introduction to Trade Unionism_, by G. D. H. Cole (1918); _From -Engine-cleaner to Privy Councillor_ [J. H. Thomas], by J. F. Moir Bussy -(1917). - -[619] _Slavery on Scottish Railways_ (1888); _The Scottish Railway -Strike_, by James Mavor (1891). - -[620] The North Eastern Railway Company was so far an exception that, -already in 1890, it was willing to receive representations from the -Trade Union. - -[621] A notable feature was a statistical census of the wages of the -railwaymen, compiled by the Amalgamated Society through its membership, -for the presentation of which Mr. Richard Bell, the Secretary, obtained -the services of a Cambridge graduate, Mr. W. T. Layton. This “Green -Book” revealed that 38 per cent received 20s. per week or under, and -49.8 per cent between 21s. and 30s.; with atrocious hours. Attempts -to discredit these statistics were made by the Companies, it being in -particular constantly suggested that nearly all the 100,000 paid under -£1 per week were boys. It took the Board of Trade four years to compile -and publish an official wage-census for October 1907, which eventually -revealed that 96,000 adult railwaymen were receiving 19s. per week or -less (Board of Trade Report, February 1912), an extraordinarily exact -confirmation of the much-abused census taken by the Union. See _Men and -Rails_, by Rowland Kenney, 1913. - -[622] This intimation undoubtedly meant that the Government had -decided, as the _Times_ expressly said, to use the Royal Engineers to -run trains--a decision to be compared with that at once announced in -the national railway strike of 1919, that no use would be made of the -troops actually to run trains, nor would the Post Office officials -be asked to do railwaymen’s work, nor persons on State Unemployment -Benefit be called upon to accept employment on the railways. The change -in attitude of the Government in eight years is significant. - -[623] The committee consisted, for the first time, of equal numbers -of persons appointed as being representative of employers and workmen -respectively--two on each side--none of them directly concerned with -the industry, with an “impartial chairman,” all five being selected by -the Government. For the Companies, Sir T. Ratcliffe Ellis and Mr. C. -G. Beale; for the workmen, Mr. Arthur Henderson, M.P., and Mr. John -Burnett; the Chairman was Sir David Harrel, K.C.B., an official of the -Irish Government. - -[624] The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, -having now 51,000 members, unfortunately stood aloof; and the annals -of railway Trade Unionism were, down to 1918, largely made up of the -wrangling between this society and the National Union of Railwaymen. - -[625] The mechanics and labourers in the railway companies’ engineering -and repairing shops, though many of them have always been members -of the various engineering and other craft Unions, long remained -relatively unorganised. Many of the less skilled were enrolled by the -General Railway Workers’ Union in 1889-1913; and when this was merged -in the National Union of Railwaymen, with its broadened constitution, -many more of the mechanics and labourers in the railway workshops -were recruited, and the N.U.R. sought to obtain for them the advances -and other benefits for which it was pressing. The railway companies -disputed the right of the N.U.R. to speak for the “shopmen,” and the -claim provoked the resentment of the craft Unions, which were now -paying increased attention to the organisation of men of their crafts -in the railway workshops. Repeated attempts have been made to arrive -at some “line of demarcation” or other compromise, by which this -rivalry between Unions could be brought to an end; but hitherto without -success. The quarrel is inflamed by a conflict of Trade Union doctrine. -The engineers, boilermakers, carpenters, and other trades assert that -organisation should be by craft, whatever may be the industry in which -the craftsman is working. The advocates of the “New Model” of the -N.U.R. assert the superiority of organisation by industry, including in -each industry all the crafts actually concerned. See _Trade Unionism on -the Railways, its History and Problems_, by G. D. H. Cole and R. Page -Arnot, 1917. - -[626] The Presidential Address at the Annual Conference of the Railway -Clerks’ Association in 1913 had suggested that the representatives of -the railway workers should constitute one-third of a National Railway -Board--a proposal that did not content the larger Union. - -[627] It was reported that in some cases the soldiers fraternised with -the pickets and were promptly withdrawn to barracks; and the Cabinet -was certainly warned, by high military authority, against attempting to -use the troops. - -[628] For an account of this Department see pp. 571-2. - -[629] A notable feature was a revolt of the compositors and printers’ -assistants, who threatened to strike and stop the newspapers altogether -unless the railwaymen were allowed to present their case and unless -abusive posters were abandoned. - -[630] _Railway Dispute, 1919: Report to the Labour Movement of Great -Britain by the Committee appointed at the Caxton Hall Conference_ -(National Transport Workers’ Federation). - -[631] British Trade Unionism has often been contrasted, to its -disadvantage, with the more scientifically classified German Trade -Unionism before the Great War. It was, for instance, often pointed -out that the three millions of German Trade Unionists were grouped in -no more than 48 Unions. This, however, ignored the numerous competing -Hirsch-Duncker and Christian Unions, which were far more destructive -of unity than are the crowd of minor societies in Great Britain and -Ireland. At present (1920) the 48 largest Trade Unions of this country -concentrate a larger membership than the much-praised 48 Trade Unions -of Germany did in 1914. - -[632] See _An Introduction to Trade Unionism_, by G. D. H. Cole, 1917. - -[633] See the _History of the British Trades Union Congress_ (by W. J. -Davis), vol. ii. (1916), p. 156; and the successive _Annual Reports_ of -the General Federation of Trade Unions from 1900 onward. - -[634] Such as those for Kent, Lancashire and Cheshire, North Wales, the -South-Western Counties, and Yorkshire. - -[635] At Nottingham, Leicester, Brighton, Hanley, Manchester, -Worcester, and some other towns, the Trades Council has at times -been allowed the use of a room in the Town Hall, or other municipal -building. The Local Government Board in 1908 suggested to Local -Authorities that this assistance should be generally afforded to them. - -[636] One of the most active supporters of the Trades Council -Movement is the National Union of Railwaymen, which has been largely -responsible for the valuable help rendered by the Trades Councils in -the organisation of agricultural labourers. The Amalgamated Union of -Co-operative Employees, that of Operative Bakers of Great Britain and -Ireland, and the Municipal Employees’ Association are also outstanding -supporters of the Trades Councils, whilst the Oldham Operative -Cotton-spinners, and the Operative Lace Makers of Nottingham make -branch affiliation compulsory. In many of the principal Unions branch -affiliation fees are contributed wholly, or in large proportion, from -Central Funds. - -[637] The Manchester Trades Council, and especially its Chairman, Mr. -Purcell, of the Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association, successfully -brought to a compromise the very serious strike of the Amalgamated -Union of Co-operative Employees against the Lancashire and Yorkshire -Co-operative Societies in 1919. - -[638] The Gateshead Trades Council and Local Labour Party holds -an “Information Bureau meeting” once a week, devoted to answering -inquiries and affording information on Local Government affairs. - -[639] The Trades Union Congress has, since 1873, published a long and -detailed _Annual Report_; and the Parliamentary Committee has, for some -years past, issued a _Quarterly Circular_ to its constituent bodies. -Besides these, there should be consulted the _History of the British -Trades Union Congress_, by W. J. Davis, of which two volumes have been -issued (1910 and 1916); _Henry Broadhurst, the Story of his Life_, by -himself, 1901. - -[640] See the significant comments in _History of the British Trades -Union Congress_, by W. J. Davis, vol. ii., 1916, pp. 102-8. - -[641] In the early period of its history the middle-class friends of -Trade Unionism read papers and took part in debates. But for many -years no one has been allowed to participate in its proceedings in -any capacity except duly elected delegates who have worked at the -trade they represent, or are actually salaried officials of affiliated -Trade Unions. In 1892 and 1893 admission was further limited to those -societies which contributed a specified amount per thousand members -to the funds of the Congress. The Parliamentary Committee consists of -seventeen members, elected by ballot of the whole of the delegates -on the fifth day of the Congress. The successful candidates are -usually the salaried officers of the great societies, the Standing -Orders expressly providing that no trade shall have more than one -representative except the miners, who may now have two. The Secretary -receives, even in 1920, only £500 a year, and the post has nearly -always been filled by an officer enjoying emoluments for other duties. -For the last forty years the holder has almost constantly been a -member of Parliament, with prior obligations to his constituents, -which are not always consistent with the directions of his fellow -Trade Unionists; and with onerous Parliamentary duties, which often -hamper his secretarial work. For many years he had to provide whatever -clerical assistance he required; but in 1896 a clerk, and in 1917 an -Assistant Secretary, were added to the staff. - -[642] Each Union casts votes in proportion to its affiliated -membership, but can divide them as it pleases among the candidates. -Between 1906 and 1915 the delegates were divided into ten groups of -allied industries, and each group chose its own member. At the 1919 -Congress a resolution was carried directing that the election should -henceforth be by the transferable vote; and it remains to be seen -whether this will upset the “dickering for votes.” - -[643] The situation was for years further complicated by the fact -that C. Fenwick, M.P., who in 1890 succeeded Henry Broadhurst in the -office, was one of the Parliamentary representatives of the Durham -miners, a majority of whom were not in accordance with the decision of -the Congress on the crucial question of an Eight Hours’ Bill. It was -in vain that Fenwick, with most engaging candour, explained to each -successive Congress that his pledge to his constituents, no less than -his own opinions, would compel him actively to oppose all regulation -of the hours of adult male labour. The Congress nevertheless elected -him for four successive years as Secretary to the Parliamentary -Committee, replacing him only in 1894 by an officer who was prepared -to support the policy of the Congress. This is only another example -of the extraordinary constancy (referred to at p. 471) with which a -working-class organisation adheres to a man who has once been elected -an officer--a constancy due, as we think, partly to a generous -objection to “do a man out of his job,” and partly to a deep-rooted -belief that any given piece of work can be done as well by one man as -another. Much the same situation has recurred frequently in the record -of the Parliamentary Committee. - -[644] One such case may be mentioned. In 1898 a small Trade Union -of old standing (Co-operative Smiths’ Society, Gateshead) formally -complained that the Amalgamated Society of Engineers had allowed its -members to take the places of men who had struck. The Parliamentary -Committee, acting under Standing Order No. 20, appointed three of its -members as arbitrators, who, after elaborate inquiry, found the charge -proved, and requested the A.S.E. to withdraw its members from the place -in dispute. The A.S.E. refused to accept the award, and withdrew from -the Congress (Annual Report of Trades Union Congress, 1899; _History -of British Trades Union Congress_, by W. J. Davis, vol. ii., 1916, pp. -161-62, 165-67). - -Another case, in 1902, was adjudicated on in a similar way, where -the United Kingdom Amalgamated Smiths and Strikers complained of the -Associated Blacksmiths’ Society, which was found to blame (_ibid._ p. -208). - -[645] In view of the failure of the Trades Union Congress to equip its -Parliamentary Committee with any staff that would enable it to deal -with these problems, the Fabian Society started in 1912 the Fabian -Research Department, to investigate and supply information upon these -and other questions. This organisation has now become the Labour -Research Department, an independent federal combination of Trade -Unions, Co-operative and Socialist societies, and other Labour bodies -(including the Labour Party, the English, Scottish, and Irish Trades -Union Congresses, the Co-operative Union, the _Daily Herald_, most of -the big Trade Unions, and some hundreds of Trade Councils, Local Labour -Parties, etc.), with individual students and investigators. It has its -offices at 34 Eccleston Square, London, S.W.1, next door to those of -the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party; issues to its members a -monthly bulletin of information, and has published many useful books, -pamphlets, and monographs. It answers a stream of questions from Trade -Unions all over the country on every conceivable point of theory or -practice; it supplies particulars of rates of pay, hours of labour, -and conditions of employment in other trades; and it is frequently -employed in helping to prepare cases for submission to Joint Boards or -Arbitration Tribunals. Its influential conduct of the “publicity” of -the National Union of Railwaymen in the 1919 strike has already been -described. - -[646] For instance, Henry Taylor, the coadjutor of Joseph Arch in -organising the agricultural labourers in 1872, was a carpenter; -Tom Mann, for two years salaried President of the Dock, Wharf, and -Riverside Labourers, has always been a member, and is now General -Secretary, of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers; whilst Edward -M’Hugh, for some time General Secretary of the National Union of Dock -Labourers, is a compositor; Mr. Charles Duncan, President of the -Workers’ Union, is an engineer; Mr. R. Walker, General Secretary of -the Agricultural Labourers’ Union, was successively a shopkeeper and a -railway clerk, and so on. - -[647] The fervent energy of the typical official of the Labour Union -of that day was well described in 1894 in the following sketch by Mrs. -Bruce Glasier (Katherine Conway), a member of the “Independent Labour -Party.” “He has his offices, but is generally conspicuous there from -his absence. Walter Crane’s ‘Triumph of Labour’ hangs on the wall, and -copies of _The Fabian Essays_, and the greater proportion of the tracts -issued by the Manchester or Glasgow Labour Presses, lie scattered over -the room. In England, Byron and Shelley, in Scotland, Byron and Burns, -are the approved poets. Carlyle and a borrowed Ruskin or two are also -in evidence, and a library edition of Thorold Rogers’ _Work and Wages_. -John Stuart Mill’s _Political Economy_, side by side with a _Student’s -Marx_, give proof of a laudable determination to go to the roots of the -matter, and to base all arguments on close and careful study. But the -call to action is never-ceasing, and train-travelling, if conducive to -the enormous success of new journalism, affords but little opportunity -for serious reading. ‘The daily newspapers are continually filled with -lies, which one ought to know how to refute,’ and the situation all -over the globe ‘may develop at any moment.’ - -“Yet, unlike the old Unionist leader, he is ever ready for the -interviewer or the sympathetic inquirer, of whatever class or sex. -Right racily he will describe the rapid growth of the movement since -the great dock strike of 1889, and show the necessity in dealing with -such mixed masses of men as fill the ranks of unskilled labour to-day, -of continually striking while the iron is hot, and of substituting -a policy of _coup d’état_ for the deliberate preparation of the -older Unions. ‘Lose here, win there,’ is our only motto, he says, -resolutely determined to look at defeat from the point of view of a -general-in-chief, and not from the narrower range of an officer in -charge of a special division. At the moment of surrender he may have -been white to the lips, but the next day will find him cheery and -undaunted in another part of the country, carrying on his campaign and -enrolling hundreds of recruits by the sheer energy of his confident -eloquence.” (_Weekly Sun_, January 28, 1894.) - -[648] It is, we think, only the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation -that had laid down and acted on the principle of entrusting the -appointment of salaried officials to the Executive Committee, on the -express ground that popular election by ballot is not the right way to -select administrative officers. - -[649] It would clearly be an advantage if the distinction between those -responsible for policy (whether designated Executive Councillors, -President or otherwise) and those whose function should be executive -only, were fully borne in mind. Whilst the former should certainly be -elected by, and held responsible to, the membership, it is submitted -that experience shows the advantage of purely executive officers--which -may be what the secretaries and district delegates should become--being -appointed by, and held responsible to, those who are elected. - -At least, a separation should be made between persons elected to be -responsible for policy, and officers employed for tasks requiring -specialised training (such as the whole of the insurance work of -the Union and of its Approved Society; its constantly increasing -statistical requirements, and its legal business). Such officers should -certainly be appointed, not elected; and should take no part in the -decision of issues of policy, even as regards their own department. -Speaking generally, much more specialisation of functions and officers -should be aimed at in all Unions of magnitude. - -[650] Such a building was decided on in 1918-19 by joint and separate -conferences of the Trades Union Congress and Labour Party, as a -“Memorial of Freedom and Peace,” in memory of those who lost their -lives in the Great War. It is, however, by no means certain that the -necessary large cost will be subscribed. - - - - -CHAPTER X - -THE PLACE OF TRADE UNIONISM IN THE STATE - -[1890-1920] - - -In 1890 Trade Union organisation had already become a lawful -institution; its leading members had begun to be made members of Royal -Commissions and justices of the peace; they were, now and then, given -such Civil Service appointments as Factory Inspectors; and two or three -of them had won their way into the House of Commons. But these advances -were still exceptional and precarious. The next thirty years were to -see the legal position of Trade Unionism, actually in consequence of -renewed assaults, very firmly consolidated by statute, and the Trade -Union claim to participation in all public enquiries, and to nominate -members to all governmental commissions and committees, practically -admitted. Trade Union representatives have won an equal entrance to -local bodies, from Quarter Sessions and all the elected Councils down -to Pension and Food and Profiteering Act Committees; an influential -Labour Party has been established in Parliament; and most remarkable of -all, the Trade Union itself has been tacitly accepted as a part of the -administrative machinery of the State. - -It is a characteristic feature of Trade Union history, at the end as -at the beginning of the record of the past hundred years, that we -have to trace the advance of the Movement through a series of attacks -upon Trade Unionism itself. It is in this light that we regard the -Royal Commission on Labour set up by the Conservative Government -of 1891. Its professed purpose was to enquire into the relations -between Capital and Labour, with a view to their improvement. But its -composition was significantly weighted against the wage-earners. It is -true that, in the large total membership, seven Trade Union officials -were included, among them being Mr. Tom Mann; but whilst the great -employers who sat on the Commission were supported by legislators, -lawyers, and economists of their own class, having substantially -their own assumptions and opinions, the Trade Unionist minority was -allowed no expert colleagues. From the start the Commission set -itself--probably quite without any consciousness of bias--to discredit -alike the economic basis of the workmen’s combinations, the methods -and devices of Trade Unionism, and the projects of social and economic -reform that were then making headway in the Trade Union world. In the -end, after two years’ exhaustive enquiry, which cost the nation nearly -£50,000, the majority of the Commissioners either found it impossible, -or deemed it inexpedient, to report anything in the nature of an -indictment against Trade Unionism in theory or practice; and could not -bring themselves to recommend any, even the slightest, reversal of -what had, up to the very date of the report, been conceded or enacted, -whether with regard to the recognition of Trade Unions, the collective -regulation of wages, the legal prescription of minimum conditions of -employment or the political activities of the workmen’s combinations. -The majority of the Commissioners--it is significant that they were -joined by three out of the seven Trade Unionists--contented themselves -with deprecating, and mildly arguing against, every one of the projects -of reform that were then in the air. What is interesting is the fact -that the most reactionary section of the Commission nearly persuaded -their colleagues of the majority to recommend putting Trade Unions -compulsorily into the strait-jacket of legal incorporation, involving -them in corporate liability for the acts of their officers or agents, -with the object of inducing the Unions to enter--not, as is usual -in Collective Bargaining, into treaties defining merely _minimum_ -conditions--but into legally binding obligations with the employers, in -which the Unions would become liable in damages if any of their members -refused to work on the collectively prescribed terms. At the last -moment the majority of the Commissioners recoiled from this proposal, -which was left to be put forward as a separate report over the names of -seven Commissioners. The Labour Minority Report, signed by four[651] -out of the seven Trade Unionist Commissioners, whilst protesting -strongly against any interference with Trade Union freedom, took the -form of a long and detailed plea for a large number of immediately -practicable industrial, economic, and social reforms, envisaged as -step by step progress towards a complete transformation of the social -order.[652] - -The Commission had no direct results in legislation or administration; -but the Board of Trade set up a Labour Department, appointed a number -of Trade Unionists as its officials or correspondents, and started the -admirably edited monthly _Labour Gazette_. The next move came in the -form of an assault on the legal position of Trade Unionism, which, in -one or other manifestation, held the stage for more than a decade. - -For a quarter of a century the peculiar legal status which had been -conferred upon a Trade Union by the Acts of 1871-76 was not interfered -with by the lawyers. At the close of the nineteenth century, when -Trade Unionism had by its very success again become unpopular among the -propertied and professional classes, as well as in the business world, -a new assault was made upon it. - - -ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES - -The attempt to suppress Trade Unionism by the criminal law was -practically abandoned.[653] But officers of Trade Unions found -themselves involved in civil actions, in which the employers sued them -for damages caused by Trade Union activity which the judges held to -be, although not criminal, nevertheless wrongful. What could no longer -be punished by imprisonment with hard labour might at any rate be -penalised by heavy damages and costs, for which the Trade Unionist’s -home could be sold up. The Trade Unions in 1875-80, though, as we have -described, warned by their friendly legal advisers, had not realised -the importance of insisting that the elastic and indeterminable law -of conspiracy should be put on a reasonable footing; and though they -were, by 1891, fairly safe from its use to reinforce the criminal -law, the lawyers found means, under the figment of “conspiracy to -injure,” to bring under the head of torts or actionable wrongs the -most ordinary and non-criminal acts of Trade Union officers which -would have been, if done by one person only, without conspiracy, no -ground for legal proceedings. After-ages will be amazed at the flagrant -unfairness with which the conception of a “conspiracy to injure” -was applied at the close of the nineteenth century. The greatest -possible injury to other people’s income or business, not involving -the violation of a recognised legal right, if committed by employers -for the augmentation of their profits (even in “restraint of trade,” -by means of the deliberate conspiracy of an association), was held -not to be actionable.[654] But it was held to be an actionable wrong -to the employer for a couple of men to wait in the street, in a town -many miles distant, for the purpose of quite quietly and peacefully -persuading a workman not to enter into a contract of service. The -most pacific “picketing” of an employer’s premises, though admittedly -no longer a criminal act, was, if done in concert, held to be an -actionable wrong. If a Trade Union Secretary published a perfectly -accurate list of firms which were “non-Union,” with the intention of -warning Trade Unionists not to take service with them, this gave each -of the “blacklisted” firms the right to sue him for damages. It was -held to be ground for damages for a Trade Union official merely to -request one firm not to supply goods to another; or to ask an employer -not to employ any particular person; or even to urge the members of -his own Union quite lawfully to come out on strike on the termination -of their engagement of service, if the object of the strike was -considered by the Court to be to put pressure on the will of some -other employer or some other workman. And whilst any solicitation or -persuasion to break a contract of service by a Trade Union official -was certainly actionable, it became doubtful whether he would not be -equally liable if he had carefully abstained from, and had really not -intended, any such suggestion, whenever the members of his Society -became so influenced by his action, or were thought by the Court to -have been so influenced, that they, spontaneously and against his -desires, impetuously came out on strike before their notices had -expired.[655] It was a further aggravation, of which less advantage -was actually taken by employers in this country than by those of the -United States, that where the Court was convinced that an actionable -wrong was threatened or intended, it was possible very summarily to -obtain an injunction against its commission, any breach of which was -punishable by imprisonment for contempt of Court. It became, therefore, -at least theoretically possible that almost any action by a Trade Union -by which an employer felt himself injured might be summarily prohibited -by peremptory injunction; and some things were thus prohibited, even in -this country. - - -THE TAFF VALE CASE - -All this development of the Law of Conspiracy and the Law of -Torts, though it went far to render nugatory the intention of the -Legislature in 1871-76 to make lawful a deliberately concerted -strike, left unchallenged the position of the Trade Union itself -as immune from legal proceedings against its corporate funds, an -anomalous position which everybody understood to have been conceded -by the Acts of 1871-76. In 1901, after thirty years of unquestioned -immunity, the judges decided, to the almost universal surprise of the -legal profession as well as of the Trade Union world, that this had -not been enacted by Parliament. In 1900 a tumultuous and at first -unauthorised strike had broken out among the employees of the Taff -Vale Railway Company in South Wales, in the course of which there -had been a certain amount of tumultuous picketing, and other acts of -an unlawful character. In the teeth of the advice of the Company’s -lawyers, Beasley, the General Manager, insisted on the Company suing -for damages, not the workmen guilty of the unlawful acts, but the -Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants itself; and on fighting the -case through to the highest tribunal. After elaborate argument, the Law -Lords decided that the Trade Union, though admittedly not a corporate -body, could be sued in a corporate capacity for damages alleged to -have been caused by the action of its officers, and that an injunction -could be issued against it, restraining it and all its officers, not -merely from criminal acts, but also from unlawfully, though without -the slightest criminality, causing loss to other persons. Moreover, in -their elaborate reasons for their judgement, the Law Lords expressed -the view that not only an injunction but also a mandamus could be -issued against a Trade Union, requiring it to do anything that any -person could lawfully call upon it to do; that a registered Trade -Union could be sued in its registered name, just as if it were a -corporation; that even an unregistered Trade Union could be made -collectively liable for damages, and might be sued in the names of -its proper officers, the members of its executive committees and its -trustees; and that the damages and costs could be recovered from the -property of the Trade Union, whether this was in the hands of separate -trustees or not. The effect of this momentous judgement, in fact, -was, in flagrant disregard of the intention of the Government and of -Parliament in 1871-76, to impose upon a Trade Union, whether registered -or not, although it was still denied the advantages and privileges of -incorporation, complete corporate liability for any injury or damage -caused by any person who could be deemed to be acting as the agent -of the Union, not merely in respect of any criminal offence which he -might have committed, but also in respect of any act, not contravening -the criminal law, which the judges might hold to have been actionable. -The Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, which had not authorised -the Taff Vale strike nor any wrongful acts that were committed by the -strikers, but which, after the strike had occurred, had done its best -to conduct it to a successful issue, and had paid Strike Benefit, was -compelled to pay £23,000 in damages, and incurred a total expense of -£42,000.[656] It has been estimated that, from first to last, the -damages and expenses in which the various Trade Unions were cast, owing -to this, and the other judgements against Trade Unions and Trade Union -officials personally, amounted to not less than £200,000. - -The little world of Trade Union officials, already alarmed at -the prospect of being individually sued for damages, was thrown -into consternation by the Taff Vale judgement, which seemed to -destroy, at a blow, the status that had been, with so much effort, -acquired in 1871-76. The full extent of the danger was not at first -apprehended. Why, it was asked, should not the Trade Union rules, -and the instructions of Trade Union Executive Committees, expressly -forbid the commission by officials of any wrongful acts? It was only -gradually realised that, under the figment of “conspiracy to injure” -that the lawyers had elaborated, even the most innocent acts, which -an individual could quite lawfully commit, might be held wrongful and -actionable if they were committed by or on behalf of an association -to the pecuniary injury of any other person; and that there was no -assignable limit, as the cases had shown, either to what might be -held to be wrongful acts, or to the nature or amount of the damage -that the Courts might hold to have been caused by such acts in the -ordinary course of any extensive strike. Moreover, under the ordinary -law of agency, the most explicit prohibition of unlawful acts in the -rules of the association, coupled with the most scrupulous care in the -Executive Committee in framing its instructions to its officials, would -not prevent the Trade Union from being held liable for any pecuniary -injury that might be caused, even in defiance of instructions and in -disobedience to the rules, by any of its officers acting within the -scope of their employment; or, indeed, by any member, paid or unpaid, -whom the Courts might hold to be acting as the agent of the Union. -And as every stoppage of work, however lawful, necessarily involved -financial loss to the employers, it could be foreseen that even the -most carefully conducted strike might be made at least the occasion -for costly litigation, and probably the opportunity for getting the -Trade Union cast in swingeing damages. The immediate result was very -largely to paralyse the Executive Committees and responsible officials -of all Trade Unions, and greatly to cripple their action, either in -securing improvements in their members’ conditions of employment or -in resisting the employers’ demands for reductions. In particular, -the general advances for which the railway workers were asking were -delayed. The capitalists did not fail to use the opportunity to break -down the workmen’s defences. Trade Unionism had to a great extent lost -its sting.[657] - -Though it took some time for the Trade Union world to realise the -peril, the effect on the Movement was profound. Up and down the country -every society, great and small, and practically every branch, rallied -in defence of its right to exist. The first result was to make the -newly-formed Labour Party, which will be hereafter described, and which -had hitherto hung fire, into an effective political force. The effect -of the Taff Vale judgement was, in 1902-3, to double, and by 1906-7 to -treble the number of adhering Trade Unions, and to raise the affiliated -membership of the Party to nearly a million. As the Dissolution of -Parliament approached, the Trade Unions organised a systematic canvass -of all prospective candidates, making it plain that none would receive -working-class support unless they pledged themselves to a Bill to -undo the Taff Vale judgement and put back Trade Unionism into the -legal position that Parliament had conferred upon it in 1871. When the -General Election at last took place, in January 1906, the Labour Party -(still known as the Labour Representation Committee) put no fewer than -fifty independent candidates in the field, of whom, to the astonishment -of the politicians, twenty-nine were at the head of the poll.[658] - - -THE TRADE DISPUTES ACT - -The first claim of the Labour Party was for the statutory reversal of -the Taff Vale judgement, which every one now admitted to be necessary. -The question was what should be done. There were, substantially, -only two alternatives. One was that, in view of the difficulty of -effectually maintaining it against legal ingenuity, the Trade Unions -should forgo their position of being outside the law, and should -claim, instead, full rights, not only of citizenship, but actually -of being duly authorised constituent parts of the social structure, -lawfully fulfilling a recognised function in industrial organisation. -But for the Trade Union to become, not merely an instrument of defence, -but actually an organ of government in the industrial world, required -a great advance in public opinion. It assumed an explicit recognition -of the legitimate function of the Trade Union, as the basis of a -Vocational Democracy, exercising a definite share in the control and -administration of industry. It involved a complete transformation of -both the criminal and the civil law, so that workmen’s combinations -and strikes, together with peaceful picketing in its legitimate form, -should be unreservedly and explicitly legalised; the law of civil -conspiracy practically abrogated, so that nothing should be unlawful -when done in concert with others which would not be unlawful if done -by an individual alone; and reasonable limits set to liability for -the acts of agents and to the scope for injunctions, so that a Trade -Union Executive would be able both to know the law and to be ensured -against its perversion. The alternative was to make no claim for the -profound advance in Trade Union status that would be involved in such -a policy; to forgo any hope of satisfactory or complete amendment of -the law, and merely to re-enact the exceptional legislation of 1871, -this time specifically insisting that a Trade Union, whether registered -or not, should be put outside the law, and made expressly immune from -legal proceedings for anything, whether lawful or unlawful, done by -its officers or by itself. The outgoing Conservative Government had -appointed in 1903 a small Royal Commission to consider the state of the -law as to Trade Unionism, before which the Trade Unions had refused -to give evidence, because the Commission, which was made up almost -entirely of lawyers, included no Trade Unionist. This Commission, it -is believed, was told privately not to report until after the General -Election, in order that the Conservative Government might not be -embarrassed by the dilemma. Early in 1906 it reported in favour of the -Trade Union accepting full responsibility for its own actions, subject -to considerable, but far from adequate, amendments of the law.[659] -This proposal was definitely rejected by the Labour Party, which -introduced a Bill of its own, merely restoring the position of 1871. -When the Liberal Government brought in a Bill very much on the lines -of the Commission’s Report, there was a dramatic exhibition of the -electoral power that Trade Unionism, once it is roused, can exercise -in its own defence. Member after member rose from different parts of -the House to explain that they had pledged themselves to vote for the -complete immunity which Trade Unions were supposed to have been granted -in 1871. Nothing less than this would suffice; and the most powerful -Government hitherto known was constrained, in spite of the protests -of lawyers and employers, to pass into law the Trade Disputes Act of -1906.[660] - -The Trade Disputes Act, which remains (1920) the main charter of Trade -Unionism, explicitly declares, without any qualification or exception, -that no civil action shall be entertained against a Trade Union in -respect of any wrongful act committed by or on behalf of the Union; an -extraordinary and unlimited immunity, however great may be the damage -caused, and however unwarranted the act, which most lawyers, as well -as all employers, regard as nothing less than monstrous.[661] At the -same time the Act, whilst not abrogating or even defining the law -as to civil conspiracy, gives three exceptional privileges to Trade -Union officials by declaring that, _when committed in contemplation -or furtherance of a trade dispute_, (1) an act done in concert shall -not be actionable if it would not have been actionable if done -without concert; (2) attendance solely in order to inform or persuade -peacefully shall be lawful; and (3) an act shall not be actionable -merely by reason of its inducing another person to break a contract -of employment, or of its being an interference with another person’s -business, or with his right to dispose of his capital or his labour as -he chooses. These exceptional statutory privileges for the protection -of Trade Union officials in the exercise of their lawful vocation, and -of “pickets” in the performance of their lawful function--in themselves -a triumph for Trade Unionism--have ever since excited great resentment -in most of those who are not wage-earners. Some friends of the Trade -Unions expressed at the time the doubt whether the policy thus forced -upon Parliament would prove, in the long run, entirely in the interest -of the Movement; and whether it would not have been better to have -chosen the bolder policy of insisting on a complete reform of the law, -to which, when properly reformed, Trade Unions should be subject in the -same way as any other associations. The lawyers, as it proved, were not -long in taking their revenge. - - -THE OSBORNE JUDGEMENT - -This time the legal assault on Trade Unionism took a new form. The -result of the dramatic victory of the Trade Disputes Act, and of -the activity of the Labour members in the House of Commons, was -considerably to increase the influence of the Labour Party in the -country, where preparations were made for contesting any number of -constituencies irrespective of the convenience of the Liberal and -Conservative parties. The railway companies, in particular, found the -presence in Parliament of the secretary of the railwaymen’s principal -Trade Union very inconvenient. Within a couple of years of the passing -of the Trade Disputes Act, on July 22, 1908, one of the members of -the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants took legal proceedings -to restrain it from spending any of its funds on political objects, -contending that this was beyond the powers of a Trade Union. Such a -contention found no support among eminent lawyers, several of whom -had formally advised that Trade Unions were undoubtedly entitled -to undertake political activities if their rules authorised such -action and a majority of their members desired it. W. V. Osborne, the -dissentient member of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, took -a different view; and, liberally financed from capitalist sources, -carried his case right up to the highest tribunal. As a result, in -December 1909, as in 1825, 1867-71, and 1901-6, every Trade Union in -the land found its position and status once more gravely impugned. -In what became widely known as the Osborne Judgement, the House of -Lords, acting in its judicial capacity as the highest Court of Appeal, -practically tore up what had, since 1871, been universally understood -to be the legal constitution of a Trade Union.[662] - -The decision of the judges in the Osborne case throws so much light, -not only on the status of Trade Unionism in English law, but also on -the animus and prejudice which the Trade Disputes Act and the Labour -Party had excited, that we think it worth treating at some length. -Formally this judgement decided only that W. V. Osborne, a member of -the Walthamstow Branch of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, -was entitled to restrain that Trade Union from making a levy on its -members (and from using any of its funds) for the purpose of supporting -the Labour Party, or maintaining Members of Parliament. But in the -course of that decision a majority of the Law Lords, therein following -all three judges of the Court of Appeal, laid it down as law (and -thereby made it law until Parliament should otherwise determine), (_a_) -that although Parliament has always avoided any express incorporation -of Trade Unions, these were all now to be deemed to be corporate -bodies, formed under statute, and not unincorporated groups of -individual persons; (_b_) that it follows, by an undoubted principle -of English law, that a body corporate, created under statute, cannot -lawfully do anything outside the purposes for which the statute has -incorporated it; (_c_) that as the purposes for which Trade Unions are -incorporated have to be found somewhere authoritatively given, the -definition which Parliament incidentally enacted in the Trade Union Act -of 1876 must be taken to enumerate, accurately and exhaustively, all -the purposes which any group of persons falling within that definition -can, as a corporate body, lawfully pursue; and (_d_) that the payment -of the salaries and election expenses of Members of Parliament, and -indeed, any political action whatsoever, not being mentioned as one of -these purposes and not being considered by the judges incidental to -them, could not lawfully be undertaken by any Trade Union, even if it -was formed, from the outset, with this purpose duly expressed in its -original rules, and even if all its members agreed to it, and continued -to desire that their organisation should carry it out. - -This momentous judgement destroyed, at a blow, the peculiar legal -status which Frederic Harrison had devised for Trade Unionism in -1868, and which Parliament thought that it had enacted in 1871-76. -The statutes of 1871 and 1876, which had always been supposed to -have enlarged the freedom of Trade Unions, were now held to have -deprived these bodies of powers that they had formerly enjoyed. It -was not, as will be seen, a question of protecting a dissentient -minority. Whether the members were unanimous, or whether they were -nearly evenly divided, did not affect the legal position. Trade Unions -found themselves suddenly forbidden to do anything, even if all their -members desired it, which could not be brought within the terms of a -clause in the Act of 1876, which Parliament (as Lord James of Hereford -emphatically declared) never meant to be taken in that sense. “What -is not within the ambit of that statute,” said Lord Halsbury, “is, I -think, _prohibited_ both to a corporation and a combination.” This was -the new limitation put on Trade Unions. All their educational work was -prohibited; all their participation in municipal administration was -forbidden; all their association for common purposes in Trades Councils -and the Trades Union Congress became illegal. The judges stopped the -most characteristic and, as was supposed, the most constitutional of -the three customary ways that (as we have shown in our _Industrial -Democracy_) Trade Unions pursued of enforcing their Common Rules, -namely, the Method of Legal Enactment; grave doubt was thrown on -the legality of some of the developments of their second way, the -Method of Mutual Insurance; whilst the way that the House of Lords -expressly prescribed was exactly that which used to give rise to so -much controversy, namely, the Method of Collective Bargaining, with its -concomitant of the Strike. So topsy-turvy a view of Trade Unionism, a -view which seems to have arisen from the judges’ ignorance of its two -centuries of history, could not have survived open discussion, and -therefore could hardly have been taken by even the most prejudiced -Parliament. - - -THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH LAW - -What was the explanation of the view of the Trade Union constitution -that the judges took? The English Courts of Justice, it must be -remembered, have peculiar rules of their own for the construction of -statutes. When the plain man wants to know what a document means, he -seeks every available explanation of the intention of the author. -When the historian inquires the purpose and intention of an Act of -Parliament, he considers all the contemporary evidence as to the -minds of those concerned. The Courts of Law, for good and sufficient -reasons, debar themselves from going behind the face of the document, -and are therefore at the mercy of all the unstudied ineptitudes -of House of Commons phraseology. Along with this rigour as to the -intention of a statute, the English and American judges combine a -capacity for developments of doctrine in the form of legal principles -which is, we believe, unequalled in other judicial systems. Now, the -subject of corporations is one of those in which there had been, -among the past generations of English lawyers, a silent and almost -unselfconscious development of doctrine, of which, in Germany, Gierke -had been the great inspirer, and Maitland in this country the brilliant -exponent.[663] Our English law long rigidly refused to admit that -a corporate entity could arise of itself, without some formal and -legally authoritative act of outside power. How, it was asked, except -by some definite act of creation by a superior, could the _persona -ficta_ come into existence? How, otherwise (as Madox quaintly puts it), -could this mere “society of mortal men” become something “immortal, -invisible, and incorporeal”?[664] As a matter of fact, associations or -social entities of all sorts always did arise, without the intervention -of the lawyers, and nowadays they arise with amazing ease, without any -act of creation by a superior; and when the English lawyers refused -to recognise them as existing, it was they who were irrational, and -the common law itself that was at fault. Nowadays we live in a world -of social entities of all sorts, and of every degree of informality, -corporate entities that to the old-fashioned lawyers are still legally -non-existent as such--clubs and committees of every possible kind; -groups and circles, societies and associations for every conceivable -purpose; unions and combinations and trusts in every trade and -profession; schools and colleges and “University Extension Classes,” -often existing and spending and acting most energetically as entities, -having a common purse and a single will, in practice even perpetual -succession, and (if they desire such a futile luxury) a common seal, -without any sort of formal incorporation. Gradually English lawyers -(whom we need not suspect of reading Gierke, or even, for that matter, -Maitland) were unconsciously imbibing the legally heterodox view that -a corporate entity is anything which acts as such; and so far from -making it impossible for the _persona ficta_ to come into existence -without a formal act of creation, they had been, by little alterations -of procedure and imperceptible changes in legal principles, sometimes -by harmless little dodges and fictions of the Courts themselves, -coming near to the practical result of putting every association which -is, in fact, a social entity, however informal in its constitution, -and however “spontaneous” in its origin, in the same position of a -_persona ficta_, for the purpose of suing and of being sued, as if it -had been created by a formal instrument of incorporation, decorated -by many seals, and procured at vast expense from the post-Reformation -Pope himself; or as if it had been expressly incorporated by the Royal -Charter of a Protestant King or the private statute of a Victorian -Parliament. - -Now this development of legal doctrine to fit the circumstances of -modern social life is, when one comes to think of it, only common -sense. If twenty old ladies in the workhouse club together to provide -themselves with a special pot of tea, and agree that one among them -shall be the treasurer of their painfully-hoarded pennies as a common -fund, they do, in fact, create a social entity just as real in its way -as the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. Why should not the -law, if it ever comes to hear of the action of the twenty old ladies -in the workhouse, deal with the situation as it really is, according -to their wishes and intentions, without inquiring by what formal act -of external power a _persona ficta_ has been created; and therefore -without demanding that the old ladies shall first procure a charter of -incorporation from the Pope, from the King, or from Parliament? And -considering that Trade Unions were now in fact social entities, often -having behind them more than a hundred years of “perpetual succession”; -counting sometimes over a hundred thousand members moving by a single -will; and occasionally accumulating in a common purse as much as half -a million of money, the Law Lords might well think it absurd and -irrational of Parliament to have decided in 1871-76, and again in -1906, to regard them as unincorporated groups of persons, having, in a -corporate capacity, no legally enforceable obligations and hardly any -legally enforceable rights. It may have been absurd and irrational, but -what right--so the Trade Unionists asked--had the judges to change the -law? - -Whatever may be the justification for the momentous change in the -law which the Six Judges (namely, the three members of the Court -of Appeal, and three out of the five Law Lords, all of whom agreed -in the series of propositions that we have cited) suddenly, without -Parliamentary authority, of their own motion effected, it created an -intolerable situation. There was, in the first place, the application -of the doctrine of _ultra vires_ to corporate entities quite unaware -of its existence. It was all very well, in order to fit the law to the -facts, to throw over the old legal doctrine that the _persona ficta_ -of a corporation could only come into existence by some formal act -of incorporation by an external authority. But then it plainly would -not do to retain, as the Six Judges quite calmly retained, the severe -limitations on the action of statutory corporate entities which is -involved in the doctrine of _ultra vires_, and which, as Lord Halsbury -put it, was to _prohibit_ them from doing what they liked. The argument -for that principle is that such a corporate entity owes its existence -entirely to the statutory authority by which it is created; that the -legislature has brought it into being for certain definite purposes; -that for those purposes and no others the exceptional powers of a -corporation have been conferred upon it; that as such it is, in a -sense, the agent whom the community has entrusted with the execution of -these functions, and who cannot therefore (even if all the constituent -members of its body so agree and desire) assume any other purposes or -functions. But any such doctrine of _ultra vires_ can have no rational -application to the corporate entity formed by the twenty old ladies in -the workhouse for their private pot of tea. If we are going, in effect, -to treat as corporate entities all sorts of spontaneously arising -associations, such as an unregistered Trade Union (and some of the -wealthiest and most powerful Trade Unions were still unregistered), or -such as an Employers’ Association (which was hardly ever a registered -body)--corporate entities which were, in fact, lawfully in existence -long before the Act of 1876--we must give up the fiction that the -purposes of these associations have been authoritatively fixed and -defined in advance by Parliament in such a way that the members -themselves, even when they are unanimous and when they are acting -in strict accord with their constitution and rules, cannot add to -or alter the objects or methods of their organisation. What was -logically required, in fact, was not the arbitrary identification -of spontaneously arising associative entities with legally created -corporations, but the formulation of a new conception as to the -functions and legal rights that such spontaneously arising associative -entities--to which the limitations of legally created corporations -could not be simply assumed to apply--should, as a class, be permitted -to exercise. - - -THE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE - -We come now to the second cardinal feature of the decision of the Six -Judges in 1909, in which they showed both prejudice and ignorance. -Having found that the Trade Unions were, in fact, corporate entities, -and that they had been, in various clumsy ways, dealt with by -Parliament very much as if they were legally corporate entities--though -Parliament had advisedly abstained from incorporating them, and had, -indeed, always referred to them as being what in fact they were, namely -already existing and spontaneously arising associations, not created -by its will--the Six Judges took the view that some authoritative -specification of the objects and purposes of a Trade Union had to -be discovered by hook or by crook. It seems to have been by them -inconceivable (though Lord James of Hereford, one of their own number, -who had personally taken part in all the legislation, expressly told -them it was in fact so) that no such specification should exist. They -accordingly found it in an enumeration which Parliament had given in -the Act of 1876 of all the various bodies which were to be entitled -to the privileges conferred by the Act--a definition introduced, so -a well-informed writer mentioned in 1878, for the special advantage -of Trade Unions[665]--principally to enable them to be registered by -the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. The Law Lords now held that -this definition must be deemed to be an exhaustive enumeration, not -merely of the kinds of societies to be eligible for registration, but -also of all the objects and purposes that Parliament intended any of -those bodies, whether registered or unregistered, to be free at any -time to pursue. The result was that all Trade Unions and Employers’ -Associations, and, indeed, all informal groups of workmen or employers -falling within this definition, suddenly found themselves (to the -complete amazement of every one concerned, including the lawyers) -rigidly confined in their action, even if all their members otherwise -wished and agreed, to matters which were specified in an enumerating -clause of an Act of Parliament of a generation before, which had never -before been supposed to have that meaning, or to have any restrictive -effect at all. We ought to speak with proper respect of the judges, -though sometimes, by their curious ignorance of life outside the Law -Courts, and especially of “what everybody knows,” they try us hard. -But it is necessary to state plainly, with regard to this part of -the Osborne Judgement, that to the present writers, as to the whole -British working class and many other people, including lawyers, it -seemed an astounding aberration, amounting to a grave miscarriage of -justice. Again, let it be noted that Lord James of Hereford, who knew -what Parliament had intended, and what Trade Unions actually were, -expressly dissented from his colleagues on this point, saying that -the enumeration clause in the Act of 1876 was never intended to be “a -clause of limitation or exhaustive definition” of objects and purposes; -and arguing that it did not prevent a Trade Union from having other -purposes, or pursuing other methods, not in themselves unlawful, even -though these were not enumerated in the definition clause and were not -even incidental to the purposes therein enumerated. But what is the -history of this definition clause? As it stands in the Act of 1876 it -runs as follows: - - The term “Trade Union” means any combination, whether - temporary or permanent, for regulating the relations between - workmen and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or - between masters and masters, or for imposing restrictive - conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, whether - such combination would or would not, if the principal Act - had not been passed, have been deemed to have been an - unlawful combination by reason of some one or more of its - purposes being in restraint of trade. - -Now, to the lay mind, this extremely loose enumeration[666] of kinds -of societies seems plainly intended to bring within its net, and -therefore to admit to the advantages of the Act, a wide range of -existing or possible associations of different kinds. It was to include -all sorts of Employers’ Associations as well as Trade Unions. It was -to include bodies already in existence as well as those to be formed -in the future. It was to include bodies seeking to impose restrictive -conditions “in restraint of trade,” as well as those having no such -unlawful objects. It was to include, therefore, bodies already enjoying -a full measure of lawful existence and legal recognition, as well -as those for the first time fully legalised by the legislation of -1871-76. To the logician it will be clear that we have here a case -of classification by type, not by delimitation. “It is determined,” -says Whewell and J. S. Mill, “not by a boundary line without, but by a -central point within; not by what it strictly excludes, but by what it -eminently includes; by an example, not by a precept.”[667] Accordingly -the clause names specifically one by one the various attributes, any -one of which is to be typical of the class. It sufficed for the purpose -to name only one attribute belonging to each body which it was desired -to include. What its other attributes might be was irrelevant. It -does not occur to the ordinary reader, any more than to the logician, -that the effect of the clause is, not merely to include associations -of different kinds, but also to limit the legal freedom of all those -associations, with all their varied functions, exclusively to the -purposes specified in the definition, which were merely recited in -order to bring a number of heterogeneous bodies into one class. On the -construction put upon this clause by the Six Judges, the Act of 1876 -was a measure which deprived Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations, -many of which had been for years lawfully in existence, without any -unlawful objects or methods, of a freedom that they had up to then -enjoyed; it was an Act rigidly confining their operations to a limited -field, and for ever prohibiting them (as Lord Halsbury expressly -declared) from doing anything not included in the list of functions -incidentally then and there given. It is safe to say that, to any -historical student who knows anything of the circumstances of the case, -such a supposition is preposterous. No Trade Union and no Employers’ -Association was aware in 1876 that its freedom was being thus -restricted. Thomas Burt, M.P., and Lord James of Hereford (then Sir -Henry James, M.P.), who took part in passing the Act, certainly never -dreamed that they were doing anything of the sort. The Home Office -officials who prepared it, and Lord Cross (then Home Secretary) who -introduced it, quite plainly had not the remotest notion that they were -taking away from Trade Unions (which they were anxious to legalise) -any of the functions which these Unions were in fact exercising, and -which such Trade Unions as were lawful associations were already -_lawfully_ exercising; or that they were prohibiting these Trade Unions -from doing anything not specified in the incidental enumeration of -attributes that was then, merely for the purpose of including various -kinds of associations, statutorily enacted. As a matter of fact, the -definition clause in the Act of 1876 was enacted merely to correct in -one small particular the definition clause in the Act of 1871. That -clause had defined a Trade Union as meaning “such combination ... as -would, if this Act had not passed, been deemed to have been an unlawful -combination by reason of some one or more of the purposes being in -restraint of trade.” This was found in practice inconvenient, because -it had inadvertently excluded from registration and all the benefits -of the Act those Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations which were -already lawful associations, free from any unlawful purpose. A Trade -Union had to prove that it was (but for the Act) an unlawful body -before it could be admitted to the advantages of the Act. It was -also inexpedient, because it actually offered an inducement to Trade -Unions to have purposes or methods “in restraint of trade,” in order -to obtain these advantages. Now, supposing that the Act of 1876 had -not been passed, and that the definition clause had remained in the -terms of that of the Act of 1871, would the Six Judges have equally -construed it as offering a complete and exhaustive enumeration of the -permissible activities of a Trade Union, making it actually illegal -for the future for any association of workmen or employers to deal -with the conditions of employment, _except in ways that would (but for -the 1871 Act) have been unlawful_? And if the definition clause in -the 1871 Act cannot be construed as (to use Lord James of Hereford’s -words) “a clause of limitation or exhaustive definition” of Trade -Union activities, with what consistency can the definition clause of -the 1876 Act (which follows the same wording, and merely extends the -definition so as to take in lawful as well as unlawful societies) be -so construed? Successive Chief Registrars of Friendly Societies, like -every one else, had always understood the definition clause to be an -enabling clause, not a restricting one; and they had accordingly for -a whole generation willingly registered rules presented to them by -Trade Unions, including in their objects and purposes all sorts of -things not enumerated in the definition, and not even incidental to -any of the purposes therein enumerated. It was, in 1909, not at first -realised--certainly the Six Judges did not realise--how extensive and -how varied were the actually existing operations of Trade Unions that -they were rendering illegal. Not political action alone, not municipal -action alone, but any work of general education of their members or -others; the formation of a library; the establishment or management of -“University Extension” or “Workers’ Educational Association” classes; -the subscription to circulating book-boxes; the provision of public -lectures; the establishment of scholarships at Ruskin College, Oxford, -or any other College--all of which things were at the time actually -being done by Trade Unions--were all henceforth to be _ultra vires_ -and illegal. The two hundred Trades Councils, local federations of -different Trade Unions for the purpose of dealing with matters of -general interest to workmen, which took no part in the collective -bargaining of any particular Trade Union, were probably thereby -equally made illegal; though they were in 1876 already a quarter of a -century old, and in 1909 numbered nearly a million members. The annual -Trade Union Congress itself, then in its fortieth year, and dealing -almost exclusively with Parliamentary projects, came under the same -ban. The active participation which Trade Unions had here and there -taken in technical education, and their co-operation with the Local -Education Authorities, which had sometimes been found so useful, were -certainly _ultra vires_. One would suppose, strictly speaking, that a -similar illegality was to attach to all the vast “friendly society” -side of Trade Unionism, with its sick and accident and out-of-work -benefits--not one of them being referred to in the definition which -the Six Judges declared to contain an exhaustive enumeration of the -purposes and objects that Parliament intended to permit Trade Unions -to pursue. But here the Six Judges saved themselves--though in a -way logically destructive of their claim that the definition clause -itself was one of “exhaustive” enumeration of permissible Trade Union -purposes--by holding that these friendly benefits, though not mentioned -in the definition clause, were referred to elsewhere in the Act, and -might be regarded as incidental to the purpose of regulating the -conditions of employment. This, indeed, so far as benefits paid to the -workman himself are concerned, was a plausible view. Strike Benefit, in -particular, is plainly incidental to striking, and sick benefit might -conceivably be held to protect the worker from industrial oppression -whilst sick. But the same cannot be said of the most widely spread of -all Trade Union benefits, the provision of funeral money on a member’s -death. In some cases the Trade Unions were actually paying for the -funerals of their deceased members’ widows and orphan children. This -was a mere act of humanity to the deceased member’s widow and orphans; -and it could not, by any stretch of imagination, be supposed to improve -the workers’ bargaining power, or to be in any way incidental to the -regulation or restriction of the conditions of employment. Yet Funeral -Benefit was in 1909 (as it was in 1876) the one among the so-called -“friendly” benefits most universally adopted by Trade Unions. More than -a million Trade Unionists were thus effecting through their societies a -humble life insurance. This extensive life insurance business of Trade -Unions could not be said to be in any way included in the definition -clause of the 1876 Act, even if the sick and unemployment benefits -were. If the judgements in the Osborne Case were correct, the whole of -this life insurance business of Trade Unions (as distinguished from -the sick and unemployment benefits), or at least the whole of that -relating to widows and orphans, must be held to have been inadvertently -prohibited by Parliament in 1871 and 1876, and to have been ever -since _ultra vires_ and illegal. It is impossible for the plain man -to avoid the conclusion, even though the six other authorities take -a contrary view, that Lord James of Hereford was right in declaring -that the definition in the Act of 1876 was not meant by Parliament -to be “a clause of limitation or exhaustive definition” of the -permissible purposes of a Trade Union; and, accordingly, that the Six -Judges had--presumably following quite accurately the narrow technical -rules of their profession--put upon the statute a construction which -Parliament had in no way intended. - -What then did Parliament intend to fix and define as the permissible -objects and functions of a Trade Union? The answer of the historical -student is clear and unhesitating. Parliament quite certainly intended, -in 1871 and 1876, to fix and define nothing of the sort; but meant, -whether wisely or not, to leave Trade Unions as they then were--as -such of them, indeed, as had no unlawful purpose or method had long -_legally_ been--namely, as free as any other unincorporated groups of -persons to take whatever action they might choose, subject only to -their own contractual agreements, and to the general law of the land. -From this position we venture, as historians, to say that Parliament -did not, in 1871 or 1876, intentionally depart. - -Finally, we have the argument of the Six Judges that, seeing that the -sole lawful purposes of a Trade Union are “regulating the relations -between workmen and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or -between masters and masters,” and “imposing restrictive conditions on -the conduct of any trade or business,” no action of a Parliamentary -or political kind is within the definition, or even incidental to -anything therein. This view, to put it bluntly, showed an ignorance -of Trade Unionism, British industrial history, and the circumstances -not only of 1871-76, but also of 1908-9, which was as remarkable as -it was deplorable. On the face of it, to take first the words of the -statute, the most usual and the most natural way of “regulating” the -relations between people, and the most obvious expedient for “imposing” -restrictive conditions on industry, is an Act of Parliament. It was -to Acts of Parliament, as we have abundantly shown in _Industrial -Democracy_, that the Trade Unions had for a century been looking, -and were in 1871-76, many of them, looking, for a very large part of -the “regulating” of industrial conditions, and of the “restrictive -conditions” that they existed to promote. What the judges apparently -forgot is that conditions of employment include not merely wages, -but also hours of labour, sanitary conditions, precautions against -accident, compensation for injuries, and what not. If the Six Judges -had remembered how, in fact, in Great Britain the great majority -of industrial relations were regulated, and how the great mass of -restrictive conditions were, in fact, imposed on industry; or if they -had had recalled to them the long and persistent struggle of the Trade -Unions to get adopted the Factory Acts, the Mines Regulation Acts, -the Truck Acts, the Shop Hours Acts, and so many more, they could -hardly have argued that such actions as engaging in Parliamentary -business, supporting or opposing Parliamentary candidates, and helping -members of Parliament favourable to “regulating,” and “imposing -restrictive conditions”--actions characteristic of Trade Unions -for generations--were not incidental to these legitimate purposes. -As a matter of fact, the getting and enforcing of legislation is, -historically, as much a part of Trade Union function as maintaining a -strike.[668] One Trade Union at least, which no one ever dreamt to be -illegal, the United Textile Factory Workers’ Association, has existed -exclusively for political action, and had no other functions.[669] This -kind of Trade Union action is even antecedent in date to any corporate -dealing with employers. During the whole two centuries of Trade Union -history, as in _Industrial Democracy_ we have described, the Unions -have had at their disposal, and have simultaneously adopted, three -different methods of imposing and enforcing the Common Rules which -they sought to get adopted in the conditions of employment. From 1700 -downwards they have used the Method of Mutual Insurance; from the very -beginning of the eighteenth century down to the present day the records -show them to have been continuously employing the Method of Legal -Enactment; whilst only intermittently during the eighteenth century, -and not openly and avowedly until 1824, could they rely on the Method -of Collective Bargaining. The Miners’ Unions, and the Agricultural -Labourers’ Unions, in particular, had been particularly active in -support of the extension of the franchise between 1863 and 1884. Even -the expenditure of Trade Union funds on Parliamentary candidatures -was practised by Trade Unions at any rate as early as 1868, as soon, -in fact, as the town artisans were enfranchised; and the payment of -Trade Union Members of Parliament was begun as early as 1874, and -had lasted continuously from that date. Yet the Six Judges assumed, -apparently without adequate consideration, and certainly on inaccurate -information, that Parliament in 1876 intended to authorise Trade Unions -to pursue their first and third methods, but intended to prohibit them, -from that time forth, from using the Method of Legal Enactment, just -at the moment when this latter was being most effectively employed. It -is, indeed, almost comic to remember that the Bill which is supposed to -have effected this revolution in the Trade Union position was brought -in by Lord Cross, then Sir R. A. Cross, M.P., fresh from his election -by a constituency in which the Trade Unionists had been, politically, -the dominant factor; that it was debated in a House of Commons in which -the direct influence of the Trade Unions was at the highest point -that it had hitherto reached; that at the General Election of 1874, -from which the members had lately come, the Trade Unions, as we have -described in the present volume, had worked with might and main for -the rejection of candidates opposed to their political claims, and had -had a much larger share than political historians usually recognise -in the Gladstonian defeat; that two Trade Union members were actually -then sitting in the House, one, at least (Thomas Burt), being openly -maintained as a salaried representative of his Union, by a salary -avowedly fixed on a scale to enable him to sit in Parliament;[670] that -the Conservative Government promptly introduced the particular legal -enactments to obtain which the Trade Unions had spent their money, -namely, the Nine Hours Bill, the Employer and Workman Bill, and the -Trade Union Bill; and that the Six Judges ask us to believe that the -latter Bill, which the Trade Union members themselves helped to pass, -was designed and intended to prevent Thomas Burt from drawing a salary -from the Northumberland Miners’ Mutual Confident Society whilst sitting -in the House of Commons; to prohibit the Northumberland Miners’ Mutual -Confident Society, just because it was a Trade Union, from taking any -part in future elections in the Morpeth Division, and to make the -action of this and all other Trade Unions in paying for political work -and Parliamentary candidatures, even with the unanimous consent of -their members, from that time forth illegal. - -We have thought it worth while to place on record this analysis of the -legally authoritative part of the Osborne Judgement, which, though -partly modified by a subsequent statute, has not been overruled, and is -still legally authoritative, because it is of historical importance. It -is significant as showing how far the Courts of Justice were, as lately -as 1909, still out of touch, so far as Trade Unionism is concerned, -either with Parliament or with the political economists. The case was, -however, of even greater import. The bias and prejudice, the animus and -partiality--doubtless unconscious to the judges themselves--which were -displayed by those who ought to have been free from such intellectual -influences; the undisguised glee with which this grave miscarriage of -justice was received by the governing class, and the prolonged delay of -a professedly Liberal and Radical Cabinet, and a professedly Liberal -and Radical House of Commons in remedying it, had a great effect on the -minds of the wage-earners, and contributed notably to the increasing -bitterness of feeling against the “governing class,” and against a -State organisation in which such a miscarriage of justice could take -place. We must, indeed, look behind the legal technicalities of the Six -Judges, and consider what was the animus behind their extraordinary -judgement. The “subservience” of Parliament to the Trade Unions -in passing the Trade Disputes Act of 1906 had excited the deepest -resentment of the lawyers. The progress of the Labour Party was causing -a quite exaggerated alarm among members of the governing class. What -lay behind the Osborne Judgement was a determination to exclude the -influence of the workmen’s combinations from the political field. This -is really what the Osborne Judgement prohibited. One irreverent legal -critic, indeed, went so far as to remark that the Law Lords were so -anxious to make it clear that Trade Unions were not to be entitled -to pay for Members of Parliament, that they failed to heed how much -law they were severally demolishing in the process! It is instructive -to examine the arguments adduced by the Law Lords and the judges on -this point, apart from their decision as to Trade Union status. These -opinions could hardly be deemed to be law, as they all differed one -from another, and none of them obtained the support of a majority -of the Law Lords. Such as they are, however, they seem not to have -been connected with Trade Unionism at all, but with the nature of the -House of Commons. One of the Law Lords (Lord James of Hereford) merely -objected to Trade Unions paying a Member of Parliament who was (as was -quite incorrectly assumed) bound by a rule of the paying body requiring -him to vote in a particular way, not on labour questions only, but on -all issues that might come before Parliament. Another Law Lord (Lord -Shaw), with whom Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton seemed to agree, held -that what was illegal was not the payment of Members of Parliament, -but their subjection, by whomsoever paid, to a “pledge-bound” party -organisation (as the Labour Party was alleged to be). Another judge -(Farwell, L.J.) took a different line, and held that it was illegal for -a corporate body to require its own members to subscribe collectively -towards the support of a Member of Parliament with whose views they -might individually not agree. What the historian and the student of -political science will say is that these were matters for legislation, -not for the sudden intervention of the judiciary. The House of Commons -is prompt enough to defend its own honour and its own “privilege”; and -the function of the judges will begin when any of the acts referred -to has been made an illegal practice. In 1909, as now, the practices -complained of, whether or not they were correctly described, and -however objectionable to these particular gentlemen they might be, were -all lawful; and the judges and Law Lords were abusing the privileges of -their office by importing them to prejudice the legal issue. - -The Osborne Judgement received the support, not only of the great mass -of property owners and professional men, but also, though tacitly, of -the Liberal and Conservative Parties. A distinct challenge was thereby -thrown down to the Trade Union world. Not only were the activities of -their Unions to be crippled, not only was their freedom to combine for -whatever purposes they chose to be abrogated, they were to be expressly -forbidden to aspire to protect their interests or promote their objects -by Parliamentary representation, or in any way to engage in politics. -It was this challenge to Organised Labour that absorbed the whole -interest of the Trade Union world for the next three or four years. - -The experienced Trade Union leaders did not forget that it might -well be a matter for Trade Union consideration how far it is wise -and prudent for a Trade Union to engage in general politics. We have -elsewhere pointed out[671] with some elaboration how dangerous it may -become to the strength and authority of a Trade Union if any large -section of the persons in the trade are driven out of its ranks, or -deterred from joining, because they find their convictions outraged -by part of its action. Nothing could be more unwise for a Trade Union -than to offend its Roman Catholic members by espousing the cause of -secular education.[672] But this is a point which each Trade Union must -decide for itself. It is not a matter in which outsiders can offer -more than counsel. It is clearly not a matter in which the discretion -of the Trade Union, any more than that of an individual employer, can -properly be limited by law. For no Trade Union can nowadays abstain -altogether from political action. Without co-operating with other -Trade Unions in taking Parliamentary action of a very energetic and -very watchful kind, it cannot (as long experience has demonstrated -to practically all Trade Unionists) protect the interests of its -members. Without taking a vigorous part in promoting, enforcing, and -resisting all sorts of legislation affecting education, sanitation, -the Poor Law, the whole range of the Factories, Mines, Railways, and -Merchant Shipping Acts, the Shop Hours, Truck, Industrial Arbitration -and Conciliation, and now even the Trade Boards’ Act, the Trade Union -cannot properly fulfil its function of looking after the regulation of -the conditions of employment. But this is not all. The interests of -its members require the most watchful scrutiny of the administration -of every public department. There is not a day passes but something in -Parliament demands its attention. On this point Trade Union opinion is -unanimous. We have never met any member of a Trade Union--and Osborne -himself is no exception--who has any contrary view. To suggest that -there is anything improper, or against public policy, for a Trade -Union to give an annual retaining fee to a Member of Parliament whom -its members trust, or to take the necessary steps to get that member -elected, in order to ensure that what the Trade Union conceives to -be its own interests shall be protected, was to take up a position -of extraordinary unfairness. When more than a quarter of the whole -House of Commons habitually consists, not merely of individual -employers, but actually of persons drawing salaries or stipends from -capitalist corporations of one kind or another--when, in fact, the -number of companies of shareholders in railways, banks, insurance -companies, breweries, ocean telegraphs, shipbuilding yards, shipping -companies, steamship lines, iron and steel works, coal mines, and -joint stock enterprises of all sorts actually represented in the -House of Commons by their own salaried chairmen, directors, trustees, -managers, secretaries, or solicitors is beyond all computation--the -claim that there is something improper, something inconsistent with -our electoral system, something at variance with the honourable nature -of the House of Commons, for the workmen’s organisations to retain -a few dozen of the Members whom the constituencies (knowing of this -payment) deliberately elect, or to help such Members to provide their -election expenses, is an argument so extraordinary in its unfairness -that it drives the active-minded workman frantic with rage. It is no -answer to say that these representatives of capitalist corporations -are not expressly paid to sit in Parliament. They are at any rate -desired by their employers to sit, and permitted by the law to receive -their salaries notwithstanding that they do sit. This was forbidden -to representatives of Trade Unions. That it should be illegal for the -salaried President or Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Railway -Servants to sit in Parliament, when it is perfectly legal for the much -more generously salaried Chairman or Director of a Railway Company to -sit there, is an anomaly hard for any candid man to defend; and the -anomaly is all the greater in that the interests of the railway company -come, almost every year, into conflict with those of the community at -large, and the railway chairman is, on these occasions, quite frankly -there to promote his own company’s Bill, and to defend the interests -of the shareholders by whom he is paid. To say that the workmen’s -organisations shall not pay their representatives in the way that -suits working-class conditions, whilst railway shareholders may pay -their representatives in the way that suits capitalist conditions--to -assume a great concern for the wounded conscience of a Liberal or -Conservative Trade Unionist who finds his Union paying its Secretary or -its President to sit as a Radical or Labour Member of Parliament, and -no concern at all for the Socialist or Radical shareholder in a railway -company who finds his company paying its Conservative Chairman M.P.--is -to be guilty of an amazing degree of class bias, if not of hypocrisy. -After all, it is not the Trade Union but the constituency that elects -the Member of Parliament. The Trade Union payment only enables him to -stand. Whatever may be thought of the policy of the Labour Party, or -the particular form of its organisation, if we regard the Trade Union -payment as a retaining fee for looking after what the Trade Union -members as a whole conceive to be their own interest; if the Trade -Union members have the opportunity of choosing, by a majority, which -among competing persons (or, for that matter, which among competing -groups of persons) they will entrust with this Trade Union task; if the -Trade Union assumes no responsibility for and exercises no coercion -upon its Parliamentary representative with regard to issues on which -it has not voted, no Trade Unionist’s political conscience need be -wounded by the fact that, outside the range of the task that the -Trade Union has confided to him, the Union’s Parliamentary agent (who -must have views of one sort or another) expresses opinions in accord -with those of the constituency that elected him, or joins together -with other members of like opinions to form a political party. When, -three-quarters of a century ago, J. A. Roebuck was the salaried agent -in the House of Commons for the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada, -no one complained that it was against the dignity of Parliament for him -to be thus retained and paid; and so long as he attended faithfully to -Canadian business it was never contended that the tender conscience of -any Canadian Conservative was offended by the ultra-Radical utterances -or extremely independent political alliances of the Member for Bath. - - -THE TRADE UNION ACT OF 1913 - -It is an instance of the failure of both the governing class and -the party politicians to appreciate the workman’s standpoint, or to -understand the temper of the Trade Union world, that this crippling -judgement remained for nearly four years unreversed. The Liberal and -Conservative Parties were, during 1910 and 1911, quarrelling about the -Budget and the exact powers to be exercised by the House of Lords; -and two successive General Elections were fought without bringing -the Trade Unions any redress. Meanwhile, up and down the country -discontented or venal Trade Unionists were sought out by solicitors and -others acting for the employers; and were induced to lend their names -to proceedings for injunctions against their own Unions, prohibiting -them from subscribing to the Labour Party, from contributing towards -the election expenses of candidates, from taking action in municipal -elections, from subscribing to educational classes, and from taking -shares in a “Labour” newspaper. It may have seemed a skilful political -dodge, during the elections of 1910, to hamstring in this way the -growing Labour Party; but the resentment caused by such behaviour -makes it doubtful whether action of this kind is, in the long run, -politically advantageous. In the first place, the House of Commons, -in 1911, felt itself compelled, as an alternative to restoring Trade -Union liberties, to concede the payment of £400 a year to all Members -of Parliament. Finally, in 1913, the Cabinet, after a severe internal -struggle, brought itself to introduce a Bill giving power generally -to any Trade Union to include in its constitution any lawful purpose -whatever, so long as its principal objects were those of a Trade -Union as defined in the 1876 Act; and to spend money on any purpose -thus authorised. It was, indeed, provided that before the financing of -certain specified political objects could be undertaken, including the -support of Parliamentary or Municipal candidates or members, or the -publication or distribution of political documents,[673] a ballot of -the members was to be held in a prescribed form, and a simple majority -of those voting secured; the payments were to be made out of a special -political fund, and any member was to be entitled to claim to be exempt -from the special subscription to that political fund. These restrictive -provisions were opposed by the Labour Members in the House of Commons; -but with slight amendment the measure was passed into law as the Trade -Union Act of 1913.[674] - -It is not easy to sum up the whole effect of the legal assaults upon -Trade Unionism between 1901 and 1913. Politically, the result was to -exasperate the active-minded workmen, and greatly to promote, though -with some delay, the growth of an independent Labour Party in the -House of Commons. On the other hand, it must not be overlooked that -the temporary crippling of Trade Unionism seemed to be of financial -advantage to that generation of employers. It was, perhaps, not -altogether an accident that the brunt of the attack had to be borne by -the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, a Union then struggling -for “recognition” in such a position as to make effective its claims -to better remuneration and shorter hours of labour for the whole body -of railwaymen. It may fairly be reckoned that the railwaymen were, by -means of the two great pieces of litigation to which their Union was -subjected, held at bay for something like a decade, during which the -improvement in their conditions, in spite of a slowly-increasing cost -of living, was (mainly through the evasions of the railway companies -by their silent “regrading” of their staffs) extremely small.[675] A -rise of wages to the extent of only a penny per hour for the whole body -of railwaymen would have cost the railway companies, in the aggregate, -something like five or six million pounds a year. If any such advance -was, by means of the Taff Vale Case and the Osborne Judgement, staved -off for ten years, the gain to the whole body of railway shareholders -of that generation might be put as high as fifty or sixty millions -sterling--a sum worth taking a little trouble about and spending a -little money upon, in items not revealed in the published accounts. -But the crippling effect of the litigation was not confined to the -Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, which spent, altogether, -nearly £50,000 in law costs in defending the pass for the whole Trade -Union Movement. If, in the temporary set-back to trade in 1903-5, -and in the revival that immediately followed it; or in the recurring -set-back of 1908-9, and the great improvement of the ensuing years, the -whole body of wage-earners in the kingdom lost only a penny per hour -from their wages, or gained less than they might otherwise have done to -the extent of no more than a penny per hour, their financial loss, in -one year alone, would have amounted to something like a hundred million -pounds. And whatever they forwent in this way, they lost not during -one year only, but during at least several years, and many of them -for a whole decade. There is no doubt that the capitalist employers, -thinking only of their profits for the time being, regarded even a -temporary crippling of the Trade Union Movement as well worth all that -it might cost them. The historian, thinking more of the secular effort -upon social institutions, will not find the balance-sheet so easy to -construct. The final result of the successive attempts between 1901 and -1913 to cripple Trade Unionism by legal proceedings was to give it the -firmest possible basis in statute law. The right of workmen to combine -for any purpose not in itself unlawful was definitely established. -The strike, with its “restraint of trade,” and its interference with -profits and business; peaceful picketing even on an extensive scale; -the persuasion of workmen to withdraw from employment even in breach -of contract, and the other frequent incidents of an industrial dispute -were specifically declared to be, not only not criminal, but actually -lawful. The right of Trade Unions to undertake whatever political and -other activities their members might desire was expressly conceded. -Finally, a complete immunity of Trade Unions in their corporate -capacity from being sued or made answerable in damages, for any act -whatsoever, however great might be the damage thereby caused to other -parties, was established by statute in the most absolute form.[676] -The Trade Unions, it must be remembered, had not asked for these -sweeping changes in their position. They had been, in 1900, content -with the legislation of 1871-76. It was the successive assaults made -upon them by the legal proceedings of 1901-13 that eventually drove -the Government and Parliament, rather than formally concede to Trade -Unionism its proper position in the government of industry, and effect -the necessary fundamental amendment of the law, once more to create for -the workmen’s organisations an anomalous status. - - -THE RISE IN STATUS OF TRADE UNIONISM - -So far we have described only the changes in the legal status of the -Trade Unions and the consequent increase in their freedom of action -and in their influence, alike in the industrial and political sphere. -This advance in legal status has been accompanied by a still more -revolutionary transformation of the social and political standing of -the official representatives of the Trade Union world--a transformation -which has been immensely accelerated by the Great War. We may, in fact, -not unfairly say that Trade Unionism has, in 1920, won its recognition -by Parliament and the Government, by law and by custom, as a separate -element in the community, entitled to distinct recognition as part of -the social machinery of the State, its members being thus allowed to -give--like the clergy in Convocation--not only their votes as citizens, -but also their concurrence as an order or estate. - -Like all revolutionary changes in the British constitution, the -recognition of the Trade Union Movement as part of the governmental -structure of the nation began in an almost imperceptible way. Though -Trade Union leaders had been, since 1869, appointed occasionally and -sparsely on Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees, it was -possible, as recently as 1903, for a Government to set up a Royal -Commission on Trade Disputes and Trade Combinations without a single -Trade Unionist member. Such a thing has not been repeated. It is -now taken for granted that Trade Unionism must be distinctively and -effectually represented, usually by men or women of its own informal -nomination, on all Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees, -whether or not these inquiries are concerned specifically with “Labour -Questions”--excepting only such as are so exclusively financial or -professional that the representatives of Labour do not seek or desire -representation upon them. - -In 1885-86, and again in 1892-95, Liberal Prime Ministers had appointed -leading Trade Unionists (who were, it must be noted, also Liberal -M.P.’s) to subordinate Ministerial positions, where they were permitted -practically no influence.[677] In 1905 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman -startled some of his Whig associates by asking Mr. John Burns--who -had presided over the Trades Union Congress as a representative of -the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, but who had sat in Parliament -since 1892 as a Liberal supporter--to join his Cabinet as President -of the Local Government Board. This recognition of Labour in the -inner councils of the Government was quickly followed by an explicit -recognition of the Trade Unions as part of the machinery of State -administration. In 1911, when the vast scheme of National Insurance -was brought forward by Mr. Asquith’s Government, and Parliament -sanctioned the raising and expenditure of more than twenty million -pounds a year for the relief of sickness and unemployment, the Trade -Unions, equally with the universally praised Friendly Societies, were -made the agents for the administration of the sickness, invalidity, -and maternity benefits, and, parallel with the Government’s own local -organisation, and to the exclusion of the Friendly Societies, also -for the administration of the State Unemployment Benefit to their -own members. But it was during the Great War that we watch the most -extensive advance in the status, alike of the official representatives -of the Trade Unions and of the Trade Unions themselves, as organs -of representation and government. It is needless to say that this -recognition was not accorded to the Trade Union world without a _quid -pro quo_ from the Trade Union Movement to the Government. Hence the -part played by the Trade Unions in the national effort, and its effect -on their influence and status, demands explicit notice. - - -BRITISH TRADE UNIONISM AND THE WAR - -Though theoretically internationalist in sympathy, and predominantly -opposed to “militarism” at home as well as abroad, British Trade -Unionism, when war was declared, took a decided line.[678] From -first to last the whole strength of the Movement--in spite of the -pacifist faith of a relatively small minority, which included the -most fervent and eloquent of the Labour members and was supported by -the energetic propaganda of the fraction of the Trade Unionists who -were also members of the Socialist Society known as the I.L.P.--was -thrown on the side of the nation’s effort. From every industry workmen -flocked to the colours, with the utmost encouragement and assistance -from their Trade Unions; until the miners, the railwaymen, and the -engineers, in particular, had to be refused as recruits, exempted -from conscription, and even returned from the army, in order that the -indispensable industrial services might be maintained. The number of -workers in engineering and the manufacture of munitions of war had, -indeed, to be largely increased; and the Government found itself, -within a year, under the necessity of asking the Trade Unions for the -unprecedented sacrifice of the relinquishment, for the duration of the -war, of the entire network of “Trade Union Conditions” which had been -slowly built up by generations of effort for the protection of the -workmen’s Standard of Life. This enormous draft on the patriotism of -the rank and file could only be secured by enlisting the support of -the official representatives of the Trade Union world--by according to -them a unique and unprecedented place as the diplomatic representatives -of the wage-earning class. In the famous Treasury Conference of -February 1915 the capitalist employers were ignored, and the principal -Ministers of the Crown negotiated directly with the authorised -representatives of the whole Trade Union world, not only in respect of -the terms of service of Government employees, but also with regard to -the conditions of employment of all persons, men and women, skilled -and unskilled, unionists and non-unionists, engaged on any work needed -for the conduct of the war--a phrase which was afterwards stretched to -include four-fifths of the entire manual-working class. The Trade Union -Executives agreed, at this Conference or subsequently, to suspend, -for the duration of the war, all their rules and customary practices -restrictive of the output of anything required by the Government for -the conduct of the war; all limitation of employment to apprenticed -men, to Trade Unionists, to men of proved technical skill, to adults -and even to the male sex; all reservation of particular jobs or -particular machines to workers of particular trades; all definition -of a Normal Day, and all objection to overtime, night-work, or Sunday -duty; and even many of the Factory Act prohibitions by which the health -and even the safety of the operatives had been protected. In order that -the utmost possible output of munitions of every kind might be secured, -elaborate schemes of “dilution” were assented to, under which the -various tasks were subdivided and rearranged, a very large amount of -automatic machinery was introduced, and successive drafts of “dilutees” -were brought into the factories and workshops--men and boys from other -occupations, sometimes even non-manual workers, as well as women and -girls--and put to work under the tuition and direction of the minority -of skilled craftsmen at top speed, at time wages differing entirely -from the Trade Union rates, or at piecework prices unsafeguarded by -Collective Bargaining, for hours of labour indefinitely lengthened, -sometimes under conditions such as no Trade Union would have permitted. -It must be recorded to the credit of the Trade Unions that not one -of the societies refused this sacrifice, which was made without any -demand for compensatory increase of pay, merely upon the condition--to -which not only the Ministry, but also the Opposition Leaders and -the House of Commons as a whole, elaborately and repeatedly pledged -themselves--that the abandonment of the “Trade Union Conditions” was -only to be for the duration of the war, and exclusively for the service -of the Government, not to the profit of any private employer; and that -everything that was abrogated was to be reinstated when peace came. - -Under stress of the national emergency, the Government made ever -greater demands on the patriotism of the Trade Unions, which accepted -successively, so far as war-work was concerned, a legal abrogation -of the employers’ competition for their members’ services by the -prohibition of advertisement for employees, and of the engagement -of men from other districts--an unprecedented interference with the -“Law of Supply and Demand”--the suspension of the right to strike -for better terms; the submission of all disputes to the decision of -a Government Department of arbitration, the awards of which, with -the abrogation of the right to strike, or even freely to relinquish -employment, became virtually compulsory; the legal enforcement -under penalties of the employer’s workshop rules; and even legally -enforced continuance, not only in munition work, but actually in the -service of a particular employer, under the penal jurisdiction of -the ubiquitous Munitions Tribunals. The Munitions of War Acts, 1915, -1916 and 1917, by which all this industrial coercion was statutorily -imposed, were accepted by overwhelming majorities at successive Trade -Union and Labour Party Conferences. It was a serious aggravation of -this “involuntary servitude” that the rigid enforcement of compulsory -military service--extended successively from single men to fathers of -families, from 18 years of age to 51--had the incidental effect of -enforcing what was virtually “industrial conscription” on those who -were left for the indispensable civilian employment; and the individual -workman realised that the penalty for any failure of implicit obedience -to the foreman might be instant relegation to the trenches. Although -this inevitable result of Compulsory Military Service was foreseen -and deplored,[679] the successive Military Service Acts were--in view -of the nation’s needs--ratified, in effect, by great majorities at -the workmen’s National Congresses. The strongest protests were made, -but as each measure was passed it was accepted without resistance, -and proposals to resist were always rejected by large majorities. It -speaks volumes, both for the patriotism of the Trade Unionists and for -the strength of Trade Union loyalty and Trade Union organisation, that -under such repressive circumstances the Trade Union leaders were able, -on the whole, to prevent their members from hindering production by -industrial revolts. A certain amount of friction was, of course, not to -be avoided. Strikes, though greatly reduced in number, were not wholly -prevented; and the South Wales coal-miners and the engineering workmen -on the Clyde--largely through arbitrary and repressive action by their -respective employers--broke into open rebellion; which led, in the one -industry, to the Government overriding the recalcitrant South Wales -employers and assuming the direction and the financial responsibility -of all the coal mines throughout the kingdom; and, in the other, to -the arbitrary arrest and deportation of the leaders of the unofficial -organisation of revolt styled the “Clyde Workers’ Committee.” The Trade -Union Executives and officials, whilst restraining their members and -deprecating all stoppages of production, were able to put up a good -fight against the unnecessary and unreasonable demands which, with a -view to “after the war” conditions, employers were not unwilling to -use the national emergency to put forward. These Trade Union spokesmen -had to obtain for their members the successive rises in money wages -which the steadily rising cost of living made necessary, and they had -constantly to stand their ground in the innumerable mixed committees -and arbitration proceedings into which the Government was always -inveigling them. On the whole, whilst co-operating in every way in -meeting the national emergency, the Trade Union organisation during -the four and a-quarter years of war remained intact; and Trade Union -membership--allowing for the millions absent with the colours--steadily -increased. Nor did the Trade Union Movement make any serious revolt -when the Government found itself unable to fulfil, with any literal -exactness, the specific pledges which it had given to Organised Labour. -The complications and difficulties of the Government were, in fact, so -great that the pledges were not kept. The first promise to be broken -was that the abrogation of Trade Union Conditions and the removal of -everything restrictive of output should not be allowed to increase the -profits of the employers. The so-called “Munitions Levy” was imposed -in 1916 on “controlled establishments,” in fulfilment of this pledge, -in order to confiscate for the Exchequer the whole of their excess -profit, over and above a permitted addition of 20 per cent and very -liberal allowances for increased capital and extra exertion by the -employers themselves. It will hardly be believed that, in flagrant -disregard of the specific pledge, within a year this Munitions Levy -was abolished; and the firms especially benefiting by the workmen’s -sacrifices were made merely subject, in common with all other trades -where there had been no such abrogation of Trade Union Conditions, to -the 80 per cent Excess Profits Duty, with the result of increasing -the net income left to those employers whose profits had doubled, -and of doing, with regard to all the employers, the very thing that -the Trade Unions had stipulated should not be done, namely, giving -the employers themselves a financial interest in “dilution.”[680] As -the war dragged on, and prices rose, the successive war-bonuses and -additions to wages--especially those of the miners and the bulk of -the women workers--in many cases fell steadily behind the rise in the -cost of living; and in 1917 the War Cabinet was actually guilty of a -formal instruction to the presumedly impartial central arbitration -tribunal that no further increase of wages was to be awarded--an -instruction which, on its public disclosure, had to be apologised for -and virtually withdrawn. Even the pledge as to wages in the solemn -“Treasury Agreement” of 1915, at which the “Trade Union Conditions” -were surrendered, was not fulfilled, at any rate as regards the women -workers; and had to be made the subject of a subsequent serious -investigation by the War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry, in -which all the “white-washing” of a Government majority failed to -convince the Trade Unionists, any more than it did the only unpaid -member of the Committee, that the Government officials had not -betrayed them.[681] The solemnly promised “Restoration of Trade Union -Conditions” was only imperfectly carried out. What the Government did, -and that only after long delay, was not what it had promised, namely, -actually to see the pre-war conditions and practices reinstated, but -to enact a statute enabling the workmen to proceed in the law courts -against employers who failed to restore them; continuance of any such -restoration to be obligatory only for one year.[682] - -The Trade Unionists, in fact, who had at the outset of the war -patriotically refrained from bargaining as to the price of their -aid, were, on the whole, “done” at its close. Though here and there -particular sections had received exceptionally high earnings in the -time of stress, the rates of wages, taking industry as a whole, did -not, as the Government returns prove, rise either so quickly or so high -as the cost of living; so that, whilst many persons suffered great -hardship, the great majority of wage-earners found the product in -commodities of their rates of pay in 1919 less rather than more than -it was in 1913. During the war, indeed, many thousands of households -got in the aggregate more, and both earned and needed more; because -the young and the aged were at work and costing more than when not -at work, whilst overtime and night-work increased the strain and the -requirements of all. When peace came, it was found that the Government, -for all its promises, had made no arrangements whatever to prevent -unemployment; and none to relieve the unemployed beyond an entirely -improvised and dwindling weekly dole, which (so far as civilians were -concerned) was suddenly brought to an end on November 20, 1919, without -any alternative provision being immediately made. - -It would thus be easy to argue that the representatives of the Trade -Union world made a series of bad bargains with the Government, and -through the Government with the capitalist employers, at a time when -the nation’s needs would have enabled the organised manual workers -almost to dictate their own terms. But this is to take a short-sighted -view. It is a sufficient answer to say that the great mass of the Trade -Unionists, like the leaders themselves, wanted above all things that -the nation should win the war; found it repugnant to make stipulations -in the national emergency, and did not realise the extent to which -they were being tricked and cheated by the officials. But apart from -this impulsive and unself-regarding patriotism we think that, when -it becomes possible to cast up and balance all the results of the -innovations of the war period, the Trade Union Movement will be found -to have gained and not lost. We may suggest, perhaps paradoxically, -that the very ease with which the War Cabinet suppressed the civil -liberties of the manual-working wage-earners during the war, and even -continued after the Armistice a machinery of industrial _espionage_, -with _agents provocateurs_ of workshop “sedition,” enormously increased -the solidarity of the Trade Union Movement--an effect intensified -during 1919 by the costly and futile intervention of the British -Government in Russia on behalf of military leaders whom the Trade -Unionists, rightly or wrongly, believed to be organising the forces of -political and economic reaction. Sober and responsible Trade Unionists, -who had taken for granted the easy-going freedom and tolerance -characteristic of English life in times of peace, suddenly realised -that these conditions could at any moment be withdrawn from them by -what seemed the arbitrary fiat of a Government over which they found -that they had no control. In this way the abrogation of Trade Union -liberty during the war gave the same sort of intellectual fillip to -Trade Unionism and the Labour Party in 1915-19 that had been given in -1901-13 by the Taff Vale Case and the Osborne Judgement. At the same -time the Government found itself compelled, in order to secure the -co-operation of the Trade Unions, both during the war and amid the -menacing economic conditions of the first half of 1919, to accord to -them, and to their leaders, a _locus standi_ in the determination of -essentially national issues that was undreamt of in previous times. -The Trade Unions, in fact, through shouldering their responsibility in -the national cause, gained enormously in social and political status. -In practically every branch of public administration, from unimportant -local committees up to the Cabinet itself, we find the Trade Union -world now accepted as forming, virtually, a separate constituency, -which has to be specially represented. We shall tell the tale in our -next chapter of the participation of members of the Parliamentary -Labour Party in the Coalition Governments of Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd -George. What is here relevant is that these Trade Union officials -were selected in the main, not on personal grounds, but because they -represented the Trade Union Movement. They accepted ministerial office -with the approval, and they relinquished ministerial office at the -request of the National Conference of the Labour Party, in which the -Trade Unions exercised the predominant influence. A similar recognition -of the Trade Union Movement has marked all the recently constituted -Local Government structure, from the committees set up in 1914 for -the relief of distress to those organised in 1917 for the rationing -and control of the food supply, and the tribunals formed in 1919 for -the suppression of “profiteering.” In all these cases the Government -specifically required the appointment of representatives of the local -Trade Unions. Trade Unionists have to constitute half the members -appointed to the Advisory Committees attached to the Employment -Exchanges; and Trade Unionist workmen sit, not only on the temporary -“Munitions Courts” administering the disciplinary provisions of the -Munitions of War Acts, but also on the local Tribunals of Appeal to -determine whether a workman is entitled to the State Unemployment -Benefit. In the administration of the Military and Naval Pensions Act -of 1916 a further step in recognition of Trade Unionism was taken. Not -only were the nominees of Labour placed upon the Statutory (Central) -Pensions Committee, but, in the order constituting the Local Pensions -Committees, the Trade Union organisations in each locality, which -were named in the schemes, were expressly and specifically accorded -the right to elect whom they chose as their representatives on these -committees by which the pensions were to be awarded.[683] When, -towards the close of the war, the Committee presided over by the Rt. -Hon. J. H. Whitley, M.P., propounded its scheme of Joint Industrial -Councils of equal numbers of representative employers and workers -for the supervision and eventual administration of many matters of -interest in each industry throughout the kingdom--the “mouse” which -was practically the whole outcome as regards industrial reorganisation -of the Ministry of Reconstruction--it was specifically to the Trade -Unions in each industry, and to them alone, that the election of the -wage-earners’ representatives was entrusted.[684] When, in 1919, it -seemed desirable to make a series of comprehensive reforms in the terms -of employment, it was not to Parliament that the Prime Minister turned, -but to a “National Industrial Conference,” to which he summoned some -five hundred representatives of the Employers’ Associations and Trade -Unions. It was by this body, through its own sub-committee of thirty -employers’ representatives and thirty Trade Union representatives, -that were elaborated the measures instituting a Legal Maximum Eight -Hours Day and a statutory Minimum Wage Commission that the Ministry -undertook to present to Parliament. In the Royal Commission on -Agriculture of 1919, the several Unions enrolling farm labourers were -invited to nominate as many members (eight) as were accorded to the -farmers, whilst of the four remaining members appointed as scientific -or statistical experts--all landlords being excluded--two were chosen -among those known to be sympathetic to Labour. In the statutory Coal -Industry Commission of the same year, to which reference has already -been made, the Miners’ Federation made its participation absolutely -conditional on being allowed to nominate half of the total membership, -under a presumedly impartial Judge of the High Court, including not -merely three Trade Union officials to balance the three mine-owners, -but also three out of the six “disinterested” members by whom--all -royalty owners being excluded--the Commission was to be completed. -All this constitutional development is at once the recognition and the -result of the new position in the State that Trade Unionism has won--a -position due not merely to the numerical growth that we have described, -but also to the uprise of new ideas and wider aspirations in the Trade -Union world itself. - - -THE REVOLUTION IN THOUGHT - -The new ideas which are to-day taking root in the Trade Union world -centre round the aspiration of the organisations of manual workers -to take part--some would urge the predominant part, a few might say -the sole part--in the control and direction of the industries in -which they gain their livelihood. Such a claim was made, as we have -described in the third chapter of this work, in its most extreme form, -by the revolutionary Trade Unionism of 1830-34; and it lingered on -in the minds of the Chartists as long as any of them survived. But -after the collapse, in 1848, of Chartism as an organised movement -British Trade Unionism settled down to the attainment of a strictly -limited end--the maintenance and progressive improvement, within each -separate occupation or craft, of the terms of the bargain made by the -wage-earner with the employers, including alike all the conditions of -service and complete freedom from personal oppression. Hence the Trade -Unionist as such, during the second half of the nineteenth century, -tacitly accepted the existing organisation of industry. He discussed -the rival advantages of private enterprise carried on in the interests -of the capitalist profit-maker on the one hand, and of the Consumers’ -Co-operative Movement or State and Municipal enterprise on the other, -almost exclusively from the standpoint of whether the profit-making -employers or the representatives of the consumers or the citizens -offered better conditions of employment to the members of his own -organisation. Right down to the end of the nineteenth century this -remained the dominant working-class view. We find in the proceedings -of the Royal Commission on Labour, 1891-94, a striking demonstration of -the strictly limited purpose of British Trade Unionism at that date. -Whether we study the elaborate collection of Trade Union rules and -other documents made by the Commission, or the personal evidence given -by the leaders or advocates of Trade Unionism, we find from beginning -to end absolutely no claim, and even no suggestion, that the Trade -Union should participate in the direction of industry, otherwise than -in arranging with the employers the conditions of the wage-earner’s -working life.[685] One or two Unions included, among their published -“objects,” vague and pious references to the desirability of -co-operative production; but the assumption was always that any such -co-operative production would be carried out by the members of the -Union working in and managing a particular establishment, which would -take its place, like any private establishment, within the framework of -the capitalist system. When a Trade Union leader was also a Socialist -he assumed that the “Socialisation” of industry would be carried out -by the Central or Local Government, or by the Consumers’ Co-operative -Movement. Hence, Mr. Tom Mann, himself a Royal Commissioner, who was -called as a witness before the Commission, was a powerful advocate of -nationalisation and municipalisation. “I am distinctly favourable, -and am associated with those who are earnestly advocating,” he stated -from the witness-chair, “the advisability of encouraging the State to -at once entertain the proposal of the State control of railways. I am -also identified with those who are favourable to the nationalisation -of the land, which means, of course, a State control of land in the -common interest; and I am continually advocating the desirability -for statesmen and politicians and municipal councillors to try and -understand in what particular departments of industry they can get to -work and exercise their faculties in controlling trade and industry in -the common interest where that interest would be likely to be secured -better than under the present method.” When asked by the Duke of -Devonshire whether his advocacy of the nationalisation of the railways -was in the interests of the public or mainly in the interests of the -workmen employed on the railways, he replied: “Not mainly on behalf -of the workers; I would put it equally so. I believe it would serve -the public interest, the general well-being of the community.... I do -not believe that a Government Department will ever be healthy until -the public themselves are healthy in this direction, and are keeping a -watchful eye upon the whole governmental show and secure the general -well-being by their watchfulness. I do not think that State control of -industry will ever be brought about until that development on the part -of the public themselves is brought about, and they desire to see it -controlled in the common interest.... When a sufficient number of men -are prepared to take the initiative, and educate public opinion to the -desirability of a superior method of control in the common interest, -then I believe it will be done, not all at once, but gradually.”[686] - -But Mr. Tom Mann did not stand alone. The Independent Labour Party, -the largest and the most popular of Socialist societies in the United -Kingdom, established in 1893, and largely recruited from the ranks of -Trade Unionists, carried on, right down to the outbreak of the Great -War, a vigorous propaganda in favour of an indefinite extension of -State and Municipal administration of industrial undertakings, whilst -the more doctrinaire Social Democratic Federation was, in its early -days, outspokenly contemptuous of the whole Trade Union Movement as a -mere “palliative” of the Capitalist system. This bias in favour of the -communal organisation, in favour of the government of the people by and -for the people organised in geographical areas, was, until the opening -of the twentieth century, equally dominant among the most “advanced” -Labour and Socialist thinkers on the Continent of Europe.[687] - -But in spite of the assumption that services and industries ought to -be carried out by democracies of consumers and citizens, organised in -geographical districts--that is, by the Central and Local Government -of a Political Democracy--there always remained, in the hearts of the -manual working class in Great Britain, an instinctive faith in the -opposite idea of Associations of Producers owning, as such, both the -instruments and the product of their labour. Throughout the whole -of the second half of the nineteenth century it was pathetic to see -this faith struggling on, in spite of the almost constant failure of -the innumerable little manufacturing establishments carried on by -Associations of Producers. What finally killed it as an ideal, in -the eyes of the Trade Unionists of Great Britain, was the fact that -Co-operative Production and its child, Co-partnership, were taken up by -the most reactionary persons and parties in the State. Great peers and -Conservative statesmen were always blessing “Co-operative Production,” -and always trying to stimulate the workers to undertake business on -their own account. When the invariable failure of self-governing -workshops became too obvious, the advocates of Co-operative Production -fell back on “Labour Co-partnership”--partnership in business with the -capitalist class! This was so obviously, and almost avowedly, an attack -on, or at least a proposal for the supersession of Trade Unionism, that -it aroused the fiercest opposition; and the very idea became anathema -in the Trade Union world. In short, there was, from the collapse of -Owenism and Chartism in the eighteen-thirties and -forties, right -down to 1900, practically no sign that the British Trade Unions ever -thought of themselves otherwise than as organisations to secure an -ever-improving Standard of Life by means of an ever-increasing control -of the conditions under which they worked. They neither desired nor -sought any participation in the management of the technical processes -of industry (except in so far as these might affect the conditions -of their employment, or the selection of persons to be employed); -whilst it never occurred to a Trade Union to claim any power over, or -responsibility for, buying the raw materials or marketing the product. -On the contrary, the most advanced Trade Union leaders were never tired -of asserting that their members must enjoy the full standard conditions -of employment, whatever arrangements the employers might make with -regard to the other factors of production; or however unskilful -employers or groups of employers might prove to be in the buying of the -raw material, or in the selling of the commodities in the markets of -the world. - -With the opening years of the twentieth century we become aware of a -new intellectual ferment, not confined to any one country, nor even -to the manual working class. We watch, emerging in various forms, new -variants of the old idea of the organisation of industries and services -by those who are actually carrying them on. We see it working among -the brain-working professionals. Alike in England and in France the -teachers in the schools and the professors in the colleges began to -assert both their moral right to manage the institutions as they alone -know how, and the advantage that this would be to the community. The -doctors were demanding a similar control over the exercise of their own -function. But the most conspicuous, and the most widely influential, -of the forms taken by the idea was the revolutionary movement that -spread among large sections of the wage-earners almost simultaneously -in France, the classic home of associations of producers, and in the -United States, with its large population of foreign immigrants. In both -these countries any widespread Trade Unionism was of much more recent -growth than in Great Britain, and was still regarded, alike by the -employers and by the Government, as an undesirable and revolutionary -force. The “_syndicats_” of France, and the Labour Unions among the -foreign workers in the United States were, in fact, at the opening -of the twentieth century, in much the same stage of development as -the British Trade Unions were when they were swept into the vortex of -revolutionary Owenism in 1834. Alike in their constitutions and in -their declared objects, in the first decade of the new century, the -General Confederation of Labour in France and the Industrial Workers of -the World in the United States bear a striking resemblance to the Grand -National Consolidated Trades Union that we have described in an earlier -chapter; and, like that organisation, both of them excited a quite -exaggerated terror in the hearts of magistrates and Ministers of State. -Indeed, the doctrines and phraseology of the mass of literature turned -out by French Trade Unionists between 1900 and 1910 are remarkably -like--allowing for the superior literary power of the French--the -pamphlets and leaflets of the Owenite Trade Unionism.[688] There is the -same conception of a republic of industry, consisting of a federation -of Trade Unions, local and central; the federation of shop clubs, -branches, or local unions forming the Local Authority for all purposes, -whilst a standing conference of the national representatives of all the -Trade Unions constitutes a co-ordinating or superintending National -Authority. There is the same reliance, as a means of achievement, on -continuous strikes, culminating in a “general expropriatory strike.” -There is the same denunciation of the political State as a useless -encumbrance, and the same appeal to the soldiers to join the workers in -upsetting the existing system. - -We need not stay to inquire how this new ferment crossed the Atlantic -or the Channel. Between 1905 and 1910 we become aware of the birth, -in some of the industrial districts, of a number of new propagandist -groups--more especially among the miners and engineers--groups of -persons in revolt not only against the Capitalist System but against -the limited aims of contemporary Trade Unionism and the usual -categories of contemporary Socialism. The pioneer of the new faith -in the United Kingdom seems to have been James Connolly, afterwards -organiser of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, to -which we have already referred, a man of noble character and fine -intelligence, whose tragic execution in 1916, after the suppression of -the Dublin rising, made him one of the martyred heroes of the Irish -race. Connolly, who was a disciple of the founder of the American -Socialist Labour Party, Daniel De Leon, started a similar organisation -on the Clyde in 1905. In opposition to the contemporary Socialist -propaganda in favour of the nationalisation and municipalisation of -industries and services, to be brought about by political action, he -advocated the direct supersession of the Capitalist System in each -workshop and in every industry, by the organised workers thereof. -“It is an axiom,” he said, “enforced by all the experience of the -ages, that they who rule industrially will rule politically.... -That natural law leads us as individuals to unite in our craft, as -crafts to unite in our industry, as industries in our class; and the -finished expression of that evolution is, we believe, the appearance -of our class upon the political battle-ground with all the economic -power behind it to enforce its mandates. Until that day dawns our -political parties of the working class are but propagandist agencies, -John the Baptists of the New Redemption; but when that day dawns our -political party will be armed with all the might of our class; will -be revolutionary in fact as well as in thought.” “Let us be clear,” -he adds, “as to the function of Industrial Unionism. That function is -to build up an industrial republic inside the shell of the political -State, in order that when that industrial republic is fully organised -it may crack the shell of the political State and step into its place -in the scheme of the universe.... Under a Socialist form of society -the administration of affairs wall be in the hands of representatives -of the various industries of the nation; ... the workers in the -shops and factories will organise themselves into unions, each union -comprising all the workers at a given industry; ... said union will -democratically control the workshop life of its own industry, electing -all foremen, etc., and regulating the routine of labour in that -industry in subordination to the needs of society in general, to the -needs of its allied trades and to the department of industry to which -it belongs.... Representatives elected from these various departments -of industry will meet and form the industrial administration or -national government of the country. In short, Social Democracy, as -its name implies, is the application to industry, or to the social -life of the nation, of the fundamental principles of Democracy. Such -application will necessarily have to begin in the workshop, and -proceed logically and consecutively upward through all the grades of -industrial organisation until it reaches the culminating point of -national executive power and direction. In other words, Socialism must -proceed from the bottom upwards, whereas capitalist political society -is organised from above downward; Socialism will be administered by a -committee of experts elected from the industries and professions of -the land; capitalist society is governed by representatives elected -from districts, and is based upon territorial division.”[689] A similar -ferment was to be seen at work amongst the South Wales miners, giving -rise to a series of propagandist organisations, preaching the doctrine -of Industrial Unionism as a revolutionary force, and culminating in the -much-denounced pamphlet _The Miners’ Next Step_, 1912, which created -some sensation in the capitalist world.[690] - -In 1910 we find Mr. Tom Mann, fresh from organising strikes in -Australia, and inspired by a visit to Paris, preaching the new faith -to large popular audiences in London and the principal provincial -cities with the same sincerity and eloquence with which he had formerly -advocated State and Municipal Socialism and the statutory regulation -of the conditions of employment. “The Industrial Syndicalist,” he -explains, holds that “to run industry through Parliament, that is -by State machinery, will be even more mischievous to the working -class than the existing method, for it will assuredly mean that the -capitalist class will, through Government Departments, exercise over -the national forces, and over the workers, a domination that is -even more rigid than is the case to-day. And the Syndicalist also -declares that in the near future the industrially organised workers -will themselves undertake the entire responsibility of running the -industries in the interest of all who work, and are entitled to enjoy -the result of labour.”[691] “We therefore most certainly favour -strikes; we shall always do our best to help strikes to be successful, -and shall prepare the way as rapidly as possible for +The General -Strike+ of national proportions. This will be the actual Social and -Industrial Revolution. The workers will refuse to any longer manipulate -the machinery of production in the interest of the capitalist class, -and there will be no power on earth able to compel them to work -when they thus refuse.... When the capitalists get tired of running -industries, the workers will cheerfully invite them to abdicate, and -through and by their industrial organisations will run the industries -themselves in the interests of the whole community.”[692] “Finally, and -vitally essential it is,” sums up Mr. Tom Mann in 1911, “to show that -economic emancipation to the working class can only be secured by the -working class asserting its power in workshops, factories, warehouses, -mills and mines, on ships and boats and engines, and wherever work is -performed, ever extending their control over the tools of production, -until, by the power of the internationally organised Proletariat, -capitalist production shall entirely cease, and the industrial -socialist republic will be ushered in, and thus the Social Revolution -realised.”[693] - -The revolutionary Industrial Unionism and Syndicalism preached by -James Connolly and Tom Mann and other fervent missionaries between -1905 and 1912 did not commend itself to the officials and leaders of -the Trade Unions any more than it did to the cautious and essentially -Conservative-minded men and women who make up the rank and file of -the British working class. But, like other revolutionary movements in -England, it prepared the way for constitutional proposals. The ideal of -taking over the instruments of production appealed to all intelligent -workmen as workmen. To them it seemed merely Co-operative Production -writ large, the ownership of the instruments and of the product of -labour by the workers themselves. But the ownership and management was -now to be carried out, not by small competing establishments doomed -to failure, but in the industry as a whole by a “blackleg-proof” -Trade Union. To the idealistic and active-minded Trade Union official -in particular, weary of the perpetual haggling with employers over -fractional changes in wages and hours, the prospect of becoming the -representative of his fellow-workers in a self-governing industry, -with all the initiative and responsibility that such a position -would involve, was decidedly attractive. So long as this ideal was -associated with violent and revolutionary methods, and left no room -for the political democracy to which Englishmen are accustomed, -or even for the Consumers’ Co-operative Movement, it failed to get -accepted either by responsible officials or by the mass of sober-minded -members. The bridge between the old conception of Trade Unionism and -the new was built by a fresh group of Socialists, who called themselves -National Guildsmen. This group of able thinkers, largely drawn -from the Universities, accepted from what we may call the Communal -Socialists the idea of the ownership of the instruments of production -by the representatives of the citizen-consumers, but proposed to vest -the management in national associations of the producers in each -industry--organisations which they declared ought to include, not -merely the present wage-earners, but all the workers, by hand or by -brain.[694] These guilds were to grow out of the existing Trade Unions, -gradually made co-extensive with each industry. We have neither the -space, nor would it be within the scope of this book, to describe or -criticise this conception of National Guilds, or the theories and -schemes of the Guild Socialists. These theories and schemes are none -the worse for being still in the making. What we are concerned with, as -historians of the Trade Union Movement, is the rapid adoption between -1913 and 1920 by many of the younger leaders of the Movement, and -subject to various modifications, also by some of the most powerful of -the Trade Unions, of this new ideal of the development of the existing -Trade Unions into self-organised, self-contained, self-governing -industrial democracies, as supplying the future method of conducting -industries and services. The schemes put forward by the National Union -of Railwaymen, the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain, and the Union -of Postal Workers differ widely from the revolutionary Syndicalism -of Mr. Tom Mann and the large visions of the Industrial Workers of -the World. They do not even go so far as the projects of the National -Guildsmen. In fact, they limit the claim of the manual workers merely -to participation in the management, fully conceding that the final -authority must be vested in the representatives of the community -of citizens or consumers. Thus we see the Annual General Meeting -of the National Union of Railwaymen in 1914 resolving unanimously: -“That this Congress, while reaffirming previous decisions in favour -of the nationalisation of railways, and approving the action of the -Executive Committee in arranging to obtain and give evidence before -the Royal Commission, declares that no system of State ownership of -the railways will be acceptable to organised railwaymen which does not -guarantee to them their full political and social rights, _allow them -a due measure of control and responsibility in the safe and efficient -working of the railway system_, and assure to them a fair and equitable -participation of the increased benefits likely to accrue from a more -economical and scientific administration.”[695] In a modified form this -resolution was brought forward by the Railway Clerks’ Association, -supported by the N.U.R., and passed by the Trades Union Congress of -1917.[696] A similar movement in favour of participation in management -has taken root among the postal workers of all kinds, in England as -also in France. At the Annual Conference, in May 1919, of the Postal -and Telegraph Clerks’ Association, which had in previous years been -passing resolutions on the subject, it was emphatically pointed out -that the control demanded by the postal employees was not restricted -to securing better conditions of employment, but that they desired -to participate in directing the technical improvement of the service -for the good of the community.[697] The Conference resolved: “That in -view of the obstructive attitude of the Department on the question of -the development of the Post Office Savings Bank, the modernising of -the Post Office Insurance System, and the expansion and improvement -of the Post Office Services generally, this Conference directs that -representatives of the Association be appointed to investigate and -report on the working of the postal cheque and transfer services from -both the national and international standpoint, and that the report -be widely circulated, and propaganda work undertaken, so that this -development of the Post Office Savings Bank--giving a greatly improved -transmission of moneys system--be introduced throughout.”[698] Finally, -we may cite the scheme for the Nationalisation of the Coal-mines that -the Miners’ Federation brought formally before the Coal Industry -Commission in 1919. Six years previously the Miners’ Federation had had -a Bill drafted and published, which provided merely for the vesting of -the collieries in a Ministry of Mines, and for the administration of -the whole industry by that department.[699] All that the Federation was -then concerned to secure for the miners themselves was the continuance -of free and lawful Trade Unionism. The Bill of 1919[700] imposed on the -Minister of Mines a whole series of National and District Councils, -and Pit Committees, each of which was to consist, to the extent of one -half, of members nominated by the Federation, the other half being -nominated by the Minister; and the expectation was not concealed that -it would be by these bipartite bodies that the administration would be -conducted. We record these schemes, which are by the nature of the case -only imperfect drafts prepared for propaganda, not so much for their -importance as precisely defined industrial constitutions, but as being -indicative of the change of spirit that has come over the Trade Union -world. - - -THE INCREASED RELIANCE ON DIRECT ACTION - -The acceptance, during the last decade, by Parliament, by the Executive -Government, and by public opinion, of the Trade Union organisation as -part of the machinery of government in all matters concerning the life -and labour of the manual working class, has been coincident, some would -say paradoxically coincident, with an increased reliance on the strike, -commonly known as the method of Direct Action, and with an enlargement -of the purposes for which this method is used by Trade Unionists. -There is an impression in the public mind, which easily forgets its -previous impressions of the same kind, that we are to-day (1920) living -in an era of strikes. Although this impression is not justified -by the number of strikes, as compared with those of 1825, 1833-34, -1857-60, 1871-74, and 1885-86, there is some basis for the feeling. The -strikes and threats of strikes during the past decade (excluding the -four years of war) have been on a larger scale, and, in a sense, more -menacing, than those of previous periods. When we published, in 1897, -our detailed analysis of the theory and practice of contemporary Trade -Unionism (_Industrial Democracy_), the very term “direct action” was -unknown in this country. The strike was regarded, not as a distinct -method of Trade Union action, but merely as the culminating incident -of a breakdown of the Method of Collective Bargaining.[701] The Trade -Union plea for the right to strike has always been a simple one. It -is a mere derivative of the right of Freedom of Contract. Whenever an -individual workman had the right to refuse to enter or continue in a -contract of service, any group of individuals might, if they chose, -exercise a like freedom. After the collapse of Owenism and Chartism -all thought of using the weapon of the strike, otherwise than as an -incident in Collective Bargaining with the employers, seems to have -left the Trade Union Movement in Great Britain. Indeed, during the -last half of the nineteenth century, the use of the weapon of the -strike was falling into disrepute, even as an incident of Collective -Bargaining, not only among the officials of the great trade friendly -societies, such as the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and Carpenters, -but also among the younger and more militant members of the Trade -Union movement. The “extremists” of the last decade of the nineteenth -century, as we have described in a previous chapter, were out for the -“capture” of Parliament and Local Authorities by an “independent” Party -of Labour; and political action was commonly regarded as the shortest -and most convenient way of securing not only Socialist but also the -distinctively Trade Union objects. It was at that time left to the -“reactionaries” in the Trade Union Movement, who disliked the idea of a -political Labour Party, to advocate reliance on “ourselves alone.”[702] - -But with the revolution of thought that we have described there has -arisen, with regard to Direct Action, a change of practice. In 1913-14 -there was an outburst of exasperated strikes designed, we may almost -say, to supersede Collective Bargaining--to repudiate any making of -long-term agreements, to spring demand after demand upon employers, -to compel every workman to join the Union, avowedly with the view -of building up the Trade Union as a dominant force. This spasm of -industrial “insurrectionism” was abruptly stopped by the outbreak of -war. The “political” element creeps in with the strikes and threats -of strikes of the Miners’ Federation in 1912 and 1919, designed, not -to further Collective Bargaining with the employers, but to cause the -Government and Parliament to alter the organisation of the industry, -in the earlier case by the enactment of a Minimum Wage law, and in the -other by the elimination of the capitalist profitmaker in favour of -public ownership and workers’ control. During the years of war Direct -Action took another form. The weapon of a concerted refusal to work was -used by some Trade Unions, in matters entirely unconnected with their -conditions of employment, in order to prevent particular individuals -from doing what they wished to do. The most sensational examples were -afforded by the National Union of Sailors and Firemen in 1917-18, -when its members, by refusing to work, at the dictation of Mr. J. -Havelock Wilson, the Secretary of the Union, prevented certain Labour -Leaders[703] from proceeding to Petrograd, actually by direction of -the Government; and subsequently others[704] from going to Paris with -Government passports, on the instructions of the Labour Party, because -the Union, or at any rate Mr. Havelock Wilson, disapproved of these -visits, and of their supposed object in arranging for an International -Labour and Socialist Congress. Another case was the withdrawal by the -Electrical Trades Union in 1918 of their members (taking with them -the indispensable fuses) from the Albert Hall in London, when the -directors of the Hall cancelled its letting for a Labour Demonstration, -of the purposes and resolutions of which they disapproved, or thought -that their patrons would disapprove. What the Electrical Trades Union -intimated was that, unless the Hall was allowed, as heretofore, to -be used for Labour meetings, it should not be used for a forthcoming -demonstration of the supporters of the Coalition Government, or for any -other meetings. The result was that (it is said on a hint from Downing -Street) the directors of the Hall withdrew their objection to the -Labour Demonstration, and have since continued to allow such meetings. -Yet another example of Direct Action was given by the printing staffs -of certain newspaper offices in London during the railway strike of -1919, when they threatened instantly to withdraw their labour, and thus -absolutely to prevent the issue of the newspapers, unless the use of -“lying posters” was given up, and unless the case of the National Union -of Railwaymen was fairly treated in the papers, and accorded reasonable -space. The gravest case of all was the threat by the Miners’ Federation -in 1919, that all the coal-mines might stop working unless Compulsory -Military Service was immediately brought to an end, and unless the -policy of military intervention in Russia against the Bolshevik -Government of Russia was abandoned. By what was perhaps a fortunate -coincidence the Secretary of State for War was able to declare that all -Compulsory Military Service was to cease at or before the end of the -current financial year; and the Prime Minister to announce that no more -troops, and, after certain consignments already arranged for, no more -military stores, would be sent in aid of those who were attacking the -Bolshevik Government. - -How far can these instances of Direct Action be deemed to indicate -a change of thought in the Trade Union world with regard to the use -of the strike weapon? We must note that, in spite of the temporary -lull in strikes in the latter part of the last century, there has -been no change in Trade Union policy with regard to the strike in -disputes with employers about the conditions of employment. The Trade -Unions have always included in this term the dismissal of men for -reasons other than their inefficiency as workmen, the engagement of -non-Unionists, the presence of an obnoxious foreman or manager, or any -interference with the conduct of employees outside the works. Nor has -there been any development in the original Trade Union position with -regard to sympathetic strikes in aid of other sections of workers in -their struggles with their employers. It is possible that some of the -insurrectionary strikes of 1911-14 were inspired by the new thought -that we have described--the disillusionment as to the Parliamentary -potency of a Labour Party, and the vision of a Democracy based on -industrial organisation and secured by industrial action. But, in the -main, the increased frequency and magnitude of strikes in these years -are sufficiently accounted for by the continued fall in real wages due -to rising prices, combined with the steadily improving organisation -of the workers concerned. There was a new element in the proposal of -the Miners’ Federation in 1919 to strike if the Government did not -fulfil its pledge to carry into effect the Sankey Report described -in the last chapter. The significant and authoritative declaration -in the first Report of March 20, 1919, that “the present system of -ownership and working in the coal industry stands condemned, and some -other system must be substituted for it, either nationalisation or a -method of unification by national purchase and/or by joint control,” -and the explicit acceptance of this Report by the Government “in the -spirit and in the letter,” formed an integral part of the bargain -between the Miners’ Federation and the Government, on the strength of -which they forewent the strike at the end of March 1919 on which they -had decided. It can hardly be contended that the “present system of -ownership and working” is not a necessary part of the conditions of -employment, or that the Miners are not entitled to refuse to enter into -contracts of service under a system that Mr. Bonar Law agrees with -Mr. Justice Sankey, and nine out of the other twelve members of the -Royal Commission, in holding to “stand condemned.” On the other hand, -though the Government controls the industry and dictates the wages, the -alterations in the conditions of employment that the Miners’ Federation -asks for require not only one but probably several Acts of Parliament, -which a majority of the members of the present House of Commons, -notwithstanding the explicit Government pledge, refuses to pass. What -the Miners’ Federation threatens, by a stoppage of the coal industry, -is to coerce into agreement with them not their employers, the colliery -owners, not even the Ministry with whom they made the bargain, but, in -effect, the recalcitrant capitalist majority of the House of Commons -which cannot be displaced without a General Election. - -But an entirely new development of Direct Action, alike in form and -in substance, is the distinctly political, or, as we should prefer to -call it, the non-economic strike--that is, the strike, not for any -alteration in the conditions of employment of any section of the Trade -Union world, but with a view to enforce, either on individuals, on -Parliament, or on the Government, some other course of action desired -by the strikers. So far as we know, there is, on this question, no -consistent body of opinion in the Trade Union world; all that we find -are currents of opinion arising from different assumptions of social -expediency. There is, first, a small section of Trade Unionists who -are Syndicalists or extreme Industrial Unionists in opinion, and who -look forward to the supersession of political Democracy, and the -reconstitution of society on the basis of the suffrages of the several -trades. Like the Sinn Feiners in Ireland, though on different grounds, -they do not acknowledge the competency of the existing Parliament to -undertake the government of the country, and they advocate Direct -Action as the only weapon of revolt accessible to the workers organised -as workers. But it was no such theory of social revolution that induced -Mr. Havelock Wilson to prevent the visit of Mr. G. H. Roberts and -Mr. MacDonald to Petrograd, when the Government wished them to go; -or to prevent Mr. Henderson and M. Camille Huysmans from using their -passports to Paris. Nor were the electricians of the Albert Hall -inspired by faith in an immediate revolution of the Russian type. It -cannot even be suggested that the widespread approval by the more -active spirits of the Trade Union world of the proposed strike to stop -the intervention of Great Britain in support of the reactionary Russian -leaders was accompanied by any desire to set up in Great Britain the -constitution which is believed to obtain in Moscow and Petrograd. We -must look elsewhere for the motive that underlies and is held by many -to justify the non-economic or “political” strike. - -We suggest that the explanation is a more complex one. We have first -the impulsive tendency of some men in all classes to use any powers -that they possess, whether over land, capital, or labour, to dictate to -their fellow-men a course of conduct on any question on which they feel -hotly, even if it is wholly unconnected with their several economic -functions. This delight in an anarchic use of economic power is, it is -needless to say, not peculiar to those whose economic power is that of -labour. There have been innumerable instances, within our own memories, -among landlords and capitalists, of actions no less arbitrary than that -of Mr. Havelock Wilson (who, it must be remembered, had the general -approval of the capitalist press; and, in the case of the attempted -internment in this country of a distinguished Belgian visitor, -M. Huysmans, the connivance of the naval officers, if not of the -Admiralty). We find within the last few decades many cases of landlords -who have ejected persons, not because they were objectionable tenants, -or had failed to pay their rent, but because they had supported a -political candidate, or had led to action on the part of the Local -Authority, to which the landlord objected. We have seen landed -proprietors refusing sites for Nonconformist chapels, not because they -objected to buildings of that character, or were dissatisfied with the -price offered, but because they disliked the theology of the promoters. -We have heard of banks refusing to the Trade Unions who were their -customers any accommodation at all on the occasion of a strike, merely -because they disliked the strike. We have seen employers dismissing -workmen, not for their inefficiency, not even for their Trade Union -activities, which might be held to affect the economic interest of the -capitalist, but because the workmen held different political opinions -from those of the employer. But these cases of the use of economic -power to prevent individuals from pursuing or promoting their own -religious or political creeds are emphatically condemned by the Trade -Union Movement. Thus no Trade Union support was overtly given to Mr. -Havelock Wilson, even by those Trade Union leaders who agreed with him -in detesting any meeting between Britons and enemy subjects. - -We have a quite different class of cases when Direct Action is taken in -reprisal for the Direct Action of other persons or groups of persons. -This was the case in the strike of the electricians at the Albert -Hall. It was a reprisal for the use by the directors of the Albert -Hall of their power over lettings to ban opinions that they happened -to dislike, whilst permitting the use of their hall to the other side. -A more difficult case is that of the threatened refusal to work of -the compositors against the newspapers who denied fair play to the -railwaymen. Here our judgement may depend on what view is taken of the -function of newspapers; how far are newspapers what their name implies, -the public purveyors of news? Supposing that all the capitalist press -were deliberately to boycott all Labour news, whilst deliberately -giving currency to false statements about Labour Leaders and the Labour -Movement, would the compositors, as representing the Trade Union world -in this industry, be justified in a strike? The only conclusion we -can suggest is that, human nature being instinctively militant, any -anarchic use of the power given by one form of monopoly will lead to a -similar anarchic use of the power given by another form of monopoly. - -We come now to the third class of use of the method of Direct Action, -a general strike of the manual workers to compel the Government of the -country to abstain from political courses distasteful to those who -control a monopoly of labour power, or to the majority of them. This -form of Direct Action is justified by a minority of Trade Unionists, -who consider that under the present constitution of Parliament the -organised workmen have practically no chance of getting their fair -share of representation--an argument strengthened by every election -trick, and especially by the partisan use of the capitalist press as -an election instrument. The majority of Trade Unionists, however, -do not, at the present time, seem to support this view. They reply -that the manual workers and their wives now constitute, in every -district, a majority of the electorate. They can, if they choose, -return to Parliament a Labour majority and make a Labour Government. -This very consideration, indeed, seems to make any such general strike -impracticable, and, as a matter of fact, no such proposal of a general -strike has yet been endorsed by the Trades Union Congress. We can -imagine occasions that might, in the eyes of the Trade Union world, -fully justify a general strike of non-economic or political character. -If, for instance, a reactionary Parliament were to pass a measure -disfranchising the bulk of the manual workers, or depriving them of -political power by such a device as the “Three Class Franchise” of -Prussia and Saxony--if any Act were passed depriving the Trade Unions -of the rights and liberties now conceded to them--if the Executive -or the judges were to use against the Trade Unions, by injunction or -otherwise, any weapon that might be fished up from the legal armoury, -confiscating their funds or prohibiting their action--then, indeed, -we might see the Trades Union Congress recommending a General Strike; -and it would be supported not only by the wage-earning class as a -whole, but also by a large section of the middle class, and even by -some members of the House of Lords. That is one reason why, short -of madness, no such act would be committed by the Government or by -Parliament. If any such act were perpetrated, it would probably involve -a revolution not in the British but in the continental sense. It must -be remembered that the “last word” in Direct Action is with the police -and the army, and there not with the officers but with the rank and -file. - -To sum up, the vast majority of Trade Unionists object to Direct -Action, whether by landlords or capitalists or by organised workers, -for objects other than those connected with the economic function -of the Direct Actionists. Trade Unionists, on the whole, are not -prepared to disapprove of Direct Action as a reprisal for Direct Action -taken by other persons or groups. With regard to a general strike of -non-economic or political character, in favour of a particular home or -foreign policy, we very much doubt whether the Trade Union Congress -could be induced to endorse it, or the rank and file to carry it out, -except only in case the Government made a direct attack upon the -political or industrial liberty of the manual working class, which it -seemed imperative to resist by every possible means, not excluding -forceful revolution itself. - - -THE DEMAND FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE CAPITALIST PROFIT-MAKER - -It is interesting to note that this widening enlargement of the -aspirations and purposes of Trade Unionism has been accompanied, not -by any decline, but by an actual renewal of the faith in Communal -Socialism, towards which we described the Trade Union Movement as -tending in 1889-94. For the Trade Unionist objects, more strongly than -ever, to any financial partnership with the capitalist employers, or -with the shareholders, in any industry or service, on the sufficient -ground that any such sharing of profits would, whilst leaving intact -the tribute of rent and interest to proprietors, irretrievably break up -the solidarity of the manual working class. To the new school of Trade -Unionists the nationalisation or municipalisation of industry, or its -assumption by consumers’ co-operation, is a necessary preliminary to -the partnership of Labour in its government. What they are after is to -alter, not only the status of the manual worker, but also the status of -the employer who is the director of industry; they wish them both to -become the agents of the community; they desire that manual workers and -brain workers alike should be inspired, not by the greed of gain made -by profit on price, but by the desire to produce the commodities and -services needed by the community in return for a sufficient livelihood, -and the personal freedom and personal responsibility which they believe -would spring from vocational self-government. Thus we find Mr. Hodges, -the General Secretary of the Miners’ Federation, in one of his numerous -speeches in favour of the nationalisation of the mines, declaring that -what they demanded was “a new status for the worker as a controller of -his industry. Miners were not anarchists, although they had the power -to be. They realised that their interests were bound up with those -of the community, and therefore they demanded conditions which would -develop the corporate sense.... Education was carrying men along social -rather than individualistic lines, and right throughout the mining -industry there was the desire to be something different from what they -were. This desire to be master of the work in which the man was engaged -was the great thing that was vital in working-class life.... There -had never been a movement born of greater moral aspiration than this -movement for the nationalisation of the mines. The miner wanted to be -in a position where it would be to him a point of honour not to allow -even a piece of timber to be wasted, where he would want to do his work -well. He wanted a Social Contract.”[705] - -The demand for the nationalisation or municipalisation of industries -and services, or their absorption by the Consumers’ Co-operative -Movement, was greatly strengthened by the experience, during the war -and after the Armistice, of the failure of every alternative method -of preventing “profiteering.” The rapid development of capitalist -combinations and price-agreements[706]; the ill-success of the most -stringent Government control in preventing alarming increases of price; -the inability of even legally fixed maximum prices to do anything more, -under private ownership, than authorise the charge required to cover -the cost at the least efficient and least well-equipped establishment -of which the output was needed; the enormous and even unprecedented -profits made throughout the whole range of business enterprise; the -helplessness of the consumers, in the mere expectation of shortage, -and their willingness to pay almost any price that was demanded rather -than go without--combined with the obvious breakdown of capitalist -competition as a safeguard of the public which the proceedings under -the Profiteering Act revealed--all these things co-operated to convince -the bulk of the wage-earning class, many of the families living on -fixed incomes, and (in spite of the objection to “bureaucratic -control”) some even among business men, that there was practically -no other course open, in the industries and services that were -sufficiently highly developed to render such a course practicable, than -a gradual substitution of public for private ownership. This advance -in public opinion is naturally reflected in the passionate support of -public ownership, with participation of the workers in administration -and control, given by the Trades Union Congress and Labour Party -Conference. - -It will have become clear from our review of the larger conception -now current of the place of Trade Unionism in the State, that the -Trade Unionist, as such, no longer retains the acquiescent and neutral -attitude towards the two great parties of British politics, nor to the -Capitalist System itself, which characterised the Trade Unionism of -thirty or forty years ago. The object and purpose of the New Unionism -of 1913-19--not without analogy with that of 1830-34, but with a -significant difference--cannot be attained without the transformation -of British politics, and the supersession, in one occupation after -another, of the capitalist profit-maker as the governor and director -of industry. Meanwhile, as a result of the successive attacks upon the -very existence of Trade Unionism, even in its most limited form, there -has been growing up a distinct political organisation of the Trade -Union Movement, aiming at securing the acceptance by the electorate, -as a whole, of a definitely Socialist policy in the administration of -both home and foreign affairs. It is this formation of a Labour Party, -ready for the carrying into effect of the new ideas, that we have now -to describe. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[651] William Abraham (South Wales Miners), J. Mawdsley -(Cotton-spinners), Michael Austin, M.P. (Irish Labour), and Tom Mann -(Amalgamated Society of Engineers). - -[652] For the Labour Commission see its Report and Evidence, published -in 1892-94 in many volumes, the Report itself being C. 2421 of 1894. An -epitome was published as _The Labour Question_, by T. G. Spyers, 1894; -see also “The Failure of the Labour Commission,” by Mrs. Sidney Webb, -in _Nineteenth Century_, 1893. The Trade Unionist Minority Report had a -wide circulation as an Independent Labour Party pamphlet. It reads, in -1920, curiously prophetic of the actual legislative and administrative -changes that have taken place. - -[653] For half a century after the repeal of the Combination Acts in -1824-25 the controversy as to the legal position of Trade Unionism was -always muddled up, in the minds of lawyers as well as economists and -the public, with that of physical violence. Because angry strikers here -and there committed assaults, and occasionally destroyed property, -it was habitually assumed, as it still is by some people thinking -themselves educated, that Trade Unionism practically depended on, and -inevitably involved, personal molestation of one sort or another. -This led magistrates, right down to 1891, occasionally to regard as -a criminal offence, under the head of “intimidation,” any threat or -warning uttered by a Trade Unionist to an employer or a non-unionist -workman, even if the consequences alluded to were of the most peaceful -kind. In 1891 a specially constituted Court of the Queen’s Bench -Division definitely laid it down that “intimidation,” under the Act -of 1875, was confined to the threat of committing a criminal offence -against person or tangible property (Memorandum by Sir Frederick -Pollock in Appendix to Report of Royal Commission on Labour, C. 7063; -see also _Law Quarterly Review_, January 1892; _Industrial Democracy_, -by S. and B. Webb, Appendix I., 1897; Gibson _v._ Lawson, and Curran -_v._ Treleaven, 1891, 2 Q.B. 545). - -Magistrates continued, however, for some time to treat unfairly -such breaches of public order as “obstructing the thoroughfare” -or committing acts of annoyance to the public, when committed in -connection with a strike of which they disapproved, which would not -be proceeded against as criminal if they had been done by an excited -crowd of stockbrokers in the City, by the audience of a street-corner -preacher, or by a gathering of the Primrose League. Such discrimination -by the police or the magistrate is unjust. - -[654] Mogul Steamship Company _v._ M’Gregor, Gow & Co. (1892), A.C. -25; Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society _v._ Glasgow Fleshers’ -Trade Defence Association (1897), 35 Sc.L.R. 645; see _History of -Co-operation in Scotland_, by William Maxwell, 1910, p. 349. - -[655] For all these cases see _Industrial Democracy_, by S. and B. -Webb, Appendix I., 1897; _Trade Union Law_, by H. Cohen and G. Howell, -1901; _The Law Relating to Trade Unions_, by D. R. C. Hunt, 1902; -_Trade Unions and the Law_, by G. F. Assinder, 1905; _The Present and -Future of Trade Unions_, by A. H. Ruegg and H. Cohen, 1906; Report of -Royal Commission on Trade Disputes, Cd. 2825, 1906; Temperton _v._ -Russell (1893), 1 Q.B. 715; 62 L.T.Q.B. 412; 62 L.T. 78; 41 W.R. 565. -57. J.P. 676; Trollope and Others _v._ The London Building Trades -Federation and Others (1895), 72 L.T. 342; 11 T.L.R. 280; Pink _v._ -The Federation of Trade Unions (1893), 67 L.T. 258; 8 T.L.R. 216, 711; -36 S.T. 201; J. Lyons and Son _v._ Wilkin (1896), 1 Ch. 811; the same -again (1899), 1 Ch. 255; Allen _v._ Flood (1898), A.C. 1; 67 L.J.Q.B. -119; 77 L.T. 717; 14 T.L.R. 125; 46 W.R. 258; 47 S.J. 149; 62 J.P. 595; -Quinn _v._ Leathem (1901), A.C. 495; 70 L.J.P.C. 76; 85 L.T. 289; 17 -T.L.R. 749; 50 W.R. 139; 65 J.P. 708; W.N. 170. For foreign comments -see _La Situation juridique des Trade Unions en Angleterre_, by Morin -(Caen, 1907); _Le Droit d’Association en Angleterre_, by H. E. Barrault -(Paris, 1908); _Das englische Gewerkvereinsrecht seit 1870_, by F. -Haneld, 1909. - -[656] Taff Vale Railway Company _v._ Amalgamated Society of Railway -Servants (1901), A.C. 426; 70 L.J.K.B. 905; 85 L.T. 147; 17 T.L.R. -698; 65 J.P. 596; 50 W.R. 44; Report of Royal Commission on Trade -Disputes, 1906, Cd. 2825; _The Law and Trade Unions: A Brief Review -of Recent Litigation, specially prepared at the instance of Richard -Bell, M.P._, 1901; _Statement by the Parliamentary Committee on the -Taff Vale Case_, 1902; _History of the British Trades Union Congress_, -by W. J. Davis, vol. ii. 1916, pp. 201-2; _Trade Union Law_, by H. -Cohen and George Howell, 1901; _The Legal Position of Trade Unions_, -by H. H. Slesser and W. S. Clark, 1912; _Industrial Democracy_, by -S. and B. Webb, Introduction to the 1902 edition, pp. xxiv-xxxvi. -It does not appear that, in the strictly legal sense, the Taff Vale -judgement was unwarranted. Though the Act of 1871 had been supposed to -prevent a Trade Union from being proceeded against, it contained no -explicit grant of immunity from being made answerable for any damage -that might be wrongfully caused. In fact, both the 1871 Act and that -of 1876 expressly provided that the registered Trade Union itself -should be liable to be brought into Court for the petty penalties -instituted for failure to supply the Registrar with copies of rules -and balance-sheets; and also that the trustees of a registered Union -should sue and be sued on its behalf. What the Act of 1871 did was to -relieve the Trade Union from its character of criminality by reason -of its purposes being in restraint of trade, and of its character of -illegality from the same cause; and to prohibit legal proceedings -directly to enforce certain agreements among its members, or between -it and its members, or among different Unions. These were assumed to -be all the cases that could arise. It seems to have been taken for -granted by the Minority of the Trade Union Commission of 1869, by -the Home Office in 1870-71, by the Parliament of 1871-76, and the -Royal Commission on Labour in 1893, that an unincorporated body could -not be sued for damages in tort any more than for a civil debt. But -in the following years, without any reference to Trade Unionism, -the Courts successively enlarged their procedure so as to admit of -any group of persons having a common interest being made parties to -a “representative action” (Duke of Bedford _v._ Ellis, 1901, A.C. -1, where the tenants of shops in Covent Garden were parties). This -enabled even an unregistered Trade Union to be sued (Yorkshire Miners’ -Association _v._ Howden, 1905, A.C. 256). In 1893, and again in 1895, -actions against unregistered Trade Union organisations had been -maintained in the lower Courts (Trollope and Others _v._ The London -Building Trades Federation and Others, 1895, 72 L.T. 342; 11 T.L.R. -280; W.N. 45; Pink _v._ The Federation of Trades and Labour Unions, -etc., 1893, 67 L.T. 258; 8 T.L.R. 216, 711; 36 S.J. 201). But these had -not been noticed by the Trade Union Movement as a whole; and they had -not been seriously defended, not fully argued, and not carried to the -highest tribunal. - -[657] The number of stoppages through disputes known to the Labour -Department of the Board of Trade, which between 1891 and 1899 had never -been fewer than 700 in a year, did not again reach this figure for a -whole decade; and sank in 1903-5--years during which trade was checked, -and some reduction of wages took place--to only half the number. Of the -135 claims to the Strike Benefit admitted by the General Federation of -Trade Unions in 1903, we read that “no less than 130 have been caused -by attempts on the part of employers to encroach upon the recognised -conditions prevailing in the particular trades” (_Fifth Annual Report -of the Federation_, 1904, p. 11). - -[658] In addition, twelve workmen, mostly miners, were elected under -the auspices of the Liberal Party. Nearly all these came over to the -Labour Party in 1910 (_History of Labour Representation_, by A. W. -Humphrey, 1912). - -[659] _Report of Royal Commission on Trade Disputes and Trade -Combinations_, Cd. 2825. - -[660] 6 Edward VII. c. 47. - -[661] Trade Unionists would be well advised not to presume too far on -this apparently absolute immunity from legal proceedings. It must not -be imagined that either the ingenuity of the lawyers or the prejudice -of the judges has been exhausted. It has already been urged that -the immunity of a Trade Union from being sued should be regarded as -implicitly limited to acts done in contemplation or furtherance of a -trade dispute; but such a limitation has so far been negatived (Vacher -_v._ London Society of Compositors, 29 T.R. 73). It is now suggested -that the immunity might one day be held to be limited to acts committed -by a Trade Union _in the exercise of its specifically Trade Union -functions_, or for the “statutory objects” of Trade Unions as defined -by the Act, and not to acts which the Court might hold to be beyond its -legitimate scope, or not specifically connected with what they might -in their wisdom consider to be the principal purpose of a Trade Union. -(But see Shinwell v. National Sailors’ and Firemen’s Union, 1913, a -decision of the Scottish Court of Session, limiting the liability of a -Union to reimburse its trustees for damages incurred by them.) Thus, a -new Taff Vale case, at a moment when public opinion was exceptionally -hostile to Trade Unionism, is by no means impossible. Similarly, Trade -Union officials should remember that their privileged position is -confined to a _trade dispute_, which, as specifically defined in the -Act, _does not include all strikes_; and what limits the Courts might -set to the phrase is uncertain. Moreover, the Trade Disputes Act does -not repeal other statutes; and Trade Union officials have been fined -for persuading sailors not to embark, in contravention of the Merchant -Shipping Acts. The Trade Disputes Act does not protect officials -committing illegalities other than those to which it expressly refers, -or under circumstances other than those indicated. See Valentine _v._ -Hyde (1919); Conway _v._ Wade (1908), A.C. 506; Larkin _v._ Belfast -Harbour Commissioners (1908), 2 Ir.K.B.D. 214; _Legal Position of Trade -Unions_, by H. H. Slesser and W. S. Clark, 1912. - -[662] A verbatim report of the proceedings (November 1908) in the Court -of Appeal in Osborne _v._ Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants was -published by the defendants (Unity House, Euston Road, London). The -House of Lords’ judgement was given on December 21, 1909, when it was -widely commented on. The most convenient analysis is that by Professor -W. M. Geldart, _The Osborne Judgment and After_, 1910, and _The Present -Law of Trade Disputes and Trade Unions_, 1914. See “The Osborne -Revolution,” by Sidney Webb, in _The English Review_ for January 1911; -and _My Case_, by W. V. Osborne, 1910. - -[663] _Political Theories of the Middle Ages_, by O. Gierke, with -introduction by F. W. Maitland, 1900; see also the works of J. N. -Figgis. - -[664] _Firma Burgi_, by T. Madox, 1726, pp. 50, 279. - -[665] _Conflicts of Capital and Labour_, by G. Howell, 1st edition, -1878, 2nd edition, 1890, p. 479. - -[666] It should be recorded, as an instance of the prescience of Sir -Charles Dilke, that he is reported to have declared at the time that -“the trade union Acts were spoilt during their passage through the -House by the insertion of obscure definition clauses” (_Conflicts of -Capital and Labour_, by G. Howell, 1890, p. 479). - -[667] Whewell, _History of Scientific Ideas_, vol. ii. p. 120; J. S. -Mill, _System of Logic_, vol. ii. p. 276. - -[668] George Howell, in his _Conflicts of Capital and Labour_, 1890, -gives a list, three pages long, of Acts which, as he expressly -testifies from personal knowledge, were promoted or supported by the -Trade Unions; and in his _Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and -Labour Leaders_, 1902, pp. 469-73, a still longer one. - -[669] _Industrial Democracy_, pp. 124, 251, 258-60. - -[670] _A Great Labour Leader_ [Thomas Burt], by Aaron Watson, 1908. - -[671] _Industrial Democracy_, by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, 1897, pp. -838-40. - -[672] For this reason the Trades Union Congress now refuses to -entertain any motion on this subject. - -[673] If the main object of a newspaper is political, any expenditure -by a Trade Union upon it (including the purchase of shares) is itself -political (Bennett _v._ National Amalgamated Society of Operative -Painters (1915), 31 T.L.R. 203). - -[674] 3 George V. c. 30. - -[675] “The average weekly earnings of railway servants, as given by the -Board of Trade, were lower in 1910 than in 1907” (_Trade Unionism on -the Railways_, by G. D. H. Cole and R. Page Arnot, 1917, pp. 21-22). - -[676] _The Legal Position of Trade Unions_, by H. H. Slesser and W. -Smith Clark, 2nd ed., 1914; _The Present Law of Trade Disputes and -Trade Unions_, by Professor W. M. Geldart, 1914; _Entwicklung des -Koalisationsrechts in England_, by G. Krojanker, 1914; _An Introduction -to Trade Union Law_, by H. H. Slesser, 1919; _The Law of Trade Unions_, -by H. H. Slesser and C. Baker (to be published in 1920). - -[677] Henry Broadhurst (Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons) was -Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (1885-86); and Thomas -Burt (Northumberland Miners’ Mutual Confident Society) Parliamentary -Secretary to the Board of Trade (1892-95). - -[678] For the facts as to Trade Unionism during the war, the most -convenient source is the _Labour Year Book_ for 1916 and 1919; see also -_Labour in War Time_, by G. D. H. Cole, 1915, and _Self-Government -in Industry_, by the same, 1917; the large number of Government -publications issued by the Local Government Board, the Board of Trade, -the Ministry of Labour, and especially the Ministry of Munitions, -together with the awards of the Committee on Production, most of -which are briefly noticed in the monthly _Labour Gazette_; the -monthly Circular (since 1917) of the Labour Research Department; the -unpublished monthly journal of the Ministry of Munitions; Reports -of the Trades Union Congress, 1915-19, and of the Labour Party -Conferences, 1914-19; publications of the War Emergency Workers’ -National Committee; _The Restoration of Trade Union Conditions_, by -Sidney Webb, 1916; _Women in the Engineering Trades_, by Barbara Drake, -1917. - -[679] _Compulsory Military Service and Industrial Conscription: what -they mean to the Workers_ (War Emergency Workers’ National Committee, -1915); _Memorandum on Industrial and Civil Liberties_ (Woolwich Joint -Committee on Problems arising from the War). - -[680] The Government seems to have hoodwinked the public into believing -that 80 per cent of all the excess profits was the same thing as 100 -per cent of the profits in excess of 20 per cent addition to the -pre-war profits. - -[681] _Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry_, Cmd. -135, 1919. The Minority Report by Mrs. Sidney Webb was republished by -the Fabian Society, under the title of _Men’s and Women’s Wages: Should -they be equal?_, 1919. - -[682] Restoration of Pre-War Practices Act, 1919 (9 and 10 George V. -c. 42). During the first year after the cessation of hostilities the -problem of restoration did not assume so acute a form as had been -expected. A large part of the new automatic machinery which had been -introduced in 1915-18 was found to have been greatly deteriorated -by excessive working and had to be scrapped; there was an immediate -demand for ordinary engineering work of the old type; and the British -employers did not, in fact, set themselves at once to apply “mass -production” to the making of steam engines and motor cars, agricultural -implements and machinery generally, nor make any dramatic advances -in its application to the production of sewing-machines, bicycles, -and electrical apparatus. During 1919: the extensive readaptation of -the machine-shops, and the great demand for new tools (especially -machine-tools) facilitated the absorption, often in new situations, of -all the skilled engineers. There was, accordingly, little difficulty -in finding employment at good wages for practically all the skilled -workmen, and (except for temporary dislocations arising in consequence -of the disputes in coalmining, ironfounding, and other trades) the -percentage of members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and -other Unions of skilled craftsmen remained throughout the year at a -minimum. The great bulk of the “dilutees,” including substantially all -the women, received their discharge on the cessation of their jobs -of “repetition work” on munitions of war, the employers preferring, -in face of the immediate demand, to avoid trouble, to revert to the -old methods and to get back their former staffs, rather than engage -in the hazardous enterprise of reorganising their factory methods. -Hence, taking the engineering industry as a whole, the men got back the -work from the women; though not without some attempts at resistance -by individual employers, which were not persisted in; and not without -leaving the total number of women employed in 1920 in what might be -deemed their own branches of the engineering industry apparently double -that of 1913. Many of the male “dilutees” on discharge also reverted -to other employment, but some proportion of them, who had acquired -skill, and were members of various Unions admitting semi-skilled -workers, found employment in engineering shops on particular machines -or in particular jobs. There has apparently been a continuous increase -in the proportion of machines demanding less than full skill (such -as milling machines and small turret lathes), and therefore of -“semi-skilled” men in employment, without (owing to the expansion of -the industry as a whole) any reduction in the number of skilled men. In -face of the great demand for output, and of the fact that hardly any -members of the skilled Unions were unemployed, this fact did not evoke -objection. The position as regards the Premium Bonus System or other -form of “Payment by Results” was left unchanged. Few, if any, legal -proceedings were actually taken against employers in the Munitions -Courts under the Restoration of Pre-War Practices Act. The employers -and the Government were, during the first half of the year, in a state -of alarm lest there should be a Labour uprising, which would seriously -interfere with the resumption of business; and great care was exercised -to avoid any disputes. Successive advances of wages were awarded to -meet the rising cost of living, and all rates were “stabilised” by -law, so as to prevent any employer from effecting a reduction, first -until May 20, 1919, then until November 20, 1919, and finally until -September 30, 1920; a new “Industrial Court” being set up by statute -(Industrial Courts Act 1919) empowered to give non-obligatory decisions -in any disputes that might be voluntarily referred to it--a measure -from which the Parliamentary Labour Party succeeded in eliminating -every implication of Compulsory Arbitration, Obligatory Awards, or -the Abrogation of the Right to Strike. But the difficulties are not -yet surmounted; and when there comes a slump in business, and skilled -engineers find themselves unemployed, the Government pledge will be -heard of again. - -[683] See this noted in the report of the Parliamentary Committee in -the _Annual Report of the Trades Union Congress_, 1917. - -[684] The “Whitley Report,” published early in 1917, when possibilities -of industrial and social “reconstruction” were much discussed, made -a great stir, which was increased by the definite endorsement of its -recommendations by the Government, and its energetic promotion of their -adoption throughout British industry. Whilst significantly abstaining -from any suggestion of “profit-sharing, co-partnership, or particular -systems of wages,” the Report emphasised the importance of (_a_) -“adequate organisation on the part of both employers and employed”; -(_b_) the imperative need for a greater opportunity of participating -in the discussion about and adjustment of “those parts of industry by -which they are most affected” of the work-people in each occupation; -(_c_) the subordination of any decisions to those of the Trade Unions -and Employers’ Associations. Among the subjects to be dealt with by -the hierarchy of National, District, and Works Councils or Committees -were: (i.) “the better utilisation of the practical knowledge and -experience of the work-people ... and for securing to them a greater -share in and responsibility for the determination and observance of the -conditions under which their work is carried on”; (ii.) “the settlement -of the general principles governing the conditions of employment ... -having regard to the need for securing to the work-people a share in -the increased prosperity of the industry”; (iii.) the methods to be -adopted for negotiations, adjusting wages, determining differences -and “ensuring to the work-people the greatest possible security of -earnings and employment”; (iv.) technical education, industrial -research, utilisation of inventions, and improvement of processes; -(v.) proposed legislation affecting the industry. After two years’ -propagandist effort, it seems (1920) as if the principal industries, -such as agriculture, transport, mining, cotton, engineering, or -shipbuilding are unlikely to adopt the scheme; but two or three score -trades have equipped themselves either with “Whitley Councils”--the -District Councils and Works Committees are much more slow to form--or -with “Interim Industrial Reconstruction Committees,” which may be -regarded as provisional Councils, in such industries as pottery, -house-building, woollen manufacture, hosiery, heavy chemicals, -furniture-making, bread-baking, match-making, metallic bedstead -manufacturing, saw-milling, and vehicle building. The Government found -itself constrained, after an obstinate resistance by the heads of -nearly all the departments, to institute the Councils throughout the -public service. We venture on the prediction that some such scheme -will commend itself in all nationalised or municipalised industries -and services, including such as may be effectively “controlled” by the -Government, though remaining nominally the property of the private -capitalist--possibly also in the Co-operative Movement; but that it is -not likely to find favour either in the well-organised industries (for -which alone it was devised) or in those in which there are Trade Boards -legally determining wages, etc.; or, indeed, permanently in any others -conducted under the system of capitalist profit-making. See the series -of “Whitley Reports,” Cd. 8606, 9001, 9002, 9085, 9099, and 9153; the -Industrial Reports, Nos. 1 to 4, of the Ministry of Reconstruction; -the able and well-informed article, “La politique de paix sociale -en Angleterre,” by Élie Halévy, in _Revue d’Économie Politique_, -No. 4 of 1919; _Recommendation on the Whitley Report put forward by -the Federation of British Industries_, 1917; _National Guilds or -Whitley Councils?_ (National Guilds League), 1918. For the “Builders’ -Parliament,” in many ways the most interesting of these Councils, -though as yet achieving only schemes in which the employers, as a -whole, do not concur, see _A Memorandum on Industrial Self-Government_, -by Malcolm Sparkes; _Masters and Men, a new Co-partnership_, by Thomas -Foster; and _The Industrial Council for the Building Industry_, by the -Garton Foundation, 1919. - -[685] It must be remembered that the conditions of the manual worker’s -life dealt with by the Trade Unions up to 1894 included a wide -range of material circumstances and moral considerations. Besides -the maintenance of standard rates and methods of remuneration, the -reduction of the normal day, and payment for overtime, we find -among the objects of Trade Unions, as reported to the Commission, -the prevention of stoppages from wages; the maintenance of the -apprenticeship system and the keeping out of the trade all who are -not qualified; the abolition of the character note; the prevention of -victimisation; the provision of legal assistance to members in respect -of compensation for accidents; the establishment of an agency through -which employers may obtain efficient men; watching over the proceedings -of local boards and law courts; the enforcement of the Factory Acts and -other protective legislative enactments; the improvement of dietary -scales and house and shop accommodation where workers have to live in; -the collection and circulation of information on trade matters; the -establishment of benefit funds for unemployment, disputes, sickness, -accidents and death; the assistance of members anxious to migrate -or emigrate; the establishment of “that reciprocal confidence which -is so essential between workmen and masters,” and the promotion of -arbitration and conciliation; the regulation of output; the promotion -of friendly intercourse with workers of other countries; the assistance -of other trades in times of difficulty; and political action--the -support of Parliamentary and Municipal Labour candidates, of Trades -Councils, of the Trades Union Congress, and of Labour newspapers. -Some Unions decide to promote co-operative enterprise, “to secure the -legal recognition of the natural rights of labourers to the produce of -their toil,” whilst others promote the “moral, social, intellectual -and professional advancement” of the working class. “Trade Societies,” -state the rules of the Associated Shipwrights, “must be maintained as -the guard of workmen against capitalists until some higher effort of -productive co-operation has been inaugurated which shall secure to -workers a more equitable share of the product of labour.” - -[686] _Minutes of Evidence, Royal Commission on Labour_: “Report of -Evidence from Co-operative Societies and Public Officials,” 1893, C -7063-1 (Q 2098, 2117-8). - -Mr. Tom Mann was also in favour of the Consumers’ Co-operative -Movement, and had in those days a distinct bias for legal enactment -over direct action in determining the conditions of employment. “I -should have said,” he stated in the witness-chair, “that I, as a Trade -Unionist, am of opinion that in my capacity of citizen I have just -as full a right to use Parliament for the general betterment of the -conditions of the workers, of whom I am one, as I have to use the -Trade Union; and when I could use the institution of Parliament to do -that constructive work that I sometimes use the Trade Union for, and -could use Parliament more effectively than I could the Trade Union, -then I should favour the use of Parliament, not necessarily in order -to enforce men to do something which they might not wish to do, but -because it was the more effective instrument to use to bring about -changed conditions” (_Ibid._ Q 2531). - -[687] An interesting sidelight is afforded by the reprobation by the -German Social Democratic Party, in 1894, of Eduard Bernstein for -translating our _History of Trade Unionism_, on the ground that Trade -Unionism had no place in the Socialist State, and that it was needless -to trouble about it! - -[688] See, for convenient summaries, _Syndicalism in France_, by Louis -Levine, 1911, and _What Syndicalism Means_, by S. and B. Webb, 1912; -see also _American Syndicalism_, by J. Graham Brooks, 1913. - -[689] _Socialism made Easy_, by James Connolly, 1905, pp. 13, 16-17. - -[690] _The Miners’ Next Step_, 1912. - -[691] _The Syndicalist_, January 1912. Column entitled, “What we -Syndicalists are after” (by Tom Mann). - -[692] _The Industrial Syndicalist_, March 1911. “The Weapon Shaping” -(by Tom Mann; p. 5). - -[693] _Ibid._, April 1911. “A Twofold Warning” (by Tom Mann). We are -concerned, in this volume, only with the effect of these new movements -of working-class thought upon British Trade Unionism, and this is not -the occasion for any complete appreciation of Syndicalism or Industrial -Unionism. The Syndicalist Movement in this country had died down -prior to the war, but the Industrial Unionist Movement simmered on in -the Clyde district and in South Wales. Its chief organisation is the -Socialist Labour Party, which is not, and has never been, connected -either with any other Socialist organisation in this country or with -the Labour Party that is described in the next chapter. It was, we -think, the moving spirits of the Socialist Labour Party who were, as -Trade Unionist workmen, mainly responsible for the aggressive action -of the Clyde Workers Committee between 1915 and 1918, and also for -the rise of the Shop Stewards Movement, and for its spread from the -Clyde to English engineering centres. At the present moment (1920) the -Socialist Labour Party, owing to the personal qualities of its leading -spirits, J. T. Murphy and A. MacManus, holds the leading position -in this school of thought, which received a great impulse from the -accession of Lenin to power in Russia. But it remains a ferment rather -than a statistically important element in the Trade Union world. - -[694] The revival of the Owenite proposal to develop existing Trade -Unions into great Associations of Producers for the carrying on of -each industry must be attributed perhaps to Mr. A. J. Penty (_The -Restoration of the Gild System_, 1906), or to Mr. A. R. Orage, aided -by Mr. S. G. Hobson, in a series of articles in _The New Age_, 1911 -(afterwards published in a volume, _National Guilds_, 1913, edited by -A. R. Orage). But _The New Age_ had a limited circulation in the Trade -Union world, and the plan proposed was not worked out in detail. The -idea was afterwards developed by Mr. G. D. H. Cole and his associates, -and widely promulgated in the Trade Union world. An organisation for -this propaganda, the National Guilds’ League, was started in 1915, and -has now a membership of several hundred, amongst whom are included -some of the younger leaders of the Trade Union Movement. It publishes -a monthly, _The Guildsman_, edited by Mr. and Mrs. G. D. H. Cole. -The various books by Mr. Cole--especially _The World of Labour_, -_Self-Government in Industry_, and _Labour in the Commonwealth_--should -also be consulted. - -[695] _N.U.R. Agenda and Decisions of the Annual General Meeting_, June -1914, p. 7. - -[696] The resolution runs as follows: “That in view of the success -which, in spite of unparalleled difficulties, has attended the -working of the railways under State control, this Congress urge the -Parliamentary Congress to press the Government to arrange for the -complete nationalisation of all the railways, and to place them under -a Minister of Railways, who shall be responsible to Parliament, and -_be assisted by national and local advisory committees, upon which the -organised railway workers shall be adequately represented_” (_Trades -Union Congress Annual Report_, 1917, p. 345). - -[697] _Postal and Telegraph Record_, May 22, 1919, p. 237. - -[698] _Ibid._ - -[699] _The Nationalisation of Mines Bill_ (Fabian Tract, No. 171, 1913). - -[700] The Nationalisation of Mines and Minerals Bill, 1919, given -in full in _Further Facts from the Coal Commission_, by R. Page -Arnot, 1919. The Miners’ Federation Conference of 1918 had passed the -following resolution: “That in the opinion of this Conference the -time has arrived in the history of the coal-mining industry when it -is clearly in the national interests to transfer the entire industry -from private ownership and control to State ownership with joint -control and administration by the workmen and the State. In pursuance -of this opinion the National Executive be instructed to immediately -reconsider the draft Bill for the Nationalisation of the Mines ... in -the light of the newer phases of development in the industry, so as -to make provision for the aforesaid joint control and administration -when the measure becomes law; further, a Conference be called at an -early date to receive a report from the Executive Committee upon the -draft proposals and to determine the best means of co-operating with -the National Labour Party to ensure the passage of a new Bill into -law” (_Report of Annual Conference of the Miners’ Federation of Great -Britain_, July 9, 1918, p. 44). - -[701] At the end of our chapter on the “Method of Collective -Bargaining” we cursorily dealt with the strike as a necessary incident -of collective bargaining: “It is impossible to deny that the perpetual -liability to end in a strike or a lock-out is a grave drawback to the -Method of Collective Bargaining. So long as the parties to a bargain -are free to agree or not to agree, it is inevitable that, human -nature being as it is, there should now and again come a deadlock, -leading to that trial of strength and endurance which lies behind all -bargaining. We know of no device for avoiding this trial of strength -except a deliberate decision of the community expressed in legislative -enactment” (_Industrial Democracy_, p. 221). - -[702] See, for instance, _Trade Unionism New and Old_, by George -Howell, 1891. - -[703] Mr. G. H. Roberts (Typographical Society), then Parliamentary -Secretary to the Board of Trade; and Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, Treasurer -of the Labour Party. - -[704] The Rt. Hon. Arthur Henderson (Friendly Society of Ironfounders), -and M. Camille Huysmans, Secretary of the International Socialist -Congress. - -[705] These extracts from a speech by Mr. Hodges are put together -from the separate imperfect reports in the _Times_, _Daily News_, and -_Daily Herald_ of October 27, 1919. A more explicit statement of Mr. -Hodges’ views will be found in his speech at the Annual Conference -of the Miners’ Federation in July 1918: “For the last two or three -years a new movement has sprung up in the labour world which deals -with the question of joint control of the industry by representatives -from the side which represents, for the most part, the consumer, and -representatives of the workmen, who are the producers. Nationalisation -in the old sense is no longer attractive. As a matter of fact, you can -have nationalisation, but still be in no better position than you are -now under private ownership. That is the experience of institutions -which have been State owned and State controlled for many years. The -most remarkable scheme worked out during the last year is the theory -worked out by the ... Postmen’s Federation. He has endeavoured to -provide a scheme by which the postal workers should have a definite -amount of control, a definite form of control, in the postal service, -and in working it out he has demonstrated beyond all doubt how at every -point he is up against the power of the bureaucrats, as exemplified -by the State. Now, is it any good to have these mines nationalised -unless we are going to exercise some form of control as producers? If -not, the whole tendency will be towards the power of bureaucracy. We -shall be given no status at all in the industry, except to be the mere -producers, as we have been in the past years. Under State ownership -the workmen should be desirous of having something more than the mere -question of wages or the mere consideration of employment; the workmen -should have some directive power in the industry in which they are -engaged. Now, how are we going to have this directive power under -State control? I think we must admit that the side representing the -consumers (the State) should have some form of control on property -which will be State property, and when a national industry becomes -State controlled you must have permanent officials to look after the -consumers’ interests, and from the purely producers’ point of view -the Miners’ Federation must represent the producers in the central -authority and in the decentralised authority, right down to the -separate collieries. Are we ready to do this? Are we prepared for this, -starting at the separate collieries, indicating how the industry is to -be developed locally? Men must take their share in understanding all -the relations embodied in the export side of the trade; they must take -a share even in controlling the banking arrangements which govern the -financial side of the industry, and with that comes a very great deal -of responsibility. Now, are we prepared to assume that responsibility, -a responsibility which is implied in the term workmen’s control? It is -going to be a big task and a test of the educational attainments of the -miners themselves if they assume control of the industry, and if it did -not thrive under that control there is the possibility we should have -to hark back to private ownership in order to make it successful.... -I hold these views, and unless they are accompanied by an effective -form of working-class control, I do not believe that nationalisation -will do any good for anybody” (_Report of Annual Conference of the -Miners’ Federation of Great Britain, July 9, 1918_, pp. 49-51). - -[706] Report of the Committee on Combinations and Trusts, 1919. - - - - -CHAPTER XI - -POLITICAL ORGANISATION - -[1900-1920] - - -Fifty years ago, when Professor Brentano described the British Trade -Union Movement with greater knowledge and insight than any one else -had then shown,[707] nothing seemed more unlikely than that the -Movement would become organised as an independent political party, -appealing to the whole electorate on a general programme, returning -its own contingent of members to the House of Commons, and asserting -a claim, as soon as that contingent should become the strongest party -in Parliament, to constitute a national administration. For nearly a -quarter of a century more, as we have described in a previous chapter, -though Trade Unionism was making itself slowly more and more felt in -politics, it was still possible for economists and statesmen to believe -that “Labour” in Great Britain would organise only to maintain its -sectional industrial interests, and that it would impinge on politics, -if at all, only occasionally, in defence of Trade Unionism itself, -or in support of some particular project of industrial law. By 1894, -when the first edition of this book was published, there was already -manifest, as we then stated, a great shifting of Trade Union opinion on -the - - “pressing question of the position to be taken by the - Trade Union world in the party struggles of To-day and the - politics of To-morrow. In our chapter on ‘The Old Unionism - and the New,’ we described the rapid conversion of the - superior workman to the general principles of Collectivism. - This revolution of opinion in the rank and file has been - followed by a marked change of front on the part of the - salaried officials, and by a growing distrust of the - aristocratic and middle-class representatives of both the - great political parties. To the working-man politician - of 1894 it seems inconceivable that either landlords or - capitalists will actively help him to nationalise land and - mining royalties, to absorb unearned incomes by taxation, - or to control private enterprise in the interests of the - wage-earner. Thus we find throughout the whole Trade Union - world an almost unanimous desire to make the working-class - organisations in some way effective for political purposes. - Nor is this a new thing. The sense of solidarity has, as we - have seen, never been lacking among those active soldiers - and non-commissioned officers who constitute the most - vital element in the Trade Union army. The generous aid - from trade to trade, the pathetic attempts to form General - Unions, the constant aspirations after universal federation, - all testify to the reality and force of this instinctive - solidarity. The Collectivist faith of the ‘New Unionism’ is - only another manifestation of the same deep-rooted belief in - the essential Brotherhood of Labour. But, as we have seen, - the basis of the association of these million and a half - wage-earners is, primarily, sectional in its nature. They - come together, and contribute their pence, for the defence - of their interests as Boilermakers, Miners, Cotton-spinners, - and not directly for the advancement of the whole working - class. Among the salaried officers of the Unions, it is, - as we have said, the Trade Official, chosen and paid for - the express purpose of maintaining the interests of his own - particular trade, who is the active force. The effect has - been to intensify the sectionalism to which an organisation - based on trades must necessarily be prone. The vague - general Collectivism of the non-commissioned officers has - hitherto got translated into practical proposals only in so - far as it can be expressed in projects for the advantage - of a particular trade. Some organised trades have known - how to draft and to extort from Parliament a voluminous - Labour Code, the provisions of which are exceptionally - well adapted for the protection of the particular workers - concerned. The ‘particulars clause’[708] and the law against - the ‘over-steaming’ of weaving sheds are, for instance, - triumphs of collective control which could hardly have been - conceived by any one except the astute trade officials of - the Cotton Operatives. But there is no attempt to deal with - any question as a whole. Trade Unionists are, for instance, - unanimously in favour of drastic legislation to put down - ‘sweating’ in all trades whatsoever. But no salaried officer - of the Trade Union world feels it to be his business to - improve the Labour Code for any industry but his own. Thus, - whereas the Factory Acts have been effectively elaborated to - meet the special circumstances of a few trades, for all the - rest they remain in the form of merely general prohibitions - which it is practically impossible to enforce. How far it is - possible, by the development of Trades Councils, the reform - of the Trades Union Congress, the increased efficiency of - the Parliamentary Committee, the growth of Trade Union - representation in the House of Commons, or, finally, by the - creation of any new federal machinery, to counteract the - fundamental sectionalism of Trade Union organisation, to - supplement the specialised trade officials by an equally - specialised Civil Service of working-class politicians, - and thus to render the Trade Union world, with its million - of electors, and its leadership of Labour, an effective - political force in the State, is, on the whole, the most - momentous question of contemporary politics.”[709] - -The quarter of a century that has elapsed since these words were -written has seen an extensive political development of the Trade Union -Movement, taking the form of building up a separate and independent -party of “Labour” in the House of Commons, which we have now to -record.[710] - -The continued propaganda of the Socialists, and of others who wished to -see the Trade Union Movement become an effective political force, which -we have described as active from 1884 onwards, did not, for nearly a -couple of decades, produce a political “Labour Party.” So strong was -at that time the resistance of most of the Trade Union leaders to any -participation of their societies in general politics, even on the lines -of complete independence of both Liberal and Conservative Parties, -that “Labour Representation” had still, for some years, to be fought -for apart from Trade Unionism. The leaders, indeed, did not really -care about Trade Union influence in the House of Commons.[711] Many -of them, as we have described, remained for a whole generation averse -even from legal regulation of the conditions of employment. In national -politics they were mostly Liberals, with the strongest possible -admiration for Gladstone and Bright; or else (as in Lancashire) -convinced Conservatives, concerned to defend the Church of England or -Roman Catholic elementary schools in which their children were being -educated or carried away by the glamour of an Imperialist foreign -policy. They asked for nothing more than a few working-class members in -the House of Commons, belonging to one or other of the “respectable” -parties, to which they could thus obtain access for the adjustment of -any matters in which their societies happened to be interested. - -In 1887, at his first appearance at the Trades Union Congress, J. Keir -Hardie,[712] representing a small Union of Ayrshire Miners, demanded a -new start. He called upon the Trade Unionists definitely to sever their -connection with the existing political parties, by which the workmen -were constantly befooled and betrayed, and insisted on the necessity -of forming an entirely independent party of Labour, to which the whole -working-class movement should rally. On the Congress he produced no -apparent effect.[713] But, six months later, when a Parliamentary -vacancy occurred in Mid-Lanark, Keir Hardie was nominated, against -Liberal and Tory alike, on the principle of entire independence; and -in spite of every effort to induce him to withdraw,[714] he went to -the poll, obtaining only 619 votes. A society was then formed to -work for independent Labour representation, under the designation of -the Scottish Labour Party, having for chairman Mr. R. B. Cunninghame -Graham, M.P., who had been elected as a Liberal but who had become a -Socialist. The “new spirit” of 1889, which we have described, put heart -into the movement for political independence; and after much further -propaganda by the Socialists,[715] at the General Election of 1892 Keir -Hardie was elected for West Ham, avowedly as the first member of an -independent Party of Labour; together with fourteen other workmen,[716] -whose independence of the Liberal Party, even where it was claimed, -was less marked than their obvious jealousy of Keir Hardie. There was -apparently still no hope of gaining the adherence of the Trade Unions -as such; and at the Glasgow Trades Union Congress of 1892 arrangements -were made by a few of the delegates to hold a smaller conference, which -took place at Bradford, in 1893, under the chairmanship of Keir Hardie, -when those who were determined to establish a separate political party -formed a society, made up of individual adherents, which was styled the -Independent Labour Party. In this the Scottish Labour Party was merged, -but it remained without the affiliation of Trade Unions in their -corporate capacity. The Independent Labour Party, of which throughout -his life Keir Hardie was the outstanding figure, carried on a strenuous -propagandist campaign, and during the next two years put up independent -candidates at by-elections, with uniform ill-success. At the General -Election of 1895, no fewer than twenty-eight “I.L.P.” candidates -went to the poll, every one of them (including Keir Hardie himself -at West Ham) being unsuccessful. With two or three exceptions, the -Trade Unionist members in alliance with the Liberal Party successfully -maintained their seats. The establishment of an aggressively -independent Labour Party in Parliament still looked hopeless. - -With the new century an effort was made on fresh lines. The continuous -propaganda had had its effect, even on the Trades Union Congress. -In 1898 it could be suggested in the presidential address[717] that -a “committee should be appointed to draft a scheme of political -organisation for the Trade Union world on the ground that just as -trades federation is a matter of vital necessity for industrial -organisation, so also will a scheme of political action be of vital -necessity if we wish Parliament to faithfully register the effect of -the industrial revolution on our social life.” The very next year a -resolution--which had been drafted in London by the members of the -Independent Labour Party--was carried on the motion of the Amalgamated -Society of Railway Servants, against the votes of the miners as well as -of the textile workers, directing the convening of a special congress -representing Trade Unions, Co-operative Societies, and Socialist -organisations, in order to devise means of increasing the number of -Labour members.[718] It was urged on the Parliamentary Committee that -the Socialist organisations had a right to be strongly represented on -the proposed Committee; and the Parliamentary Committee, which had no -faith in the scheme and attached little importance to it, nominated -four of its members (S. Woods, W. C. Steadman, R. Bell, and W. Thorne), -all of whom afterwards became Members of Parliament, to sit with two -representatives each from the Independent Labour Party (Keir Hardie -and J. Ramsay MacDonald), the Fabian Society (G. Bernard Shaw and E. -R. Pease), and the Social Democratic Federation (H. Quelch and H. R. -Taylor). This Committee took the business into its own hands, and drew -up a constitution, upon a federal basis, for a “Labour Representation -Committee,” as an independent organisation, including Trade Unions -and Trades Councils, along with Co-operative and Socialist Societies; -and in February 1900 a specially summoned congress, attended by 129 -delegates, representing Trade Unions aggregating half a million -members, and Socialist societies claiming fewer than seventy thousand, -adopted the draft constitution, established the new body, appointed its -first executive, and gave it, in Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, not merely -its first secretary but also a skilful organiser, to whose patient and -persistent effort no small part of its subsequent success has been due. - -For two years the Labour Representation Committee, in spite of diligent -propaganda among Trade Union Executives, seemed to hang fire. The -General Election of 1900 found it unprepared; and, though it put -fifteen candidates in the field, only two of them were successful. -No Co-operative Society joined; the Social Democratic Federation -withdrew; scarcely a score of Trades Councils were enrolled; and though -sixty-five separate Trade Unions gradually adhered--being only about -five or six per cent of the total number--the aggregate affiliated -membership of the Party did not reach half a million. Then the tide -turned, mainly through the rally of Trade Unionism as it became aware -of the full implications of the assault upon it made by the decision in -the Taff Vale case, which we have already described. The miners stood -aloof only because they preferred to use their own organisation. In -1901 the Miners’ Federation voted a levy of a penny per month on all -its membership in order to create a Parliamentary Fund; and the running -of as many as seventy candidates was then talked about. During the year -1902 the number of adhering Trade Unions and Trades Councils, and the -total affiliated membership, were alike practically doubled. In the -next two years the Committee contested no fewer than six Parliamentary -by-elections, returning its members in half of them.[719] Meanwhile -the Conservative Government obstinately refused to allow legislation -restoring to Trade Unions the statutory status of 1871-76, of which -the judges’ decision in the Taff Vale case had deprived them. Careful -preparation was accordingly made for a successful appeal to Trade -Unionists at the General Election which was approaching; and when -it came, in January 1906, no fewer than fifty independent Labour -candidates were put in the field against Liberals and Conservatives -alike. To the general surprise of the political world, as many as -twenty-nine of these were successful; besides a dozen other workmen, -mostly miners, who again stood with Liberal Party support and were -still regarded as belonging to that Party. The twenty-nine at once -formed themselves into, and were recognised as, a separate independent -party in the House of Commons, with its own officers and whips, -concerned to push its own programme irrespective of the desires and -convenience of the other political parties. At the same time the Labour -Representation Committee changed its name to the Labour Party. - -We need not concern ourselves with the Parliamentary struggles of the -next three years, during which the Parliamentary Labour Party may claim -to have indirectly secured the passage, as Government measures, of the -Trade Disputes Act, the Miners’ Eight Hours Act, and the Trade Boards -Act, and to have developed something like a Parliamentary programme. -It suffered, however, in the Trade Union world, from its inevitable -failure to impress its will on the triumphant Liberal majority of -these years. What saved the Labour Party from decline, and gave it -indeed fresh impetus in the Trade Union movement, was the renewed legal -assault on Trade Unionism itself, which in 1909, as we have described, -culminated in the Osborne Judgement of the highest Appeal Court, by -which the Trade Unions were prohibited from applying any of their -funds to political activities and to the support of the Labour Party -in particular. The refusal of the Liberal Government for four whole -years to remedy this gross miscarriage of justice though conscious that -it was not permanently defensible; and the unconcealed desire of the -Liberal Party politicians to put the Labour Party out of action as an -independent political force, swung over to its side the great bulk of -active Trade Unionists, including many, especially in Lancashire, who -had hitherto counted to the Conservative Party. By 1913, in spite of a -large number of injunctions restraining Trade Unions from affiliating, -the Labour Party could count on a membership of nearly two millions, -and this number has since steadily grown. The two General Elections -of 1910, though dominated by other issues, left the Parliamentary -Labour Party unshaken; whilst the accession to the Party of the Miners’ -members raised its Parliamentary strength to forty-two. Payment of -members was secured in 1911, and the Mines (Minimum Wage) Act in 1912, -but not until 1913 could the Government be induced to pass into law -the Trade Union Act, which once more permitted Trade Unions to engage -in any lawful purposes that their members desired. This concession -was, even then, made subject to any objecting member being enabled -to withhold that part of his contribution applicable to political -purposes--an illogical restriction, because it applied only to the -dissentient’s tiny fraction of money, and he was not empowered to -prevent the majority of members from using the indivisible corporate -power of the Union itself. This restriction, not put upon any other -corporate body, was universally believed to have been imposed, in the -assumed interest of the Liberal Party, with the object of crippling -the political influence of Trade Unionism; and is still bitterly -resented.[720] - -Whilst it was very largely the successive assaults on Trade Unionism -itself that built up the Labour Party, the ultimate defeat of these -assaults, the concession of Payment of Members, and the attainment of -legal security by the Trade Union Act of 1913, did nothing to stay its -progress. At the same time, the injunctions of the years 1909-12, -and the fear of litigation, together with a certain disillusionment -with Parliamentary action among the rank and file, led to the gradual -falling away of some Trade Unions, mostly of comparatively small -membership. The very basis of the Labour Party, upon which alone it -has proved possible to build up a successful political force--the -combination, within a political federation, of Trade Unions having -extensive membership and not very intense political energy, and -Socialist societies of relatively scanty membership but overflowing -with political talent and zeal--necessarily led to complications. It -needed all the tact and patient persuasion of the leaders of both -sections to convince the Socialists that their ideals and projects were -not being sacrificed to the stolidity and the prejudices of the mass of -Trade Unionists; and at the same time to explain to the Trade Unionists -how valuable was the aid of the knowledge, eloquence, and Parliamentary -ability contributed by such Socialist representatives as Keir Hardie, -Philip Snowden, J. Ramsay MacDonald, and W. C. Anderson. Moreover, the -complications and difficulties of Parliamentary action in a House of -Commons where the Government continuously possessed a solid majority; -the political necessity of supporting the Liberal Party Bills relating -to the Budget and the House of Lords, and of not playing into the hands -of a still more reactionary Front Opposition Bench, were not readily -comprehended by the average workman. What the militants in the country -failed to allow for was the impotence of a small Parliamentary section -to secure the adoption of its own policy by a Parliamentary majority. -But it is, we think, now admitted that it was a misfortune that the -Parliamentary Labour Party of these years never managed to put before -the country the large outlines of an alternative programme based on the -Party’s conception of a new social order, eliminating the capitalist -profit-maker wherever possible, and giving free scope to communal and -industrial Democracy--notably with regard to the administration of -the railways and the mines, the prevention of Unemployment, and also -the provision for the nation’s non-effectives, which the Government -dealt with so unsatisfactorily in the National Insurance Act of 1911. -The failure of the Parliamentary Labour Party between 1910 and 1914 -to strike the imagination of the Trade Union world led to a certain -reaction against political action as such, and to a growing doubt among -the active spirits as to the value of a Labour Party which did not -succeed in taking vigorous independent action, either in Parliament -or on the platform and in the press, along the lines of changing the -existing order of society. A like failure to strike the imagination -characterised _The Daily Citizen_--the organ which the Labour Party and -the Trade Union Movement had established with such high hopes--and its -inability to gain either intellectual influence or adequate circulation -did not lighten the somewhat gloomy atmosphere of the Labour Party -councils of 1913-14.[721] This reaction did not appreciably affect the -numerical and financial strength of the Labour Party itself, as the -relatively few withdrawals of Unions were outweighed by the steady -increase in membership of the hundred principal Unions which remained -faithful, by the accession of other Unions, and by the continual -increase in the number and strength of the affiliated Trades Councils -and Local Labour Parties. But the reaction in Trade Union opinion -weakened the influence of the members of the Parliamentary Party, -alike in the House of Commons and in their own societies. A wave of -“Labour Unrest,” of “Syndicalism,” of “rank and file movements” for -a more aggressive Trade Unionism, of organisation by “shop stewards” -in opposition to national executives, and of preference for “Direct -Action” over Parliamentary procedure swept over British Trade Unionism, -affecting especially the London building trades, the South Wales -Miners, and the engineering and shipbuilding industry on the Clyde. -The impetuous strikes in 1911-13 of the Railwaymen, the Coal-miners, -the Transport Workers, and the London Building Trades, which we have -already described, were influenced, partly, by this new spirit. The -number of disputes reported to the Labour Department, which had sunk -in 1908 to only 399, rose in 1911 to 903, and culminated in the latter -half of 1913 and the first half of 1914 in the outbreak of something -like a hundred and fifty strikes per month. British Trade Unionism was, -in fact, in the summer of 1914, working up for an almost revolutionary -outburst of gigantic industrial disputes, which could not have failed -to be seriously embarrassing for the political organisation to which -the movement had committed itself, when, in August 1914, war was -declared, and all internal conflict had perforce to be suspended. - -During the war (1914-18) the task of the Labour Party was one of -exceptional difficulty. It had necessarily to support the Government in -a struggle of which five-sixths of its Parliamentary representatives -and probably nine-tenths of its aggregate membership approved. The very -gravity of the national crisis compelled the Party to abstain from any -action that would have weakened the country’s defence. On the other -hand, the three successive Administrations that held office during the -war were all driven by their needs, as we have already described, to -impose upon the wage-earners cruel sacrifices, and to violate, not -once but repeatedly, all that Organised Labour in Britain held dear. -The Party could not refrain, at whatever cost of misconstruction, from -withstanding unjustifiable demands by the Government;[722] protesting -against its successive breaches of faith to the Trade Unions; demanding -the conditions in the forthcoming Treaty of Peace that, as could be -already foreseen, would be necessary to protect the wage-earning class; -standing up for the scandalously ill-used “conscientious objectors,” -and doing its best to secure, in the eventual demobilisation and -social reconstruction, the utmost possible protection of the mass of -the people against Unemployment and “Profiteering.” In all this the -Labour Party earned the respect of the most thoughtful Trade Unionists, -but necessarily exposed itself to a constant stream of newspaper -misrepresentation and abuse. Any opposition or resistance to the -official demands was inevitably misrepresented as, and mistaken for, an -almost treasonable “Pacifism” or “Defeatism”--a misunderstanding of the -attitude of the Party to which colour was lent by the persistence and -eloquence with which the small Pacifist Minority within the Party--a -minority which, it must be said, included some of the most talented -and active of its leading members in the House of Commons--used every -opportunity publicly to denounce the Government’s conduct in the war. -But although the Pacifist Group in Parliament was strenuously supported -in the country by the relatively small but extremely active constituent -society of the Labour Party styled The Independent Labour Party--the -very name helping the popular misunderstanding--the Trade Unionists, -forming the vast majority of the Labour Party, remained, with extremely -few exceptions, grimly determined at all costs to win the war. - -If Organised Labour had been against the war, it is safe to say that -the national effort could not have been maintained. The need for the -formal association of the Labour Party with the Administration was -recognised by Mr. Asquith in 1915, when he formed the first Coalition -Cabinet, into which he invited the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour -Party, Mr. Arthur Henderson (Friendly Society of Ironfounders), who -became President of the Board of Education. Later on, in 1916, Mr. G. -N. Barnes (Amalgamated Society of Engineers) was appointed to the new -office of Minister of Pensions. When, in December 1916, Mr. Asquith -resigned, and Mr. Lloyd George formed a new Coalition Government, Mr. -Henderson entered the small War Cabinet that was then formed, with -the nominal office of Paymaster-General; whilst Mr. Barnes continued -Minister of Pensions, Mr. John Hodge (British Steel Smelters’ Society) -was appointed to the new office of Minister of Labour, and three other -members of the Party (Mr. W. Brace, South Wales Miners; Mr. G. H. -Roberts, Typographical Society; and Mr. James Parker, National Union of -General Workers) received minor ministerial posts.[723] - -Throughout the whole period of the war all the several demands of -the Government upon the organised workers, the abrogation of “Trade -Union Conditions” in all industries working for war needs, the first -and second Munitions of War Acts, the subversion of individual liberty -by the successive orders under the Defence of the Realm Acts, the -successive applications of the Military Service Acts, the imposition -of what was practically Compulsory Arbitration to settle the rates -of wages--were accepted, though only after serious protest, by large -majorities at the various Conferences of the Labour Party, as well as -by the various annual Trades Union Congresses,[724] in spite of the -resistance of minorities, including more than “pacifists.” The entry of -Mr. Henderson into Mr. Asquith’s first Coalition Government, and that -of Mr. Barnes into Mr. Lloyd George’s War Cabinet, together with the -acceptance of ministerial office by other leading members of the Labour -Party--though any such ministerial coalition was in flagrant violation -of the very principles of its existence, and was strenuously combated -on grounds of expediency by many of its members who loyally supported -the war--equally received the endorsement of large majorities at the -Party Conferences. From the beginning of the war to the end, the Labour -Party, alike in all its corporate acts and by the individual efforts of -its leading members (other than the minority already mentioned), stuck -at nothing in its determination to help the Government to win the war. - -More controversial were the persistent efforts made by the Labour -Party to maintain its international relations with the Labour and -Socialist Movements of Continental Europe. From the first it was seen -to be important to get the representatives of the Trade Unions and -Socialist organisations of the Allied Nations, and not merely their -Governments, united in a declaration of the aims and the justification -of a war that was everywhere outraging working-class idealism. Such a -unanimity was successfully achieved in February 1915 at a conference, -held in London at the instance of the Labour Party, of delegates -from the working-class organisations of France, Belgium, and Great -Britain, with Russian representatives, then allied in arms against -the Central Empires.[725] Later on, when a Minority Party had been -formed among the German Socialists, and when the Austrian and Hungarian -working-class Movements were also in revolt against the militarism of -their Government, repeated efforts were made by the Labour Party to -encourage this revolt, and for this purpose to obtain the necessary -Government facilities for a meeting, in some neutral city, of the -working-class “International,” at which the Allied Case could be laid -before the neutrals, and a basis found for united action with all -the working-class elements in opposition to the dominant military -Imperialism. After the Russian revolution of March 1917, the Petrograd -Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Council actually issued an invitation for a -working-class “International” at Stockholm; and the participation -of the British Labour Party in this International Congress, which -was not then favoured by Mr. Henderson, received at one time no -small support from the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George. In the end -the Government despatched Mr. Henderson on an official mission to -Petrograd (incidentally empowering him, if he thought fit, to remain -there as Ambassador at £8000 a year). Meanwhile the proposal for an -International Congress had been modified, first into one for a purely -consultative gathering, and then into one for a series of separate -interviews between a committee of neutrals and the representatives of -each of the belligerents in turn, with a view to discovering a possible -basis for peace--a project to which Mr. Henderson, from what he learnt -at Petrograd, was converted. A National Conference of the Labour -Party in August 1917 approved of participation in such a Congress at -Stockholm; but the French and Italian Governments would not hear of -it, and Mr. Lloyd George went back on his prior approval, absolutely -declining to allow passports to be issued. Amid great excitement, and -under circumstances of insult and indignity which created resentment -among the British working class, Mr. Henderson felt obliged to tender -his resignation of his place in the War Cabinet, in which he was -succeeded by Mr. Barnes, who was getting more and more out of sympathy -with the majority of the Party.[726] The Labour Party Executive, in -alliance with the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, -then applied itself to getting agreement among the Labour and Socialist -Movements of the Allied Nations as to the lines on which--assuming -an Allied victory--the terms of peace should be drawn, in order to -avert as much as possible of the widespread misery which, it could be -foreseen, must necessarily fall upon the wage-earning class. In this -effort, in which Mr. Henderson displayed great tact and patience, he -had the implicit sanction of the British Government, and, with some -reluctance, also of the Governments of the other Allied Nations by whom -the necessary passports were issued for an Inter-Allied Conference in -London in August 1917, which was abortive; for provisional discussions -at Paris in February 1918; and for a second Inter-Allied Conference -at the end of the same month in London, which resulted in a virtually -unanimous agreement upon what should be the terms of peace,[727] on a -basis already approved on December 28, 1917, by a Joint Conference of -the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party, and widely published -all over the world. The terms thus agreed were, in fact, immediately -adopted in outline in a public deliverance by Mr. Lloyd George as those -on which Germany could have peace at any time; and the same proposals -were promptly made the basis of President Wilson’s celebrated “Fourteen -Points” on which eventually (but only after another ten months’ costly -war) the Armistice of November 11, 1918, was concluded. Profound was -the disappointment, and bitter the resentment, of the greater part of -the organised Labour Movement of Great Britain when it was revealed how -seriously the diplomatists at the Paris Conference had departed from -these terms in the Treaty of Peace which was imposed on the Central -Empires.[728] - -We have already attempted to sum up the effect of the Great War on -the industrial status of Trade Unionism. It is more difficult to -estimate its effect on the political organisation of the movement. The -outbreak of the war had found the Labour Party, in the see-saw of Trade -Union opinion to which we have elsewhere referred, suffering from an -inevitable disillusionment among Trade Unionists as to the immediate -potency of Parliamentary representation--a disillusionment manifested -in the outbreak of rebellious strikes that characterised the years -1911-14. The achievements of the Labour Party in the House of Commons -had fallen short of the eager hopes with which the new party had raised -its standard on its triumphant entry in 1906. In 1914, it may be said, -the Labour Party was at a dead point. The effect upon it of the Great -War was to raise it in proportion to the height of the vastly greater -issues with which it was compelled to deal. Amid the stress of war, -and of the intensely controversial decisions which it had necessarily -to take, the Labour Party revised its constitution, widened its aims, -opened its ranks to the “workers by brain” as well as the workers by -hand, and received the accession of many thousands of converts from -the Liberal and Conservative Parties. It made great progress in its -difficult task of superimposing, on an organisation based on national -societies, the necessary complementary organisation of its affiliated -membership by geographical constituencies. It equipped itself during -the war, for the first time, with a far-reaching and well-considered -programme not confined to distinctively “Labour” issues, but covering -the whole field of home politics, and even extending to foreign -relations.[729] The formulation of such a programme, from beginning to -end essentially Socialist in character, and including alike ideals of -social reconstruction and detailed reforms of immediate practicability, -together with the wholehearted adoption of this programme, after six -months’ consideration by the constituent societies and branches, was -a notable achievement, which placed the British Labour Party ahead of -those of other countries. Moreover, the formulation of a comprehensive -social programme and of “terms of Peace,” based on the principles -for which the war had ostensibly been fought--principles which were -certainly not carried in the Treaty of Peace--transformed the Labour -Party from a group representing merely the class interests of the -manual workers into a fully constituted political Party of national -scope, ready to take over the government of the country and to conduct -both home and foreign affairs on definite principles. Taken together -with the intellectual bankruptcy of the Liberal Party and its apparent -incapacity to formulate any positive policy, whether with regard to -the redistribution of wealth within our own community or with regard -to our attitude towards other races within or without the British -Empire, the emergence of the Labour Party programme meant that the -Party stood forth, in public opinion, as the inevitable alternative to -the present Coalition Government when the time came for this to fall. -The result was that, aided by the steady growth of Trade Unionism, -the Party came near, between 1914 and 1919, to doubling its aggregate -membership. When hostilities ceased, it insisted on resuming the -complete independence of the other political parties, which it had, by -joining the successive Coalition Governments, consented temporarily to -forgo; and such of its leaders as refused to withdraw from ministerial -office[730] were unhesitatingly shed from the Party. Meanwhile, the -extension of the franchise and redistribution of seats, which had -been carried by general consent in the spring of 1918, turned out to -raise the electorate to nearly treble that of 1910, whilst the new -constituencies proved to have been so adjusted as greatly to facilitate -an increase in the number of miners’ representatives. When the General -Election came, in December 1918, though the Labour Party fought under -great disadvantages and it was seen that most of the soldier electors -would be unable to record their votes, it put no fewer than 361 Labour -candidates in the field against Liberal and Conservative alike, -contesting two-thirds of all the constituencies in Great Britain. In -face of a “Lloyd George tide” of unprecedented strength these Labour -candidates received nearly one-fourth of all the votes polled in -the United Kingdom; and though five-sixths of these numerous Labour -candidatures were unsuccessful (including, unfortunately, most of its -ablest Parliamentarians such as Messrs. Henderson,[731] MacDonald, -Anderson, and Snowden), the Party increased its numerical strength in -the House of Commons by 50 per cent, and, to the universal surprise, -returned more than twice as many members as did the remnant of the -Liberal Party adhering to Mr. Asquith--becoming, in fact, entitled to -the position of “His Majesty’s Opposition.” It can hardly be said that -during the session of 1919 the Parliamentary Labour Party, considerably -strengthened in numbers but weakened by the defeat of its ablest -Parliamentarians, has, under the leadership of the Right Honourable -W. Adamson (Scottish Miners), made as much of its opportunities as -the Labour Party in the country expected and desired. The political -organisation of the Trade Union world remains, indeed, very far from -adequate to the achievement of its far-reaching aims. It is not merely -that the average British Trade Unionist, unlike the German, the Danish, -Swedish, or the Belgian, has learnt so little the duty of subordinating -minor personal or local issues, and of voting with his Party with -as much loyalty as he shows in striking with his fellow-unionists, -that by no means all the aggregate British Trade Union membership -can steadfastly be relied on to vote for the Labour candidates. Nor -is it only that the British Labour Party still fails to command the -affiliation of as many Trade Unions as the Trades Union Congress, and -that the great majority of the smaller and the local societies--less -from dissent than out of apathy--remain aloof from both sides of -the national organisation. The Trades Union Congress itself, after -engendering, as independent organisations, first the General Federation -of Trade Unions, and then the Labour Party, has not yet resigned itself -to limiting its activities. The General Federation of Trade Unions may -be said, indeed, to have now disappeared from the Trade Union world -as an effective force in the determination of industrial or political -policy. There remain three separate organisations of national scope; -the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress which it -is now proposed to transform into a General Council, the Executive -Committee of the Labour Party, and the members of the House of Commons -who form the Parliamentary Labour Party. Unfortunately, between these -three groups there has been some lack of mutual consultation, and an -indefiniteness if not a confusion of policy which stands in the way -of effective leadership.[732] This has prevented the bringing to bear -upon the political field of the full force, now almost a moiety of the -whole registered electorate of Great Britain, that the Trade Union -world may (including the wives of Trade Unionist electors) fairly -claim to include. Fundamentally, however, the shortcomings of the -political organisation of the Trade Union world are to be ascribed -to its failure, down to the present, to develop a staff of trained -political officers at all equal to those of the Trade Union organisers -and Trade Union negotiators in the industrial field. The Labour Party, -which can as yet rely only on the quite inadequate contribution from -its affiliated societies of no more than twopence per member annually, -has, so far, not succeeded in obtaining and keeping the services, -as Registration Officers and Election Agents, of anything like so -extensive and so competent a staff as either of the other political -parties; and Labour Party candidatures are still run, occasionally with -astonishing success, very largely upon that transient enthusiasm of -the crowd upon which experienced electioneers wisely decline to rely -for victory. What is, however, much more crippling to the Labour Party -than the scanty funds with which its constituent societies supply it, -and this insufficiency in the staff of trained election organisers, is -the scarcity of trained Parliamentary representatives. Down to to-day -the great bulk of Labour Members of Parliament have been drawn from -the ranks of the salaried secretaries and other industrial officers -of Trade Unions, who are nearly always not only men of competence in -their own spheres, but also exceptionally good speakers for popular -audiences, and, generally, in many respects above the average of -middle-class candidates. But as Members of Parliament they have serious -shortcomings. They can, to begin with, seldom devote the necessary -time to their new duties. They usually find themselves compelled to -strive to combine attendance at the House of Commons with the onerous -industrial service of their societies. The Trade Unions have, as yet, -only in a few cases realised the necessity of setting free from the -constant burden of Trade Union work--as they might by promotion to -some such consultative office as that of a salaried President--such -of their officials as secure election to Parliament; whilst these -officers, unable to maintain themselves and their families in London -on their Parliamentary allowance for expenses of £400 a year, and -afraid lest the loss of their seats may presently leave them without -incomes, dare not resign their Trade Union posts. The result is an -imperfect and always uncertain attendance of the Labour Members at the -House of Commons; a fatal division and diversion of their attention; -and an inevitable failure on their part to discharge with the fullest -efficiency the duties of their two offices. Equally destructive of -Parliamentary efficiency is the omission of the Trade Union world to -provide or secure any training in the duties of a Member of Parliament -for those whom they select as candidates and whose election expenses -they defray with unstinted liberality. The lifelong training which -these candidates have enjoyed as Branch and District Secretaries, as -industrial organisers and negotiators, and as administrators of great -Trade Unions, valuable as it is for Trade Union purposes, does not -include, and indeed tends rather to exclude, the practical training -in general politics, the working acquaintance with the British -Constitution, the knowledge of how to use and how to control the adroit -and well-equipped Civil Service, and the ability to translate both the -half-articulate desires of the electorate to the House of Commons, -and the advice of the political expert to the electorate, which, -coupled with the general art of “Parliamentarianism,” constitutes the -equipment of the really efficient Member of the House of Commons. Add -to this that the very training which the life of the successful Trade -Union official has given him, his perpetual struggle to rise in his -vocation in competitive rivalry, not with persons of opposite views but -actually with personal acquaintances of the same craft and the same -political opinions as himself, is, in itself, not a good preparation -for the incessant mutual consultation and carefully planned “team-work” -which contributes so much to the effectiveness of a minority party -in the House of Commons. Add to this again the personal rivalries -among members of the Party, the jealousies from which no party is -free, and the almost complete lack of opportunity for the constant -social intercourse with each other away from the House of Commons that -the members of the other parties enjoy--and it will be realised how -seriously the Parliamentary Labour Party is handicapped by being made -up, as it is at present, almost entirely of men who are compelled also -to serve as Trade Union officials. Already, however, there are signs of -improvement. Some Trade Unions, whilst willing to spend large sums on -Parliamentary candidatures, are demurring to their salaried officials -going to Westminster. The Workers’ Educational Association, Ruskin -College, and other educational agencies are doing much to provide a -wider political training than Trade Unionists have heretofore enjoyed. -And as the Parliamentary Labour Party, claiming to-day to represent, -not the Trade Unionists only, but the whole community of “workers -by hand or by brain,” expands from sixty to four or six times that -number--as it must before it can be confronted with the task of forming -a Government--it will necessarily come to include an ever-increasing -proportion of members drawn from other than Trade Union ranks; whilst -even its Trade Union members cannot fail to acquire more of that habit -of mutual intercourse and that art of combined action which, coupled -with the Parliamentary skill and capacity for public administration -of those who rise to leadership, is the necessary basis of successful -party achievement. - -Meanwhile, the political organisation of the Trade Union Movement, and -the enlargement of its ideas on Communal and Industrial Democracy, -have been manifesting themselves also in the important sphere of Local -Government. After the “Labour” successes at the elections of Local -Authorities, which continued for a whole decade from 1892, and placed -over a thousand Trade Unionists and Socialists on Parish, District, -Borough and County Councils, there ensued another decade in which, -in the majority of districts, this active participation in local -elections was impaired by the diversion of interest, both to Parliament -and to industrial organisation. From 1914 to 1919 local elections -were suspended. On their resumption in the latter year, they were -energetically contested by the Labour Party, all over Great Britain, on -its new and definitely Socialist programme, with the unexpected result -that, up and down the country, the Labour candidates frequently swept -the board, polling in the aggregate a very substantial proportion of -the votes, electing altogether several thousand Councillors (five or -six hundred in Scotland alone), and being returned in actual majorities -in nearly half the Metropolitan Boroughs, several important Counties -and Municipalities, and many Urban Districts and Parishes. - - * * * * * - -It must be apparent that any history of Trade Unionism that breaks off -at the beginning of 1920 halts, not at the end of an epoch, but--we may -almost say--at the opening of a new chapter. British Trade Unionism, at -a moment when it is, both industrially and politically, stronger than -ever before, is seething with new ideas and far-reaching aspirations. -At the same time, its most recent advances in status and power are -by no means yet accepted by what remains the governing class; its -political and industrial position is still precarious, and within a -very brief space it may again find itself fighting against a frontal -attack upon its very existence. And in face of the common enemy--now -united as an autocratic capitalism--Industrial Democracy is uncertain -of itself, and almost blindly groping after a precise adjustment of -powers and functions between Associations of Producers and Associations -of Consumers. - -Let us elaborate these points in detail. One result of the Great War -has been, if not the actual enthronement of Democracy, a tremendous -shifting of authority to the mass of the people. Of this shifting of -the basis of power the advance in the status of Trade Unionism and the -advent, in British politics, of the Labour Party, are but preliminary -manifestations. As yet the mass of the people, to whom power is -passing, have made but little effective use of their opportunities. At -least seven-eighths of the nation’s accumulated wealth, and with it -nearly all the effective authority, is still in the hands of one-eighth -of the population; and the seven-eighths of the people find themselves -in consequence still restricted, as regards the means of life, to less -than half of that national income which is exclusively the product of -those who labour, by hand or by brain. The “leisure class”--the men -and women who live by owning and not by working, a class increasing in -actual numbers, if not relatively to the workers--seem to the great -mass of working people to be showing themselves, if possible, more -frivolous and more insolent in their irresponsible consumption, by -themselves and their families, of the relatively enormous share that -they are able to take from the national income. It is coming to be -more and more felt that the continued existence of this class involves -a quite unwarranted burden upon their fellow-citizens working by -hand or by brain. Very naturally there is widespread discontent, and -the emergence of all sorts of exasperated criticisms and extravagant -schemes. - -The truth is, of course, that Democracy, whether political or -industrial, is still in its infancy. The common run of men and women, -who have only just been enfranchised politically, and are even yet only -partially organised industrially, are as yet unable to make full use -of Democratic institutions. The majority of them cannot be induced, -in the economic pressure to which Capitalism subjects them, to take -the trouble or give the continuous thought involved in any effective -participation in public affairs. The result is that such Democratic -institutions as we possess are, of necessity, still inefficiently -managed; and neither the citizen-consumers nor the Trade Unionist -producers find themselves exercising much effective control over their -own lives. The active-minded minority sees itself submerged by the -“apathetic mass”; the individual feels enslaved by the “machine.” The -complaint of the “rank and file”--using that term to mean, not any -“extremist” minority, but merely the majority, the “common run of -men”--comes to no more than that they do not find themselves obtaining -the results in their daily lives which they expected, and which they -were, as they understood, promised. This, we think, is the explanation -of the perpetual “see-saw” within the Labour Movement, decade after -decade, between an infatuation for industrial or “direct” action and -an equal infatuation for political or Parliamentary and Municipal -action--each, unfortunately, to the temporary neglect of the other. Or -to state the Democratic problem in a more fundamental form, the see-saw -is between the aspiration to vest the control over the instruments of -production in Democracies of Producers, and the alternating belief -that this control can best be vested in Democracies of Consumers. But -it is abundantly clear, alike from history and economic analysis, that -in any genuine Democracy both forms of organisation are indispensably -required. In the modern State every person throughout his whole life -consumes a great variety of commodities and services which he cannot -produce; whilst men and women, occupied in production, habitually -produce a single commodity or service for other persons to consume. -Their interests and desires as producers, and as producers of a single -commodity or service, are not, and can never be, identical with the -interests and desires of these same people as consumers of many -different commodities and services--just as their interests and desires -as citizens of a community, or as members of a race which they wish to -continue in independent existence, are not necessarily identical with -those of which they are conscious either as producers or as consumers. - -It is, in fact, now realised that Democratic organisation involves -the acceptance, not of a single basis--that of the undifferentiated -human being--but of various separate and distinct bases: man as a -producer; man as a consumer; man as a citizen concerned with the -continued existence and independence of his race or community; possibly -also other bases, such as man as a scientist or man as a religious -believer. What is wrong in each successive generation is the intolerant -fanaticism of the enthusiasts which leads them to insist on any -one form of this multiplex Democracy to the exclusion of the other -forms. We see to-day uppermost a revival of faith in Associations of -Producers, as being, in an industrial community, the form of Democratic -organisation most important to the working people. To some one-sided -minds, as was inevitable, the all-embracing Association of Producers -seems the only form that Democratic organisation can validly take. -Interesting to the historian is the intellectual connection of this -revival with the previous manifestations, in the Trade Union Movement, -of the idea of “Co-operative Production,” whether in the revolutionary -Owenism of 1830-34, the Christian Socialism of 1848-52, or the -experiments of particular Unions in 1872. As we have explained, the -Trade Union, being essentially an Association of Producers, has never -quite lost the idea that, so far as industry is concerned, this form -of association, and no other, is Democracy. But the new form in which -the faith in Associations of Producers is now expressing itself is -concerned less with the ownership of the instruments of production (it -being to-day commonly taken for granted that this must be vested in the -community as a whole) than with the management of industry. According -to the most thoroughgoing advocates of this creed, the management of -each industry should be placed, not separately in the hands of those -engaged in each establishment, any more than in the hands of private -capitalist employers, but in the hands of the whole body of persons -throughout the community who are actually co-operating in the work -of the industry, whether by hand or by brain; this management being -shared, by Workshop or Pit Committees, District Councils and National -Boards, among all these “workers.” - -This conception seems to us too one-sided to be adopted in its -entirety, or to be successful if it were so adopted. We venture to -give, necessarily in a cursory and generalised form, the results -of our own investigations into the management of industries and -services by Democracies of Producers and Democracies of Consumers -respectively. In so far as we may draw any valid inferences from -previous experiments of different kinds, we must note that the record -of the successive attempts, in modern industry, to place the entire -management of industrial undertakings in the hands of Associations -of Producers has been one of failure. In marked contrast, the -opposite form of Democracy, in which the management has been placed -in the hands of Associations of Consumers, has achieved a large and -constantly increasing measure of success. We do not refer merely to the -ever-growing development throughout the civilised world, in certain -extensive fields of industrial operation, of Municipal and National -Government, though from this some valuable lessons may be learnt. -Even more instructive is the continuous and ever-widening success, in -the importing, manufacturing, and distributing of household supplies, -of the voluntary Associations of Consumers known as the Co-operative -Movement, which is almost entirely made up of the same class of men and -women--often, indeed, of the very same individuals--as we find in the -abortive “self-governing workshops” and in the Trade Union Movement. -Why, for instance, is it possible for the manual workers, organised as -consumers, to carry on successfully the most extensive establishments -for the milling of flour, the baking of bread, the making of boots and -shoes, and the weaving of cloth, when repeated attempts to conduct such -establishments by the same kind of members organised as Associations of -Producers have not succeeded?[733] - -The Democracy of Associations of Consumers, whatever its shortcomings -and defects, has, we suggest, the great advantage of being demonstrably -practicable. The job can be done. It has also the further merit that -it solves the problem presented by what the economists call the Law -of Rent. It does not leave to any individual or group of individuals -the appropriation and enjoyment of those advantages of superior sites -and soils, and other differential factors in production, which should -be, economically and ethically, taken only by the community as a -whole. Moreover, management by Associations of Consumers, whether -National, Municipal, or Co-operative, gives one practical solution to -the problem of fixing prices without competition, by enabling every -producer to be paid at his own full Standard Rate, and distributing -the various products at prices just over cost, the whole eventual -surplus being returned to the purchasers in a rebate or discount -on purchases, called “dividend”; or otherwise appropriated for the -benefit and by direction of the consumers themselves. Hence there is -no danger of private monopoly; no opportunity for particular groups of -producers to make corners in raw materials; to get monopoly prices for -commodities in times of scarcity, or to resist legitimate improvements -in machinery or processes merely because these would interfere with -the vested interests of the persons owning particular instruments -of production or possessing a particular kind of skill. In short, -the control of industries and services by Democracies of Consumers -realises the Socialist principle of production for use and not for -exchange, with all its manifold advantages. The most significant -of these superiorities of Production for Use over Production for -Exchange is its inevitable effect on the structure and working of -Democracy. Seeing that the larger the output the smaller the burden -of overhead charges--or, to put it in another way, the greater the -membership the more advantageous the enterprise--Associations of -Consumers are not tempted to close their ranks. This kind of Democracy -automatically remains always open to new-comers. On the other hand, -Associations of Producers, whether capitalists, technicians or manual -workers, exactly because they turn out commodities and services not -for their own use, but for exchange, are perpetually impelled to -limit their numbers, so as to get, for the existing membership, the -highest possible remuneration. This kind of Democracy is, therefore, -instinctively exclusive, tending always to become, within the -community, a privileged body. All this amounts to a solid reason in -favour of “nationalisation,” “municipalisation,” and the consumers’ -Co-operative Movement, which is reflected in the continuous and -actually accelerating extension of all of them, not in one country -only, but throughout the civilised world.[734] - -But the Democracy based on Associations of Consumers, whether in the -National Government, the Municipality, or the Co-operative Society, -reveals certain shortcomings and defects, some transient and resulting -only from the existing Capitalism, and others needing the remedy of -a complementary Democracy of Producers. So long as we have a society -characterised by gross inequalities of income, it is inevitable that -the conduct of industries and services by Associations of Consumers -should be even more advantageous to the rich than to the poor, and -of little or no use to those who are destitute. The same trail of a -Capitalist environment affects also the conditions of employment. The -Co-operative Society, the Municipality or the Government Department -cannot practically depart far from the normal conditions of the rest -of the community; and thus avails little to raise the condition of -the manual working class. If, however, the Associations of Consumers -were co-extensive with the community, they would themselves fix the -standard. But there is a more fundamental criticism. The Democracy -of Consumers, in Co-operative Society, Municipality or State--however -wide may be the franchise, however effective may be the Parliamentary -machinery, and however much the elected executive is brought under -constituency control--has the outstanding defect to the manual-working -producer that, so far as his own working life is concerned, he does -not feel it to be Democracy at all! The management, it is complained, -is always “government from above.” It is exactly for this reason -that in the evolution of British Democracy the conduct of industries -and services by Associations of Consumers--whether in the voluntary -Co-operative Society or in the geographically organised Municipality -or State--has had, for a correlative, the organisation of Associations -of Producers, whether Professional Societies or Trade Unions. Their -first object was merely to maintain and improve their members’ Standard -of Life. Without the enforcement of a Standard Rate and protection -against personal tyranny, government by Associations of Consumers is -apt to develop many of the evils of the “sweating” characteristic of -unrestrained capitalism. It is not now denied, even by the economists, -that Trade Unionism, in its establishment of the Doctrine of the Common -Rule, and the elaboration of this into the Standard Rate, the Normal -Day, and the Policy of the National Minimum, has to its credit during -the past three-quarters of a century no small measure of success, with -more triumphs easily within view. Trade Unionism among the manual -workers, like Professional Association among the brain-workers,[735] -has emphatically justified itself by its achievements. - -But Trade Unionism, though it has gone far to protect the worker from -tyranny, has not, as yet, gained for him any positive participation in -industrial management. To this extent the complaints of the objectors -among the manual-working class are justified. In the perpetual see-saw -of opinion in the Labour world the movement towards Parliamentary -action and in favour of what we may call Communal Socialism became, -at one time, almost an infatuation, in that its most enthusiastic -advocates thought that it would, by itself, solve all problems. A -reaction was inevitable. The danger is that this reaction may itself -take on the character of an infatuation--this time in favour of the -universal domination of Associations of Producers, and the “Direct -Action” to which they are prone--against which, in the perpetual -see-saw, there will come, in its turn, a contrary reaction, in the -course of which Trade Unionism itself may suffer. - -This is not to say that the legitimate and desirable movement, -specially characteristic of the present century, for increased direct -participation in “management” of the Associations of Producers--whether -of Professional Societies or of Trade Unions, of doctors and teachers, -or of miners and railwaymen--has been, in this or any other country, -anything like exhausted. In our view, in fact, it is along these lines -that the next developments are to be expected. But, unless we are -mistaken in our analysis, this does not mean that the Trade Unions or -Professional Societies will take over the entire management of their -industries or services, for which, in our opinion, no Association -of Producers can be fitted.[736] Democracies of Producers, like -Democracies of Consumers, have their peculiar defects, and develop -certain characteristic toxins from the very intensity of the interests -that they represent. The chief of these defects is the corporate -exclusiveness and corporate selfishness habitually developed by -associations based on the common interest of a particular section of -workers, as against other sections of workers on the one hand, and -against the whole body of consumers and citizens on the other. When -Democracies of Producers own the instruments of production, or even -secure a monopoly of the service to be rendered, they have always -tended in the past to close their ranks, to stereotype their processes -and faculties, to exclude outsiders and to ban heterodoxy. We see -this tendency at work alike in the ancient and modern world, in the -castes of India and the Gilds of China, in the mediæval Craft Gilds as -well as in the modern Trade Unions and Professional Associations. So -long as the Trade Union is an organ of revolt against the Capitalist -System--so long as the manual workers are fighting a common enemy in -the private owner of land and capital--this corporate selfishness is -held in check; though the frequency of demarcation disputes, even in -the Trade Union Movement of to-day, gives some indication of what might -happen if the Trade Union became an organ of government. We see no -way of securing the community of consumers and citizens against this -spirit of corporate exclusiveness, and against the inherent objection -of an existing generation of producers to new methods of working -unfamiliar to them, otherwise than placing the supreme control in the -Democracies of Consumers and citizens. There is a further and more -subtle defect in Democracies of Producers, the very mention of which -may perhaps be resented by those Industrial Unionists who seek to curb -the “corporateness” of National Gilds by the “self-government” of the -workshop. The experience of self-governing workshops shows that the -relationship between the indispensable director or manager (who must, -like the conductor of an orchestra, decide the tune and set the time) -and the workers whom he directs becomes hopelessly untenable if this -director or manager is elected or dismissible by the very persons to -whom he gives orders. Over and over again, in the records of the almost -innumerable self-governing workshops that have been established in -Great Britain or on the Continent, we find their failure intimately -connected with the impracticable position of a manager directing the -workers during the day, and being reprimanded or altogether superseded -by a committee meeting of these same workers in the evening! Finally, -there is the difficult question of the price to be put on the article -when it passes to the consumer. Normally the price of a commodity must -cover the cost of production, and this cost is, in the main, determined -by the character of the machinery and process employed. Hence, if the -organised workers are given the power to decide not only the number and -qualifications of the persons to be employed but also the machinery -and process to be used, they will, in fact, determine the price to be -charged to the consumer--not always to the consumer’s advantage, or -consistently with the interests of other sections of workers.[737] - -To sum up, we expect to see the supreme authority in each industry -or service vested, not in the workers as such, but in the community -as a whole. Any National Board may well include representatives -of the producers of the particular product or service, and also -of its consumers, but they must be reinforced by the presence of -representatives of the community organised as citizens, interested -in the future as well as the present prosperity of the community. The -management of industry, a complex function of many kinds and grades, -will, as we see it, not be the sole sphere of either the one or the -other set of partners, but is clearly destined to be distributed -between them--the actual direction and decision being shared between -the representatives of the Trade Union or Professional Society on -the one hand, and those of the community in Co-operative Society, -Municipality, or National Government on the other. And this recognition -of the essential partnership in management between Associations of -Producers and that Association of Consumers which is the community -in one or other form, will, we suggest, take different shapes in -different industries and services, in different countries, and at -different periods; and, as we must add, will necessarily take time -and thought to work out in detail. One thing is clear. There will -be a steadily increasing recognition of a fundamental change in the -status both of the directors and managers of industry (who are now -usually either themselves capitalists, or hired for the service of -capitalist interests), and of the technicians and manual workers. The -directors and managers of industry, however they may be selected and -paid, will become increasingly the officers of the community, serving -not their own but the whole community’s interests. The technicians and -manual workers will become ever less and less the personal servants -of the directors and managers; and will be more and more enrolled, -like them, in the service, not of any private employer, but of the -community itself, whether the form be that of State or Municipality -or Co-operative Society, or any combination or variant of these. To -use the expression of the present General Secretary of the Miners’ -Federation (Frank Hodges), manager, technician, and manual worker alike -will become parties to a “social” as distinguished from a commercial -contract. All alike, indeed, whatever may be the exact form of -ownership of the instruments of production, will, so far as function -is concerned, become increasingly partners in the performance of a -common public service. - -We see in this evolution a great future for the Trade Unions, if they -will, in organisation and personal equipment, rise to the height of -their enlarged function. They will need, by amalgamation or federation, -and by affording facilities for easy admission and for a simple -transfer of membership, to make themselves much more nearly than at -present co-extensive with their several industries. They will have to -make special provision in their constitutions to secure an effective -representation, on their own executive and legislative councils, of -distinct crafts, grades, or specialisations, which must always form -small minorities of the whole body. They will find it necessary to -make the local organisation of their members, in branch or district, -much more coincident than at present with their members’ several -places of employment, so as to approximate to making identical the -workshop and the branch. There would seem to be a great development -opening up for the Works Committees and the “Shop Stewards,” brought -effectively into organic relation with the nationally settled -industrial policy. At any rate, in industries already passing under -the control of Associations of Consumers, whether by nationalisation -or municipalisation, or by the spread of consumers’ co-operation, -there will be great scope for District Councils and National Boards, -as well as for Advisory and Research Committees representative of -different specialities, in which managers and foremen, technicians and -operatives, will jointly supersede the capitalist Board of Directors. -But the management of each industry is very far from being the whole -of the task. In Parliament itself, and on Municipal Councils, the -World of Labour, by hand or by brain, will need to give a continuous -and an equal backing to its own political party, in order to see to -it that it has its own representatives--specialised and trained for -this supreme political function--not by ones and twos, but in force; -gradually coming, in fact, to predominate over the representatives of -the surviving capitalist and landlord parties. Trade Unionists, in -the mass, will not only have to continue and extend the loyalty and -self-devotion which have always been characteristic of successful Trade -Unionism, but also to acquire a more comprehensive understanding of -the working of democratic institutions, a more accurate appreciation -of the imperative necessity of combining both the leading types of -democratic self-government--on the one hand the self-government based -on the common needs of the whole population divided into geographical -constituencies, and on the other the self-government springing from the -special requirements of men and women bound together by the fellowship -of a common task and a common technique. The Trade Unions and -Professional Societies, if they are increasingly to participate in the -government of their industries and services, will in particular have -to provide themselves with a greater number of whole-time specialist -representatives, better paid and more considerately treated than at -present, and supplied with increased opportunities for education and -training. - -We end on a note of warning. The object and purpose of the workers, -organised vocationally in Trade Unions and Professional Associations, -and politically in the Labour Party, is no mere increase of wages -or reduction of hours.[738] It comprises nothing less than a -reconstruction of society, by the elimination, from the nation’s -industries and services, of the Capitalist Profitmaker, and the -consequent shrinking up of the class of functionless persons who live -merely by owning. Profit-making as a pursuit, with its sanctification -of the motive of pecuniary self-interest, is the demon that has to -be exorcised. The journey of the Labour Party towards its goal must -necessarily be a long and arduous one. In the painful “Pilgrim’s -Progress” of Democracy the workers will be perpetually tempted into -by-paths that lead only to the Slough of Despond. It is not so much the -enticing away of individuals in the open pursuit of wealth that is to -be feared, as the temptation of particular Trade Unions, or particular -sections of the workers, to enter into alliances with Associations -of Capitalist Employers for the exploitation of the consumer. -“Co-partnership,” or profit-sharing with individual capitalists, has -been seen through and rejected. But the “co-partnership” of Trade -Unions with Associations of Capitalists--whether as a development -of “Whitley Councils” or otherwise--which far-sighted capitalists -will presently offer in specious forms (with a view, particularly, -to Protective Customs Tariffs and other devices for maintaining -unnecessarily high prices, or to governmental favours and remissions -of taxation) is, we fear, hankered after by some Trade Union leaders, -and might be made seductive to particular grades or sections of -workers. Any such policy, however plausible, would in our judgement -be a disastrous undermining of the solidarity of the whole working -class, and a formidable obstacle to any genuine Democratic Control of -Industry, as well as to any general progress in personal freedom and in -the more equal sharing of the National Product. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[707] See his _Arbeitergilden der Gegenwart_, 1871-72; his more -generalised survey, _Das Arbeitsverhältniss gemäss den heutigen Recht_ -(Leipsic, 1877), translated as _The Relation of Labour to the Law of -To-day_ (New York, 1890); and his article on “The Growth of a Trades -Union,” in the _North British Review_, October 1870. - -[708] Sec. 24 of the Factory Act of 1891 provides, as regards textile -manufactures, that the employer shall supply every worker by the -piece with certain particulars as to the quantity of work and rate of -remuneration for it. - -[709] _History of Trade Unionism_, by S. and B. Webb, 1st ed., 1894, -pp. 476-78. - -[710] The most important sources of information are the Annual Reports -of the Trades Union Congress, 1874-1919, and other publications of its -Parliamentary Committee; those of the Annual Conferences of the Labour -Representation Committee, 1901-5, and of the Labour Party, 1906-19, -together with the Party’s other publications, especially _Labour and -the New Social Order_, 1918; the reports and contemporary publications -of the Socialist Societies, especially the Independent Labour Party -from 1893, and the Fabian Society from 1884; _Labour Year Book_ for -1916 and 1919; _History of British Socialism_, by M. Beer, vol. ii., -1920; _History of the British Trades Union Congress_, by W. J. Davis, -2 vols., 1910, 1916; _Die englische Arbeiterpartei_, by G. Guettler, -1914; _Aims of Labour_, by Rt. Hon. A. Henderson, 1918; _History -of the Fabian Society_, by E. R. Pease, 1916; _History of Labour -Representation_, by A. W. Humphrey, 1912; biographies of Joseph Arch, -Henry Broadhurst, Robert Applegarth, Thomas Burt, John Wilson, J. H. -Thomas, W. J. Davis, etc. - -[711] The movement for “Labour Representation” (which “at that time -meant working-men members of Parliament and nothing else,” _History -of Labour Representation_, by A. W. Humphrey, 1912) was first got -under way by George Potter’s London Working Men’s Association in -1866, mentioned at the end of Chapter VI. At the second Trades Union -Congress, at Birmingham in 1869, a paper had been read on “Direct -Labour Representation in Parliament,” but Congress took no action. -A separate “Labour Representation League” was then formed under the -presidency of R. M. Lathom, a Chancery barrister, to which many leading -Trade Unionists belonged, of which Henry Broadhurst was secretary -from 1872 to about 1878, and which sought from the Liberal Party -opportunities for the return of a few working-class members; but -(as formerly in the cases of William Newton’s contest for the Tower -Hamlets in 1852 and George Odger’s at Southwark in 1870) in vain. At -the General Election of 1874, as we have already described, fourteen -workmen went to the poll; but in ten of the constituencies they were -fought by both parties, and only in the other four did the Liberals -allow them to be fought by Conservatives alone, with the result that -two only (out of the latter four) were elected, namely, Alexander -Macdonald and Thomas Burt. At the General Election in 1880, again with -Liberal acquiescence, Henry Broadhurst was added to their number; -and in 1885 this was raised to eleven (of whom six were miners). All -these, whilst pushing measures desired by the Trade Unions, acted -habitually with the Liberal Party. In 1886--the Labour Representation -League having faded away about 1881--the Congress appointed a “Labour -Electoral Committee” to do the same work; but this was never able to -free itself from subserviency to the Liberal Party, and it achieved no -success, dying away in 1893. Some personal reminiscences are given in -“Labour Representation Thirty Years Ago,” by Henry Broadhurst, M.P., in -the _Fourth Annual Report of General Federation of Trade Unions_, 1903; -see also _History of Labour Representation_, by A. W. Humphrey, 1912. - -[712] In a “scribbling diary” of 1884 is the following entry: - -“Written by Jas. K. Hardie, born August 15, 1856, married August 3, -1879, began work as a message boy in Glasgow when 8 years and 9 months -old, wrought for some time also in a printing office in Trongate, in -the brass finishing shop of the Anchor Line Shipping Co., also as a -rivet heater in Thompson’s heatyard. Left Glasgow in the year 1866 and -went into No. 18 pit of the Moss at Newarthill, from thence to Quarter -Iron Works, and again to one or two other collieries in neighbourhood -of Hamilton. Was elected Secretary to Miners’ Association in 1878, and -for the same position in Ayrshire in 1879; resigned April, 1882, when -got appointment unsolicited as correspondent to _Cumnock News_. Brought -up an atheist, converted to Christianity in 1878.” - -Keir Hardie, whose kindliness and integrity of character endeared -him to all who knew him, was from 1887 down to his death in 1915 the -apostle of “independency” in the political organisation of Labour. He -sat in the Trades Union Congress from 1887 to 1895 as representative -of the Ayrshire Miners; and in the House of Commons from 1892 to 1895 -(for West Ham), from 1906 to 1915 (for Merthyr). He was Chairman of the -“I.L.P.” from 1893 to 1898, and again in 1914. Pending the publication -of a biography by W. Stewart, reference may be made to a biographical -Sketch entitled _From Pit to Parliament_, by Frank Smith; a character -sketch by F. Pethick Lawrence in the _Labour Record_ for August 1905; -the issues of the _Labour Leader_ for September 30 and October 7, 1915; -and an article entitled “An Old Diary,” by F. J. in the _Socialist -Review_, January 1919. - -[713] _Annual Report of Trades Union Congress_, 1887. - -[714] It is said that the Liberal Party agents attempted, in vain, to -bribe him to withdraw; eventually offering as high a price as a safe -Liberal seat on the first opportunity, all his election expenses, and -£300 a year--if only he would wear the Liberal badge! - -[715] See, for instance, the following “Fabian Tracts,” which had a -large circulation among Trade Unionists: No. 6 of 1887, “The True -Radical Programme”; No. 11 of 1890, “The Workers’ Political Programme”; -No. 40 of 1892, “The Fabian Election Manifesto”; No. 49 of 1894, “A -Plan of Campaign for Labour” (_History of the Fabian Society_, by E. R. -Pease, 1916). - -[716] These included John Burns (Amalgamated Society of Engineers), -J. Havelock Wilson (National Sailors’ and Firemen’s Union), Joseph -Arch (Agricultural Labourers’ Union), W. R. (afterwards Sir William) -Cremer (General Union of Carpenters), G. Howell (Operative Bricklayers’ -Society), J. Rowlands (an ex-watchcase-maker), and eight coalminers. - -[717] By J. O’Grady (Furnishing Trades), afterwards M.P. for Leeds; -_Annual Report of Trades Union Congress_, 1898. - -[718] This was adopted in preference to what was considered a -more extreme proposal (moved by P. Vogel of the Waiters’ Union, -a Socialist), appointing the Trades Union Congress itself the -organisation for independent Labour representation in Parliament; -requiring every Union to contribute a halfpenny per member per annum, -and making the Parliamentary Committee disburse the election expenses -and the salaries of the members returned to the House of Commons -(_Annual Report of Trades Union Congress_, 1899). - -It was afterwards stated that the leaders of the Trades Union Congress -had had in contemplation the subordination of the Labour Representation -Committee to the Congress. But with a different constituency the new -body had necessarily to be an independent organisation; and in 1904 -the General Purposes Committee reported to the Trades Union Congress, -which endorsed the report, that any resolution to endorse or amend the -constitution of the Labour Representation Committee would not be in -order at the Trades Union Congress (_ibid._, 1904). - -[719] D. J. (afterwards Sir David) Shackleton (Lancashire Weavers) was -allowed a walk-over at Clitheroe in 1902; and in 1903 W. (afterwards -the Rt. Honourable W.) Crooks (Coopers) carried Woolwich after an -exciting contest, and Arthur (afterwards the Rt. Honourable Arthur) -Henderson (Friendly Society of Ironfounders) won Barnard Castle in a -three-cornered fight. - -[720] In some Unions outside influence, notably that of the railway -companies, went to the expense of printing and distributing hundreds of -thousands of forms by which dissentient members could claim exemption -from the tiny “political” contribution; and in the Amalgamated Society -of Railway Servants, in particular, thousands of such claims were made. -The number has now greatly diminished (1920). - -[721] _The Daily Citizen_ was started by a separate limited company, -in which the control was permanently secured to representatives of -the Trade Unions and the Labour Party, on November 8, 1912. The -total capital raised from the Trade Unions from first to last was -approximately £200,000. This important journalistic venture, starting -under good auspices, met with untoward circumstances. It was crippled -by a legal decision that Trade Unions had no power to subscribe to -its cost, or even to make investments in its shares (an inference -from the Osborne Judgement, which was reversed by the Trade Union Act -of 1913, subject to compliance with the conditions as to political -expenditure). Before this set-back could be got over, the outbreak -of war upset all financial calculations, and made the conduct of a -newspaper increasingly onerous. The paper stopped on June 5, 1915, and -the company was wound up, all creditors being paid in full, but the -shareholders losing practically all that they had ventured. The failure -was a serious blow to the Labour Party, which has been badly in want -of a daily newspaper--a lack supplied in 1919 by the energetic and -adventurous _Daily Herald_, which, under the direction of Mr. George -Lansbury, has drawn to itself an unusual amount of talent, and now -needs only whole-hearted support from the Trade Unions. - -[722] It was, for instance, only the determined private resistance -of the Trade Unionist leaders of the Labour Party that compelled the -Government to abandon its project of introducing several hundred -thousand Chinese labourers into Great Britain; a project which, if -carried out, not only might have been calamitous in its effect upon -the Standard of Life of the British workman--not to mention other evil -consequences--but would almost certainly have also led to a Labour -revolt against the continuance of the war. In this connection may be -noted the valuable work done throughout the war, not in the interests -of Trade Unionism only, but in those of the wage-earning class, and -of the community as a whole, by the War Emergency Workers’ National -Committee (J. S. Middleton, Honorary Secretary), a body which included -representatives not only of the Parliamentary Committee, Labour -Party, and General Federation, but also of the Co-operative Union, -the National Union of Teachers, and other organisations. The valuable -though often unwelcome assistance which this Committee gave to the -Government by insisting on the redress of grievances that officialdom -would have ignored, and by its working out of policy and persistence -in agitation on such matters as pensions, limitation of prices, -food-rationing, rent restriction, and other subjects, on which its -publications had marked results, deserve the attention of the historian. - -[723] Subsequently Mr. J. R. Clynes (National Union of General Workers) -was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Food; and on -Lord Rhondda’s death he succeeded him as Minister of Food. - -[724] See the printed reports of Labour Party Conferences and Trades -Union Congresses, 1914-19. - -[725] _Report of the Inter-Allied Socialist and Labour Conference_, -February 15, 1915. - -[726] Mr. Hodge succeeded to Mr. Barnes as Minister of Pensions, Mr. -Roberts to Mr. Hodge as Minister of Labour, and Mr. G. J. Wardle -(National Union of Railwaymen) to Mr. Roberts as Parliamentary -Secretary of the Board of Trade. - -[727] _Memorandum on War Aims_ (Labour Party), February 1918. - -[728] It is difficult not to be struck with the greater breadth of -vision, the higher idealism, and (as we venture to say) the larger -statesmanship of the Labour Party in its projects and proposals for -the resettlement of the world after the Great War, compared with -those which the statesmen and diplomatists of the capitalist parties -of Great Britain, France, Italy, and, as we grieve to say, also the -United States, with the acquiescence of deliberately inflamed popular -electorates, succeeded in embodying in the Treaty of Peace. Apart -from the indefensible redistributions of political sovereignty, not -essentially differing in spirit from those of the Congress of Vienna -in 1814-15 (and probably less stable even than these), against which -Labour opinion had strongly protested in advance, it is impossible -not to regret the failure to incorporate in the Treaty the proposals, -for which the Labour Party had secured the support of the organised -working-class opinion of the world, for (i.) the universal abandonment -of discriminatory fiscal barriers to international trade; (ii.) the -administration of Colonial possessions exclusively in the interest of -the local inhabitants, and on the basis of equality of opportunity -for traders of all nations; (iii.) concerted international control -of the exportable surplus of materials and food-stuffs of all the -several countries, so as to mitigate, as far as possible, in the -general world-shortage which the Labour Party foresaw, the inevitable -widespread starvation in the most necessitous areas, whether enemy, -allied, or neutral; (iv.) deliberate Government action in each country -for the prevention of unemployment, instead of letting it occur and -then merely relieving the unemployed. In questions of foreign policy -the Labour Party, inspired by its idealism, has shown itself at its -best, instead of this department of politics being, as is often -ignorantly assumed, altogether beyond its capacity. - -[729] The new constitution and enlarged programme which the Labour -Party adopted at its Conferences of 1917-18, after six months’ -consideration and discussion by the constituent organisations, were -little more than a ratification for general adoption of what had -become the practice of particular districts. Thus, the more active -Local Labour Parties, such as those of Woolwich and Blackburn, had -long welcomed the adhesion of supporters who were not manual workers. -The successive annual Conferences had passed resolutions which, taken -together, amounted to a pretty complete programme of constructive -legislation, wholly Collectivist in principle. Hence the deliberate -and formal opening of the Party, through the Local Labour Parties, -to “workers by brain” as well as “workers by hand”; and the explicit -adoption, as a programme, of _Labour and the New Social Order_ were not -such innovations as the newspapers made out and as the public generally -supposed. But they created a sensation, not only in the United -Kingdom, but also in the United States and in the British Dominions; -and they led to a considerable accession of membership, largely from -the professional and middle classes, which was steadily increased as -the unsatisfactory character of the Treaty of Peace, the continued -“militarism” of the Government, and the aggression of a “Protectionist” -capitalism became manifest. - -[730] Messrs. Barnes, Roberts (who became Minister of Food), Parker, -and Wardle. - -[731] Mr. Henderson was re-elected to Parliament in 1919 at a -bye-election, capturing a strong Conservative seat at Widnes -(Lancashire). - -[732] A “Joint Board”--from which the General Federation of Trade -Unions was afterwards excluded--and, later on, joint meetings of the -Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress and the Executive -Committee of the Labour Party, did something to remove friction. - -[733] For the successive experiments in Co-operative Production by -Associations of Producers the student is referred to _The Co-operative -Movement in Great Britain_, by Beatrice Potter (Mrs. Sidney Webb) -(1891); _Co-operative Production_, by Benjamin Jones (1894); and, for a -more recent survey, the supplement to _The New Statesman_ of February -14, 1914, entitled “Co-operative Production and Profit Sharing.” - -[734] See _Towards Social Democracy?_ by Sidney Webb (1916); and for -recent surveys, the supplements to _The New Statesman_ of May 30, 1914, -and May 8, 1915, entitled, respectively, “The Co-operative Movement” -and “State and Municipal Enterprise.” - -[735] For a recent survey of Professional Association in England and -Wales--the only general study of it known to us--see the supplements -to the _New Statesman_ of September 25 and October 2, 1915 (“English -Teachers and their Professional Associations”), and April 21 and -28, 1917 (“Professional Associations”). The student will note the -distinction between two types of associations among professional -brain-workers, one having essentially Trade Union purposes, the other -(which we distinguish as the Scientific Society) concerned only for the -increase of knowledge. - -[736] We add as an Appendix an extract from the concluding chapter of -our _Industrial Democracy_, published in 1897, in which we dealt with -this point. - -[737] We do not discuss here all the difficulties inherent in the -government of a large and populous community--such, for instance, as -that of combining a large measure of local autonomy (which is what many -people mean by freedom) with the necessary unity of national policy -and central control (without which there would be gross inequality, -internecine strife, and chaos). This difficulty has to be faced -alike by Industrial Unionists, Gild Socialists, and the advocates of -Democracy based on geographical constituencies. Nor have we mentioned -the problems, in which the Trade Unions have their own wealth of -experience, as to the relationship between elected representatives and -their constituents; between representative assemblies and executive -committees; and between executive committees and the official -staff. These problems and difficulties (on which we have written in -our _Industrial Democracy_) are common to all democratic systems -of administration, whether based on constituencies of producers, -consumers, or citizens. It seems to us that constituencies of producers -present special difficulties of their own, such as (i.) that of -defining the boundaries between industries or services, and (ii.) the -problem, within an industry or a service, of how to provide for the -representation of numerically unequal distinct sections, groups, or -grades, each with its own _technique_. The further we go in Democracy -the more complicated it becomes, and the greater the need for knowledge. - -[738] This is well put by an American economist. “The Trade Union -programme, or rather the Trade Union programmes, for each Trade Union -has a programme of its own, is not the unrelated economic demands -and methods which it is usually conceived to be, but it is a closely -integrated social philosophy and plan of action. In the case of most -Union types the programme centres indeed about economic demands and -methods, but it rests on the broad foundation of the conception of -right, of rights, and of general theory peculiar to the workers; and -it fans out to reflect all the economic, ethical, juridical, and -social hopes and fears, aims, attitudes, and aspirations of the group. -It expresses the workers’ social theory and the rules of the game to -which they are committed, not only in industry but in social affairs -generally. It is the organised workers’ conceptual world” (_Trade -Unionism in the United States_, by R. F. Hoxie, p. 280). - - - - -APPENDICES - - - - -APPENDIX I - - ON THE ASSUMED CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TRADE UNIONS AND THE GILDS IN - DUBLIN - - -In Dublin the Trade Union descent from the Gilds is embodied in the -printed documents of the Unions themselves, and is commonly assumed to -be confirmed by their possession of the Gild charters. The Trade Union -banners not only, in many cases, bear the same arms as the old Gilds, -but often also the date of their incorporation. Thus, the old society -of “regular” carpenters (now a branch of the Amalgamated) claims to -date from 1490; the “Regular Operative House-painters’ Trade Union” -connects itself with the Guild of St. Luke, 1670; and the local unions -of bricklayers and plasterers assume the date of the incorporation of -the Bricklayers’ and Plasterers’ Company by Charles II. (1670). The box -of the Dublin Bricklayers’ Society does, in fact, contain a parchment -which purports to be the original charter of the latter Company. How -this document, given to the exclusively Protestant incorporation of -working masters, which was abolished by Statute in 1840, came into the -possession of what has always been a mainly Roman Catholic body of -wage-earners, dating certainly from 1830, is not clear. The parchment, -which is bereft of its seal and bears on the back, in the handwriting -of a lawyer’s clerk, the words “Bricklayers, 28th June, 1843,” was -probably thrown aside as worthless after the dissolution of the Company. - -A search among contemporary pamphlets brought to light an interesting -episode in the history of the Dublin building trades. It appears that, -after the dissolution of the Company, Benjamin Pemberton, who had been -Master, and who was evidently a man of energy and ability, attempted -to form an alliance between the then powerful journeymen bricklayers’ -and plasterers’ societies and the master bricklayers and plasterers, -in order to resist the common enemy, the “foreign contractor.” This -had long been a favourite project of Pemberton’s. Already in 1812 -he had urged the rapidly decaying Company to resist the uprising of -“builders,” and to admit Roman Catholic craftsmen. But the Company, -which then included scarcely a dozen practising master bricklayers -or plasterers, took no action. In 1832 Pemberton turned to the men, -and vainly proposed to the “Trades Political Union,” a kind of Trades -Council, that they should take common action against “the contract -system.” At last, in 1846, six years after the abolition of the -Company, he seems to have succeeded in forming some kind of alliance. -The journeymen bricklayers and plasterers were induced to accept, from -himself and his associates, formal certificates of proficiency. Several -of these certificates, signed by Pemberton and other employers, are in -the possession of the older workmen, but no one could explain to us -their use. The alliance probably rested on some promise of preference -for employment on the one part, and refusal to work for a contractor -on the other. This close connection between a leading member of the -Company and the Trade Unionists may perhaps account for the old -charter, then become waste paper, finding its way into the Trade Union -chest. - -Particulars of Pemberton’s action will be found in the pamphlet -entitled _An Address of the Bricklayers and Plasterers to the Tradesmen -of the City of Dublin on the necessity of their co-operating for the -attainment of their corporate rights and privileges_, by Benjamin -Pemberton (Dublin, 1833, 36 pages), preserved in Vol. 1567 of the -_Haliday Tracts_ in the Royal Irish Academy. In no other case, either -in Dublin or elsewhere, have we found a Trade Union in possession of -any Gild documents or relics. - -The absolute impossibility of any passage of the Dublin Companies into -the local Trade Unions will be apparent when we remember that the -bulk of the wage-earning population of the city are, and have always -been, Roman Catholics. The Dublin Companies were, to the last, rigidly -confined to Episcopalian Protestants. Even after the barriers had been -nominally removed by the Catholic Emancipation in 1829, the Companies, -then shrunk up into little cliques of middle-class capitalists, with -little or no connection with the trades, steadfastly refused to admit -any Roman Catholics to membership. A few well-to-do Roman Catholics -forced themselves in between 1829 and 1838 by mandamus. But when -inquiry was made in 1838 by the Commissioners appointed under the -Municipal Corporations Act, only half a dozen Roman Catholics were -members, and the Companies were found to be composed, in the main, of -capitalists and professional men. There is no evidence that even one -wage-earner was in their ranks. Long before this time the Trade Unions -of Dublin had obtained an unenviable notoriety. Already, in 1824, the -Chief Constable of Dublin testified to the complete organisation of -the operatives in illegal associations. In 1838 O’Connell made his -celebrated attack upon them in the House of Commons, which led to a -Select Committee. In short, whilst the Dublin Companies were, until -their abolition by the Act of 1840, in much the same condition as those -of London, with the added fact of religious exclusiveness, the Dublin -Trade Unions were long before that date at the height of their power. - -The adoption by the Dublin Trade Unions of the arms, mottoes, saints, -and dates of origin of the old Dublin Gilds is more interesting as a -trait of Irish character than as any proof of historic continuity. -Thus, in their rules of 1883, the bricklayers content themselves with -repeating the original preface common to the Trade Societies which -were formed in the beginning of this century, to the effect that “the -journeyman bricklayers of the City of Dublin have imposed on themselves -the adoption of the following laudable scheme of raising a Fund for -friendly society purposes.” A card of membership, dated 1830, bears no -reference to the Gild or Company of Bricklayers and Plasterers from -whom descent is now claimed. The rules of 1883 are entitled those of -the “incorporated” brick or stone layers’ association, and in the -edition of 1888 this had developed into the “Ancient Gild of Saint -Bartholomew.” Finally, the coat of arms of the old company with the -date of its incorporation (“A.D. 1670”) appear on the new banner of -the society. Similarly, the old local society of “Regular Carpenters,” -which was well known as a Trade Union in 1824, and was engaged in a -strike in 1833 (seven years before the abolition of the “Company of -Carpenters, Millers, Masons, and Tylers, or Gild of the fraternity -of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the house of St. Thomas the Martyr,” -established by Henry VIII. in 1532), adopted for the first time, in its -rules of 1881, the coat of arms and motto of the Gild, but retained -its own title of “The United Brothers of St. Joseph.” The card of -membership, printed in 1887, boldly gives the date of establishment -as 1458, whilst other printed matter places it at 1490. The Dublin -painters now inscribe 1670 on their new banner, but the earliest -traditions of their members date only from 1820. In short, the Irish -Trade Unionist, with his genuine love for the picturesque, and his -reverence for historical association, has steadily “annexed” antiquity, -and has embraced every opportunity for transferring the origin of his -society a few generations further back. - - - - -APPENDIX II - - RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE GRAND NATIONAL CONSOLIDATED - TRADES UNION OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, INSTITUTED FOR - THE PURPOSE OF THE MORE EFFECTUALLY ENABLING THE WORKING - CLASSES TO SECURE, PROTECT, AND ESTABLISH THE RIGHTS OF - INDUSTRY (1834). - - (Goldsmiths’ Library, University of London.) - - -I. Each Trade in this Consolidated Union shall have its Grand Lodge in -that town or city most eligible for it; such Grand Lodge to be governed -internally by a Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master, and Grand Secretary, -and a Committee of Management. - -II. Each Grand Lodge shall have its District Lodges, in any number, to -be designated or named after the town or city in which the District -Lodge is founded. - -III. Each Grand Lodge shall be considered the head of its own -particular trade, and to have certain exclusive powers accordingly; but -in all other respects the Grand Lodges are to answer the same ends as -the District Lodges. - -IV. Each District Lodge shall embrace within itself all operatives of -the same trade, living in smaller towns or villages adjacent to it; and -shall be governed internally by a President, Vice-President, Secretary, -and a Committee of Management. - -V. Each District Lodge shall have (if necessary) its Branch Lodge -or Lodges, numbered in rotation; such Branch Lodges to be under the -control of the District Lodge from which they sprung. - -VI. An unlimited number of the above described Lodges shall form and -constitute the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union of Great -Britain and Ireland. - -VII. Each District shall have its Central Committee, composed of a -Deputy, or Deputies, from every District Lodge of the different trades -in the district; such Central Committee shall meet once in every -week to superintend and watch over the interests of the Consolidated -Union in that District, transmitting a report of the same, monthly, -to the Executive Council in London, together with any suggestions of -improvements they may think proper. - -VIII. The General government of the G.N.C.T.U. shall be vested in a -Grand Council of Delegates from each of the Central Committees of all -the Districts in the C.U., to be holden every six months, at such -places as shall be decided upon at the preceding Council; the next -Meeting of the Grand Council of the C.U. to be held on the first day of -September 1834, and to continue its sitting so long as may be requisite. - -IX. During the recess of the Grand Council of Delegates, the Government -of the C.U. shall be vested in an Executive Council of Five; which -Executive will in future be chosen at the Grand Delegate Council -aforesaid. - -X. All dispensations or grants for the formation of new Lodges shall -come from the Grand Lodge of each particular trade, or from the -Executive Council. Applications for dispensations to come through the -Central Committee of the District or by memorial, signed by at least 20 -Operatives of the place where such new Lodge is proposed to be founded. - -XI. The Executive Council shall act as trustees for all Funds provided -by the C.U., for the adjustment of strikes, the purchasing or renting -of land, establishing provision stores, workshops, etc.; or for any -other purposes connected with the general benefit of the whole of the -Union. - -XII. All sums for the above purposes to be transmitted from the Lodges -to the Executive Council through some safe and accredited medium. - -XIII. District and Grand Lodges shall have the control of their own -funds, subject to the levies imposed upon them by the Executive Council. - -XIV. The ordinary weekly subscriptions of members be threepence each -member. - -XV. No strike or turn out for an _advance_ of wages shall be made by -the members of any Lodge in the Consolidated Union without the consent -of the Executive Council; but in all cases of a _reduction_ of wages -the Central Committee of the District shall have the power of deciding -whether a strike shall or shall not take place; and should such Central -Committee be necessitated to order a levy in support of such strike -brought on by such reduction of wages, such order shall be made on -all the Lodges; in the first instance, in the District in which such -reduction hath taken place; and on advice being forwarded to the -Executive they shall consider the case, and order accordingly. - -XVI. No higher sum than 10s. per week each shall be paid to members -during a strike or turn out. - -XVII. All Lodges shall be divided into local sections of 20 men each, -or as near that number as may be. - - -_Miscellaneous and Auxiliary Lodges_ - -XVIII. In all cases where the number of operatives in a particular -Trade, in any District, is too limited to allow of such Trade forming -a Lodge of itself, the members of such Trade shall be permitted to -become Unionists by joining the Lodge of any other Trade in the -District. Should there be several Trades in a District thus limited -with respect to the number of their Operatives, they shall be allowed -to form together a District Miscellaneous Lodge, with permission, in -order to extend the sphere of the brotherhood, to hold out the hand of -fellowship to all really useful Labourers employed productively. - -XIX. And, in order that all acknowledged Friends to the Productive -Classes may attach themselves to the C.U., an Auxiliary Lodge may be -established in every City or Town in the Kingdom. The members of each -Lodge shall conform to all the Rules and Regulations herein contained, -and be bound in the same manner, and subject to all the Laws of the -G.U.C.T.U.; and shall not, in any manner, or at any time or place, -speak or write _anything_ in opposition to these Laws or the interests -of the Union aforesaid. The Auxiliary Lodge shall be liable to be -dissolved according to Article XXII. - -XX. Lodges of Industrious Females shall be instituted in every District -where it may be practicable; such Lodges to be considered, in every -respect, as part of, and belonging to, the G.N.C.T.U. - - -_Employment of Turn Outs_ - -XXI. In all cases of strikes or turn outs, where it is practicable -to employ Members in the making or producing of such commodities -or articles as are in demand among their brother Unionists, or any -other operatives willing to purchase the same, each Lodge shall -provide a work-room or shop in which such commodities and articles -may be manufactured on account of that Lodge, which shall make proper -arrangements for the supply of the necessary materials; over which -arrangements the Central Committee of the District shall have the -control, subject to the scrutiny of the Grand Lodge Committee of the -Trade on strike. - -XXII. The Grand Lodge of each Trade to have the power of dissolving -any District Lodge, in that Trade, for any violation of these Laws, -any outrage upon the Public Peace, or for gross neglect of Duty. All -Branch, Miscellaneous, or Auxiliary Lodges to be subject to the same -control. - -XXIII. The internal management and general concerns of each Grand or -District Lodge are vested in a Committee of Management, composed of at -least Seven, and not more than 25 Members, each to be chosen by Ballot, -and elected by having not less than three-fourths of the Votes of the -Members present, at the time of his election, in his favour. The whole -of this Committee to go out of office Quarterly, eligible, however, -to re-election. The Grand Master, or President, and the Secretary, -or Grand Secretary of a Grand or a District Lodge, to be considered -Members of its Committee of Management by virtue of their Offices. - -XXIV. Each Grand Lodge, in this C.U., to be considered the centre of -information regarding the general affairs of its particular Trade; each -District Lodge to communicate with its Grand Lodge at the end of each -month, and to give an account to it of the number of people Members in -the District Lodge--the gross number of hours of labour performed by -them in that district--the state of its funds--and any local or general -intelligence that may be considered of interest to the Grand Lodge. - -XXV. The Committee of Management in each Lodge shall sit at least on -one evening in every week for the despatch of business--and oftener if -necessary. - -XXVI. Each Grand or District Lodge to hold its meetings on one evening -in every month; at which meeting a Report of the Proceedings of the -Committee, during the past month, shall be laid before the Members, -together with an Abstract of the state of the Funds, an account of the -prospects of the Society, and any propositions or By-Laws which the -Committee may have to suggest for adoption, and any other information -or correspondence of interest to the Members. All nominations of fresh -Officers to be made at Lodge meetings, and all complaints of Members to -be considered and discussed therein. - -XXVII. The Grand Master or Deputy Grand Master, President, or -Vice-President, or both, shall preside at all meetings of Grand or -District Lodges, to keep order, state and put questions according to -the sense and intention of the Members, give effect to the resolutions, -and cause them to be put in force; and they shall be addressed by -Members, during Lodge hours, by their proper titles. - -XXVIII. No subject which does not immediately concern the interests of -the Trade shall be discussed at any meetings of Committees or Lodges; -and no proposition shall be adopted in either without the consent of -at least three-fourths of the members present at its proposal--the -question to be decided by ballot if any Member demand it. Not less -than five Members of Committee of Management to constitute a Quorum, -provided the rest have all been duly summoned; no Grand or District -Lodge to be considered open unless at least 30 members be present. - -XXIX. Each Grand or District Lodge shall have the power to appoint -Sub-Committees to enquire into or manage any affair touching their -interests, of which Committees the head officers of the Lodge are -always to be considered Members. - - -_Of Secretaries_ - -XXX. The duties of a secretary to a Grand or District Lodge are:--To -attend Lodge and Committee meetings and take minutes of the -proceedings, entering the same in a book to be kept for that purpose. - -To conduct all the correspondence of the Society. To take down the -names and addresses of parties desirous of being initiated into the -Order; and upon receiving the initiation fee from each, and entering -the amount into a book, he will give each party a card, by which they -may be admitted into the place appointed for the ceremony. - -To receive the subscriptions of members, entering the same into a small -account book, numbering the Subscribers from No. 1, and following up -the sequence in regulation order, giving to each Subscriber a card, on -which his contribution or payment shall be noted. - -To enter all additional weekly payments, and all levies, into separate -small books; all subscriptions and payments to be afterwards copied -into a ledger, ruled expressly for the purpose. - -The Secretary to be paid an adequate weekly salary; and to be allowed -an Assistant if the amount of business require it. - -The Secretary of each Grand or District Lodge shall balance his books -once every fortnight, and the Managing Committee shall audit them, -going over each item of receipt and expenditure with strict attention, -checking the same with scrupulous care; and if found correct, three of -the Committee shall verify the same by affixing their signatures to the -page on which the balance is struck. - - -_Initiation_ - -XXXI. Any of the Officers or Members of a Lodge may be appointed by the -Committee of Management to perform the Initiation Service; and to have -charge of the Robes, etc., for that purpose; for which the Committee -may allow him a reasonable remuneration. - -Any party applying to be initiated must bring forward two witnesses as -to character and the identity of his trade or occupation. - - -_Of Branch Lodges_ - -XXXII. Branch Lodge Meetings shall be held on one evening in every -week, in the respective localities; at which Lodges any motion, -proposed by law, etc., may be discussed and considered by the Members -previous to its being finally submitted to the Grand or District Lodge -Committee. - -XXXIII. The Members of each Branch may elect a President to preside at -the Branch Lodge, and a Secretary to collect subscriptions or levies -for their Grand or District Lodge; who shall also attend meetings of -the Committee of Management for instructions and information, and -to submit suggestions, complaints, etc., from his Branch Lodge. No -salaries or fees to be allowed to officers of Branch Lodges, unless by -the unanimous consent of their Members. - - -_Wardens, Etc._ - -XXXIV. In addition to the Officers before mentioned in these -regulations, there shall be, in each Grand and District Lodge a Warden, -an Inside Tyler, an Outside Tyler, and a Conductor, whose principal -duties are to attend Initiations, and see that no improper persons be -admitted into the meetings. These officers to be elected in the same -manner, and at the same periods, as other officers. - - -_Miscellaneous Articles_ - -XXXV. Any Member shall be liable to expulsion from the Lodges for any -improper conduct therein; and shall be excluded from the benefits of -the Society if his subscriptions be more than six months in arrear, -unless the Committee of Management shall see cause to decide otherwise. - -XXXVI. The _G.U.C.T.U. Gazette_ to be considered the official organ of -the Executive Council, and the general medium of intelligence on the -affairs of the Union. - -XXXVII. Each Lodge shall, as soon as possible, make arrangements for -furnishing the means of instituting Libraries or Reading-Rooms, or any -other arrangements, affording them every facility for meeting together -for friendly conversation, mutual instruction, and rational amusement -or recreation. - -XXXVIII. In all cases, where it be practicable, each Lodge shall -establish within its locality one or more Depots for provisions and -articles in general domestic use, in order that its Members may be -supplied with the best of such commodities at little above wholesale -prices. - -XXXIX. Each District and Grand Lodge shall endeavour to institute -a Fund for the support of sick and aged Members, and for defraying -the funeral expenses of deceased Members, on a similar principle to -that of Benefit Societies; such fund to be kept up by small monthly -contributions from those Unionists who are willing to subscribe towards -it. - -XL. Each Grand or District Lodge to have the power of making its own -By-Laws for purposes not comprised in these Regulations; but such -By-Laws or Laws must not be in opposition to, or in counteraction of, -any of the Articles herein specified. - -XLI. No Member can enter Lodge Meetings without giving the proper -signs, and producing his card to prove his membership, and that he is -not in arrears of subscription for more than one month, unless lenity -has been granted by order of Committee. - -XLII. That a separate Treasurer be appointed for every £20 of the funds -collected; and that such Treasurers shall not suffer any money to be -withdrawn from their hands without a written order, signed by at least -three of the Managing Committee and presented by the Secretary, or one -of the other officers of the Society. - -XLIII. All sums under £30 shall be left in the hands of the Secretary -for current expenses; but no outlay shall be made by him without an -express order from the Managing Committee, signed by at least three of -its Members. - -XLIV. That every Member of this Union do use his best endeavours, -by fair and open argument, and the force of good example, and not -by intimidation or violence, to induce his fellows to join the -brotherhood, in order that no workmen may remain out of the Union -to undersell them in the market of labour; as, while that is done, -employers will be enabled to resist the demands of the Unionists, -whereas, if no operatives remain out of union, employers will be -compelled to keep up the price of Labour. - -XLV. That each Member of the C.U. pay a Registration Fee of 3d. to -defray the general expenses; which fee is to be transmitted to the -Executive once in every month. - -XLVI. That although the design of the Union is, in the first instance, -to raise the wages of the workmen, or prevent any further reduction -therein, and to diminish the hours of labour, the great and ultimate -object of it must be to establish the paramount rights of Industry and -Humanity, by instituting such measures as shall effectually prevent -the ignorant, idle, and useless part of Society from having that undue -control over the fruits of our toil, which, through the agency of a -vicious money system, they at present possess; and that, consequently, -the Unionists should lose no opportunity of mutually encouraging and -assisting each other in bringing about +A Different Order of Things+, -in which the really useful and intelligent part of society only shall -have the direction of its affairs, and in which well-directed industry -and virtue shall meet their just distinction and reward, and vicious -idleness its merited contempt and destitution. - -XLVII. All the Rules and Regulations herein contained be subject to the -revision, alteration, or abrogation of the Grand Delegate Council. - - - - -APPENDIX III - -SLIDING SCALES - - -The Sliding Scale, an arrangement by which it is agreed in advance that -wages shall vary in a definite relation to changes in the market price -of the product, appears to have been familiar to the iron trade for a -couple of generations. “About fifty years ago Mr. G. B. Thorneycroft, -of Wolverhampton, head of a well-known firm of iron-masters, suggested -to certain other houses that wages should fluctuate with the price -of ‘marked bars’--these words indicating a quality of iron that then -enjoyed a high reputation. The suggestion was adopted to this extent, -that when a demand was made by the men for an advance in wages, any -advance that was given was proportionate to the selling price of -‘marked bars.’ The puddlers received, as a rule, 1s. for each pound of -the selling price; but on exceptional occasions, a special temporary -advance or ‘premium’ was conceded. The terms of this arrangement do not -seem to have been reduced to writing, though they remained in force for -many years, and were well known as the Thorneycroft scale.”[739] - -At the time of the great strike of Staffordshire puddlers, in 1865, -a local understanding of a similar nature appears to have been in -existence. The joint committee of iron-masters and puddlers, which -was established at Darlington in 1869 as the “North of England -Manufactured Iron Board,” soon worked out a formal sliding scale for -its own guidance. This scale, as well as that adopted by the Midland -Iron Trade Board, has been repeatedly revised, abandoned, and again -re-established; but its working has, on the whole, commended itself -to the representatives of the ironworkers, and has, so far as the -principle is concerned, produced no important dissensions among them. -“We believe,” said Mr. Trow, the men’s secretary, to the Labour -Commission in 1892, “it would be most satisfactory if this principle -were generally adopted.... In all our experience of the past we have -had less trouble in the periods in which sliding scales have obtained.” -The cause of the exceptional satisfaction of the ironworkers with their -Wages Boards and Sliding Scales is obscure, but it may be interesting -to the student to note that the members of the Ironworkers Association -are largely sub-contractors, themselves employing workmen who are -usually outside the Union, and have no direct representation on the -Board. For a careful statement of the facts as to these Wage Boards -and Sliding Scales in the iron industry, see _The Adjustment of Wages_ -(by Sir W. J. Ashley, 1903), pp. 142-151, and specimen rules, reports, -and scales, pp. 268-307. At present (1920) separate Sliding Scales of -this nature are in force for the Cleveland and the North Lincolnshire -Blast-furnacemen; the Scottish Iron and the Consett Millmen; Brown -Bayley’s No. 1 Mill; the Scottish Enginemen and Steel Millmen; the -Staffordshire Sheet Trade; the Midlands Puddling Mills and Forges; and -the South Wales and Monmouthshire Iron and Steel Trade. - -Widely different has been the result of the Sliding Scale among the -coal miners. Its introduction into this trade dates from 1874, though -it was not until 1879 that its adoption became common. Since then it -has been abandoned in all districts, and it is energetically repudiated -by the Miners’ Federation. The following table includes all the Sliding -Scales in the coal industry known to us. Between 1879 and 1886 there -were a number of informal Sliding Scales in force for particular -collieries, which were mostly superseded by the more general scales, or -otherwise came to an end. It is believed that no Sliding Scale is now -in force in any coal district. - - July 24, 1874 South Staffordshire I. Revised 1877. - May 28, 1875 South Wales I. Revised 1880. - April 13, 1876 Somerset. Ended 1889. - February 6, 1877 Cannock Chase I. Revised 1879. - March 14, 1877 Durham I. Revised 1879. - November 1, 1877 South Staffordshire II. Revised 1882. - April 14, 1879 Cannock Chase II. Revised 1882. - October 11, 1879 Durham II. Revised 1887. - October 31, 1879 Cumberland I. Ended 1881. - November 3, 1879 Ferndale Colliery I. (S. Wales). Revised 1881. - November 10, 1879 Bedworth Colliery I. (Warwick). Revised 1880. - November 15, 1879 Northumberland I. Revised 1883. - December 19, 1879 Ocean Colliery I. (S. Wales). Revised 1882. - January 17, 1880 South Wales II. Revised 1882. - January 20, 1880 West Yorkshire. Ended ? - January 26, 1880 North Wales. Ended 1881. - February 14, 1880 Bedworth Colliery II. Ended ? - January 1, 1881 Ashton and Oldham I. Revised 1882. - December 31, 1881 Ferndale Colliery II. ? - January 1, 1882 South Staffordshire III. Ended 1884. - April 29, 1882 Durham III. Revised 1884. - June 6, 1882 South Wales III. Revised 1889. - June 22, 1882 Cannock Chase, &c. III. Ended 1883. - July 18, 1882 Ashton & Oldham II. Ended 1883. - August 24, 1882 South Wales (Anthracite). Ended ? - September 29, 1882 Cumberland II. Revised 1884. - March 9, 1883 Northumberland II. Ended 1886. - June 12, 1884 Durham IV. Ended 1889. - November 28, 1884 Cumberland III. Revised 1886. - March 12, 1886 Forest of Dean. Ended 1888 ? - April 14, 1886 Altham Colliery (Northd.). Ended ? - February 25, 1887 Cumberland IV. Ended 1888 ? - May 24, 1887 Northumberland III. Ended 1887. - June, 1887 Lanarkshire. Ended 1889. - October, 1888 South Staffordshire IV. Ended ? - January 18, 1890 South Wales IV. Ended ? - September, 1893 Forest of Dean. Ended ? - -An exposition of the construction and working of Sliding Scales is -contained in _Industrial Peace_, by L. L. Price. Details of numerous -Scales are given in the report made by a Committee to the British -Association, entitled _Sliding Scales in the Coal Industry_, which was -prepared by Professor J. E. C. Munro (Manchester, 1885), and in the -_Particulars of Sliding Scales, Past, Present, and Proposed_; printed -by the Lancashire Miners’ Federation in 1886 (Openshaw, 1886, 20 pp.). -Supplementary information is given in Professor Munro’s papers before -the Manchester Statistical Society, entitled, “Sliding Scales in the -Iron Industry” (Manchester, 1885), and “Sliding Scales in the Coal -and Iron Industries from 1885 to 1889” (Manchester, 1889). The whole -question is discussed in _The Adjustment of Wages_ (by Sir William -Ashley, 1903), pp. 45-71; and in our own _Industrial Democracy_, 1897. - -The proceedings in the numerous arbitrations in the coal and iron -trade in the North of England, as well as several others which are -printed, furnish abundant information on the subject of their working. -A table of the variations of wages under sliding scales was prepared by -Professor J. E. C. Munro for the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties, -and published as Appendix V. to the First Report, 1890 (C 6195). - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[739] Statement furnished to Professor Munro by Mr. Daniel Jones, of -the Midland Iron and Steel Wages Board, quoted in _Sliding Scales in -the Coal and Iron Industries_ (p. 141). - - - - -APPENDIX IV - -THE SUMMONS TO THE FIRST TRADE UNION CONGRESS - - -No copy of the invitation to the first Trade Union Congress has been -preserved, either in the archives of the Congress, the Manchester -Trades Council, or any other organisation known to us. Fortunately, it -was printed in the _Ironworkers’ Journal_ for May 1868. But of this -only one file now exists, and as the summons is of some historical -interest we reprint it for convenience of reference. - - “Manchester, _April 16, 1868_. - - “Sir--You are requested to lay the following before your - Society. The vital _interests_ involved, it is conceived, - will justify the officials in convening a special meeting - for the consideration thereof. - - “The Manchester and Salford Trades Council having recently - taken into their serious consideration the present aspect - of Trades Unions, and the profound ignorance which prevails - in the public mind with reference to their operations and - principles, together with the probability of an attempt - being made by the Legislature, during the present Session - of Parliament, to introduce a measure which might prove - detrimental to the interests of such Societies _unless some - prompt and decisive action be taken by the working classes - themselves_, beg most respectfully to intimate that it has - been decided to hold in Manchester, as the main centre of - industry in the provinces, a Congress of the representatives - of Trades Councils, Federations of Trades, and Trade - Societies in general. - - “The Congress will assume the character of the Annual - Meetings of the Social Science Association, in the - transactions of which Society the artisan class is almost - excluded; and papers previously carefully prepared by - such Societies as elect to do so, will be laid before the - Congress on the various subjects which at the present time - affect the Trade Societies, each paper to be followed by - discussion on the points advanced, with a view of the merits - and demerits of each question being thoroughly ventilated - through the medium of the public press. It is further - decided that the subjects treated upon shall include the - following: - - “1. Trade Unions an absolute necessity. - - “2. Trade Unions and Political Economy. - - “3. The effect of Trade Unions on foreign competition. - - “4. Regulation of the hours of labour. - - “5. Limitation of apprentices. - - “6. Technical Education. - - “7. Courts of Arbitration and Conciliation. - - “8. Co-operation. - - “9. The present inequality of the law in regard to - conspiracy, intimidation, picketing, coercion, etc. - - “10. Factory Acts Extension Bill, 1867: the necessity of - compulsory inspection and its application to all places - where women and children are employed. - - “11. The present Royal Commission on Trades Unions--how far - worthy of the confidence of the Trade Union interests. - - “12. Legalization of Trade Societies. - - “13. The necessity of an Annual Congress of Trade - Representatives from the various centres of industry. - - “All Trades Councils, Federations of Trades, and Trade - Societies generally are respectfully solicited to intimate - their adhesion to this project on or before the 12th of - May next, together with a notification of the subject of - the paper that each body will undertake to prepare, and - the number of delegates by whom they will be respectively - represented; after which date all information as to the - place of meeting, etc., will be supplied. - - “It is not imperative that all Societies should prepare - papers, it being anticipated that the subjects will be - taken up by those most capable of expounding the principles - sought to be maintained. Several have already adhered to the - project, and have signified their intention of taking up the - subjects Nos. 1, 4, 6, and 7. - - “The Congress will be held on Whit-Tuesday, the 2nd of June - next, its duration not to exceed five days; and all expenses - in connection therewith, which will be very small, and as - economical as possible, will be equalized amongst those - Societies sending delegates, and will not extend beyond - their sittings. - - “Communications to be addressed to Mr. W. H. Wood, - Typographical Institute, 29 Water Street, Manchester. - - “By order of the Manchester & Salford Trades Council. - - “S. C. Nicholson, President. - “W. H. Wood, Secretary.” - - - - -APPENDIX V - -DISTRIBUTION OF TRADE UNIONISTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM - - -We endeavoured in 1893-94 to analyse the membership of all the Trade -Unions of which we could obtain particulars, in such a way as to show -the number and percentage to population in each part of the United -Kingdom. The following table gives the local distribution of 1,507,026 -Trade Unionists in 1892. The distribution was, in most cases, made by -branches, special estimates being prepared for us in a few instances -by the officers of the Unions concerned. With regard to a few Unions -having about 4000 members no local distribution could be arrived at. - - _Table showing the distribution of Trade Union membership in - 1892 in each part of the United Kingdom, with the percentage - to population in each case._ - - ------------------------------+-------------+-------------+------------ - | | | Number of - | | Ascertained | Trade - County. | Population | Trade | Unionists - | in 1891. | Unionists | per 100 of - | | in 1892. | population. - ------------------------------+-------------+-------------+------------ - Bedfordshire | 165,999 | 553 | 0·33 - Berkshire | 268,357 | 975 | 0·36 - Buckinghamshire | 164,442 | 720 | 0·44 - Cambridgeshire | 196,269 | 2,855 | 1·45 - Cheshire | 707,978 | 32,000 | 4·52 - Cornwall | 318,583 | 630 | 0·20 - Cumberland | 266,549 | 10,280 | 3·86 - Derbyshire | 432,414 | 29,510 | 6·82 - Devonshire | 636,225 | 6,030 | 0·95 - Dorsetshire | 188,995 | 305 | 0·16 - Durham | 1,024,369 | 114,810 | 1·21 - Essex | 396,057 | 3,370 | 0·85 - (without West Ham, | | | - included in London). | | | - Gloucestershire | 548,886 | 26,030 | 4·74 - Hampshire | 587,578 | 5,665 | 0·96 - (without Isle of Wight, | | | - treated separately). | | | - Herefordshire | 113,346 | 385 | 0·34 - Hertfordshire | 215,179 | 1,125 | 0·52 - Huntingdonshire | 50,289 | 20 | 0·04 - Isle of Wight | 78,672 | 295 | 0·37 - Kent | 737,044 | 12,445 | 1·69 - (without Bromley, | | | - included in London). | | | - Lancashire | 3,957,906 | 331,535 | 8·63 - Leicestershire | 379,286 | 27,845 | 7·34 - Lincoln | 467,281 | 9,480 | 2·03 - London | 5,517,583 | 194,083 | 3·52 - (including Bromley, | | | - Croydon, Kingston, | | | - Richmond, West | | | - Ham and Middlesex). | | | - Norfolk | 460,362 | 4,880 | 1·06 - Northamptonshire | 308,072 | 12,210 | 3·96 - Northumberland | 506,030 | 56,815 | 11·23 - Nottinghamshire | 505,311 | 31,050 | 6·14 - Oxford | 188,220 | 1,815 | 0·96 - Rutland | 22,123 | 0 | 0·00 - Shropshire | 254,765 | 3,225 | 1·26 - Somerset | 510,076 | 6,595 | 1·29 - Staffordshire | 1,103,452 | 49,545 | 4·49 - Suffolk | 353,758 | 14,885 | 4·21 - Surrey | 275,638 | 730 | 0·26 - (without Croydon, | | | - Kingston, and Richmond, | | | - included in London). | | | - Sussex | 554,542 | 2,810 | 0·51 - Warwickshire | 801,738 | 33,600 | 4·19 - Westmoreland | 66,215 | 530 | 0·80 - Wiltshire | 255,119 | 3,680 | 1·44 - Worcestershire | 422,530 | 7,840 | 1·86 - Yorkshire, East Riding | 318,570 | 23,630 | 7·42 - Yorkshire, North Riding | 435,897 | 15,215 | 3·49 - (with York City). | | | - Yorkshire, West Riding | 2,464,415 | 141,140 | 5·73 - Total, England | 27,226,120 | 1,221,141 | 4·49 - ------------------------------+-------------+-------------+------------ - North Wales | 451,090 | 8,820 | 1·96 - South Wales and Monmouth | 1,325,315 | 88,810 | 6·70 - +-------------+-------------+------------ - Total, Wales and Monmouth | 1,776,405 | 97,630 | 5·50 - ------------------------------+-------------+-------------+------------ - Total, England and Wales | 29,002,525 | 1,318,771 | 4·55 - ------------------------------+-------------+-------------+----------- - Scotland | 4,033,103 | 146,925 | 3·64 - Ireland | 4,706,162 | 40,045 | 0·85 - Isle of Man | 55,598 | 75 | 0·13 - Guernsey | 35,339 | 1,170 | 3·31 - Jersey | 54,518 | 40 | 0·07 - Alderney and Sark | 2,415 | 0 | 0·00 - ------------------------------+-------------+-------------+------------ - Total, United Kingdom | 37,889,660 | 1,507,026 | 3·98 - ------------------------------+-------------+-------------+------------ - - - - -APPENDIX VI - -THE STATISTICAL PROGRESS OF TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP - - -It is unfortunately impossible to present any complete statistics of -Trade Union membership at different periods. Until the appointment, in -1886, of John Burnett as Labour Correspondent to the Board of Trade, -no attempt was made to collect any statistics of the movement; and the -old Unions seldom possess a complete series of their own archives. The -Friendly Society of Ironfounders, it is true, has exact figures since -its establishment in 1809. No total figures can be given with any -confidence. - -The following tables may be useful as placing on record such -comparative figures as we have been able to collect: - - 1. Amalgamated Society of Engineers. - 2. Friendly Society of Ironfounders. - 3. Steam Engine Makers’ Society. - 4. Associated Ironmoulders of Scotland. - 5. United Society of Boilermakers and Iron Shipwrights. - 6. Operative Stonemasons’ Friendly Society. - 7. Operative Bricklayers’ Society. - 8. General Union of Operative Carpenters and Joiners. - 9. Typographical Association. - 10. London Society of Compositors. - 11. Bookbinders’ and Machine Rulers’ Consolidated Union. - 12. United Kingdom Society of Coachmakers. - 13. Flint Glass Makers’ Friendly Society. - 14. Amicable and Brotherly Society of Machine Printers. - 15. Machine, Engine, and Iron Grinders’ Society. - 16. Associated Blacksmiths’ Society. - 17. Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners. - 18. Associated Carpenters and Joiners. - 19. National Association of Operative Plasterers. - 20. Northumberland Miners’ Mutual Confident Association. - 21. United Journeymen Brassfounders’ Association of Great Britain and - Ireland. - 22. United Operative Plumbers’ Association. - 23. Alliance Cabinet Makers’ Association. - 24. United Operative Bricklayers’ Trade, Accident, Sick, and Burial - Society. - 25. Amalgamated Society of Tailors. - 26. Amalgamated Association of Operative Cotton Spinners. - 27. Glass Bottle Makers of Yorkshire United Trade Protection Society. - 28. Durham Miners’ Association. - 29. National Society of Amalgamated Brassworkers. - 30. United Pattern Makers’ Association. - 31. National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives. - 32. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. - 33. Yorkshire Miners’ Association. - 34. United Machine Workers’ Association. - 35. National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association. - 36. Railway Clerks’ Association. - 37. Amalgamated Tramway and Vehicle Workers. - 38. National Union of Dock Labourers. - 39. British Steel Smelters. - 40. National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants. - 41. Amalgamated Union of Co-operative Employees. - 42. National Union of Clerks. - 43. Workers’ Union. - 44. Amalgamated Musicians’ Union. - 45. National Amalgamated Union of Labour. - 46. Postmen’s Federation. - 47. Post Office Engineering Stores. - -_Table showing the Membership of certain Trade Unions at Successive -Periods, from 1850 to 1918 inclusive._ - - --------+---------+------+------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------- - Number | Year | | | | | | | | | | | | - of | of | 1850.| 1855.| 1860.| 1865.| 1870. | 1875. | 1880. | 1885. | 1890. | 1900. | 1910. | 1918. - Society.| Estab- | | | | | | | | | | | | - |lishment.| | | | | | | | | | | | - --------+---------+------+------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------- - 1. |1851[740]| 5,000|12,553|20,935|30,984| 34,711| 44,032| 44,692| 51,689| 67,928| 87,672|110,733| 298,782 - 2. |1809 | 4,073| 5,685| 7,973|10,604| 8,994| 12,336| 11,580| 12,376| 14,821| 18,357| 17,990| 28,586 - 3. |1824 | 2,068| 1,662| 2,050| 2,521| 2,819| 3,871| 4,134| 5,062| 5,822| 8,566| 14,401| 27,206 - 4. |1831 | 814| 1,381| 2,084| 3,046| 2,766| 4,346| 4,664| 5,611| 6,198| 7,504| 7,880| 7,961 - 5. |1832 | 1,771| 3,500| 4,146| 8,621| 7,261| 16,191| 17,688| 28,212| 32,926| 47,670| 49,393| 95,761 - 6. |1832 | 4,671| 8,093| 9,125|15,483| 13,965| 24,543| 12,610| 11,285| 12,538| 19,419| 7,055| 4,929 - 7. |1848 | 340| 924| 1,641| 4,320| 1,441| 4,832| 5,700| 6,412| 12,740| 38,830| 23,284| 34,441 - 8. |1827 | 535| 1,180| 2,228| 6,986| 8,008| 10,885| 4,420| 1,734| 2,485| 7,727| 5,653| 12,000 - 9. |1849 | 603| 1,288| 1,473| 1,992| 2,430| 3,600| 5,350| 6,551| 9,016| 16,179| 21,436| 11,602 - 10. |1848 | 1,800| 2,300| 2,650| 2,800| 3,350| 4,200| 5,100| 6,435| 8,910| 11,287| 12,230| 12,940 - 11. |1835 | 420| 340| 500| 748| 915| 1,670| 1,501| 1,788| 2,910| 4,064| 5,027| --[741] - 12. |1834 | 1,567| 3,040| 4,086| 4,599| 5,801| 7,251| 4,989| 4,560| 5,367| 6,536| 6,854| 15,118 - 13. |1849 | 500| 897| 1,355| 1,606| 1,776| 2,005| 1,963| 1,985| 2,123| 2,409| 916| 775 - 14. |1841 | 375| 452| 508| 530| 570| 650| 690| 740| 860| 963| 983| 228 - 15. |1844 | 200| 110| 330| 449| 280| 390| 258| 277| 304| 433| 703| 746 - | +------+------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------- - | |24,737|43,405|61,084|95,289| 95,087|140,802|125,339|144,717|184,948|277,616|284,538| 551,075 - | | | | | | | | | | | | | - | | | | | | | | | | | | | - 16. |1857 | -- | -- | 856 | 1,815| 1,590| 2,113| 2,002| 2,335| 2,300| 2,933| 2,953| 17,238 - 17. |1860 | -- | -- | 618 | 5,670| 10,178| 14,917| 17,764| 25,781| 31,495| 65,012| 55,785|} 124,841 - 18. |1861 | -- | -- | -- | 4,453| 3,585| 6,642| 4,673| 4,535| 4,742| 9,808| 3,964|} - 19. |1862 | -- | -- | -- | 4,441| 2,461| 3,742| 3,211| 2,110| 4,236| 11,009| 6,522| 4,110 - 20. |1863 | -- | -- | -- | 4,250| 5,328| 17,561| 10,707| 13,128| 16,961| 23,950| 37,361| 40,000 - 21. |1866 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1,457| 1,821| 1,890| 2,344| 2,162| -- | 5,241| 7,500 - 22. |1832 | ? | ? | ? | ? | 1,537| 1,679| 2,232| 2,666| 5,350| 11,186| 10,907| 13,000 - 23. |1865 | -- | -- | -- | ? | 242| 1,965| 1,346| 1,246| 4,298| 5,270| -- | --[742] - 24. |1832 | ? | | ? | ? | 3,850| 7,350| 3,282| 1,975| 1,725| 3,428| 1,655| 2,950 - 25. |1866 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 4,006| 14,352| 12,583| 13,969| 16,629| 13,439| 12,143| 29,422 - 26. |1853 | -- | ? | ? | ? | 10,518| 14,257| 11,834| 16,579| 18,145| 18,384| 22,992| 24,806 - 27. |1860 | -- | -- | ? | ? | 792| 1,120| 1,061| 1,522| 1,899| 2,840| 2,450| 2,800 - 28. |1869 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1,899| 38,000| 30,000| 35,000| 49,000| 80,260|121,805| 126,250 - | | | | | +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------- - | | | | | |142,530|266,321|227,924|267,907|343,890|546,135|559,316| 944,992 - | | | | | | | | | | | | | - 29. |1872 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 5,271| 4,633| 3,582| 7,958| 8,675| 7,373| 25,000 - 30. |1872 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 418| 824| 1,241| 2,205| 4,604| 7,214| 10,290 - 31. |1874 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 4,311| 6,404| 10,464| 23,459| 27,960| 30,197| 83,017 - 32. |1872 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 13,018| 8,589| 9,052| 26,360| 62,023| 75,153| --[743] - 33. |1858 | -- | -- | ? | ? | ? | 8,000| 2,800| 8,000| 50,000| 54,475| 88,271| 100,400 - 34. |1844 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | 276| 279| 455| 2,501| 3,769| 4,843| 23,374 - | | | | | | +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------- - | | | | | | |297,615|251,453|300,701|456,373|707,641|772,367|1,187,073 - | | | | | | | | | | | | | - 35. |1902 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 6,248| 6,685| 47,220 - | | | | | | | | | | | (1902)| | - 36. |1897 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1,550| 9,476| 66,130 - 37. |1889 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | ? | 9,214| 17,076| 40,564 - 38. |1889 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | ? | 13,388| 14,253| 45,000 - 39. |1886 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | ? | 10,467| 17,491| 40,000(?) - | | | | | | | | | | | | | [744] - 40. |1891 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 7,551| 22,426| 83,000 - | | | | | | | | | | | | | (1919) - 41. |1891 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 6,733| 29,886| 87,134 - 42. |1891 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 82| 3,166| 35,000 - 43. |1898 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | ? | 2,879| 5,016| 230,000 - 44. |1893 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 3,286| 6,182| 14,649 - 45. |1889 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | ? | 21,111| 16,017| 143,931 - 46. |1891 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 23,180| 37,892| 65,078 - 47. |1896 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 940| 3,500| 14,000 - | | | | | | | | | | +-------+-------+--------- - | | | | | | | | | | |106,629|189,046| 911,706 - | | | | | | | | | | +-------+-------+--------- - | | | | | | | | | | |814,270|961,413|2,098,779 - --------+---------+------+------+------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------- - -We have suggested that it is doubtful whether, in 1842, there were -as many as 100,000 enrolled and contributing members. A quarter of a -century later George Howell and others could talk vaguely of a million -members, but we doubt whether this number was reached until the years -of good trade that followed 1871. In 1878-80 there was a great falling -off, and we doubt whether the aggregate of a million was again reached -until 1885. In 1892 we recorded a million and a half. Not until the end -of the century were two millions attained--a number doubled by 1915, -and in the last four or five years again increased by over fifty per -cent. - -_Table showing the aggregate Trade Union Membership in groups of -Industries at the end of each of the years 1892-1917 inclusive._[745] - - -----+---------+--------+---------+--------+---------+----------+-----------------------------+--------- - | | | Metal, | | | | | - | | Mining | Engin- | | | | | Total, - Year.|Building.| and | eering, |Textile.|Clothing.|Transport.| Other Trades. | all - | | Quarry-| and | | | | | Unions. - | | in | Ship- | | | | | - | | |building.| | | | | - -----+---------+--------+---------+--------+---------+----------+-----------------------------+--------- - 1892| 157,971 | 315,272| 279,534| 204,022| 83,299 | 154,947 | 307,313 |1,502,358 - 1893| 172,870 | 318,112| 266,813| 205,546| 80,768 | 142,084 | 293,224 |1,479,417 - 1894| 178,721 | 307,276| 263,572| 214,331| 81,786 | 123,896 | 266,718 |1,436,300 - 1895| 179,283 | 280,065| 269,169| 218,805| 78,560 | 120,475 | 261,479 |1,407,836 - 1896| 193,341 | 279,977| 303,518| 217,950| 76,997 | 134,877 | 287,805 |1,494,465 - 1897| 215,603 | 283,054| 319,745| 218,619| 75,852 | 183,994 | 317,131 |1,613,998 - | | | | | | | +--------+--------+-------+ | - | | | | | | |/Printing,| Wood- | Other\| - | | | | | | | Paper, |working.| Trades.| - | | | | | | | etc. | | | - 1898| 232,040 | 366,731| 312,444| 240,895| 69,954 | 147,957 | 54,436 | ---- | 264,074|1,688,531 - 1899| 249,988 | 445,706| 335,746| 245,301| 66,777 | 163,685 | 56,727 | ---- | 284,640|1,848,570 - 1900| 253,412 | 524,150| 342,079| 245,438| 67,183 | 171,599 | 57,228 | ---- | 294,615|1,955,704 - 1901| 248,967 | 530,953| 338,468| 243,474| 65,660 | 169,199 | 58,274 | ---- | 311,766|1,966,761 - 1902| 245,141 | 532,082| 337,064| 246,829| 64,094 | 158,714 | 59,062 | ---- | 310,321|1,953,307 - 1903| 238,141 | 529,028| 337,122| 244,081| 61,713 | 159,051 | 60,138 | ---- | 301,769|1,931,043 - 1904| 225,149 | 501,764| 334,822| 246,473| 58,598 | 159,788 | 62,428 | ---- | 306,087|1,895,109 - 1905| 205,179 | 496,828| 340,364| 266,416| 60,394 | 167,017 | 62,368 | ---- | 321,807|1,920,373 - 1906| 196,492 | 571,336| 361,453| 302,968| 59,806 | 190,155 | 64,451 | ---- | 367,145|2,113,806 - 1907| 193,190 | 703,344| 376,805| 354,427| 68,810 | 238,813 | 68,221 | ---- | 403,136|2,406,746 - 1908| 177,718 | 719,384| 365,134| 362,540| 65,637 | 230,642 | 72,970 | 41,797| 353,505|2,388,727 - 1909| 162,278 | 722,639| 359,838| 366,445| 65,882 | 224,037 | 71,531 | 39,240| 357,177|2,369,067 - 1910| 156,985 | 731,305| 370,055| 379,644| 67,158 | 245,223 | 74,275 | 38,881| 382,816|2,446,342 - 1911| 173,182 | 752,419| 415,176| 436,927| 74,423 | 513,538 | 77,252 | 45,474| 530,512|3,018,903 - 1912| 203,773 | 757,147| 479,471| 478,097| 91,855 | 514,724 | 76,807 | 50,853| 635,107|3,287,884 - 1913| 248,647 | 915,734| 538,541| 515,684| 105,929 | 699,952 | 84,414 | 64,442| 813,772|3,987,115 - 1914| 235,828 | 870,198| 557,769| 497,494| 102,538 | 705,501 | 92,283 | 64,296| 796,902|3,918,809 - 1915| 228,475 | 857,183| 633,502| 507,731| 114,085 | 737,004 | 97,290 | 65,210| 886,313|4,126,793 - 1916| 229,272 | 877,694| 695,347| 530,411| 121,656 | 803,872 | 97,669 | 69,403|1,012,623|4,437,947 - 1917| 257,286 | 941,120| 847,202| 627,919| 149,756 | 903,109 | 109,586 | 83,369|1,360,165|5,287,522 - -----+---------+--------+---------+--------+---------+----------+----------+--------+---------+--------- - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[740] Established January 10, 1851. The membership given for 1850 is -that with which the amalgamation started. - -[741] Merged in the National Union of Bookbinders and Machine Rulers, -1911. - -[742] In 1902 joined with the Operative Cabinet and Chair Makers of -Scotland to form the National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association. - -[743] Amalgamated in 1913 with the United Pointsmen and Signalmen -and the General Railway Workers’ Union to form the National Union of -Railwaymen. - -[744] In 1917 the members of the British Steel Smelters were merged in -the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. - -[745] [From Labour Department’s Reports on Trade Unions for 1900, -1905-7 and 1912, Cmd. 773, 4651 and 6109, and _Labour Gazette_.] - - - - -APPENDIX VII - -PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO TRADE UNIONS - - -In the first edition of this book we gave a list, 45 pages long, of -books, pamphlets, reports, and other documents bearing on the workmen’s -combinations. In _Industrial Democracy_, 1897, we gave a supplementary -list, 23 pages long. We do not reproduce these lists, to which the -student can always refer; nor have we attempted to bring them down to -date. The really useful material for Trade Union study is to be found -in the publications of the Trade Unions themselves--the innumerable -editions of rules, the thousands of annual and monthly reports, the -voluminous lists of piecework prices, the intricate working agreements, -the verbatim reports of conferences, delegate meetings and proceedings -before Conciliation and Arbitration Boards--which are ignored by the -British Museum, and are practically never preserved in local public -libraries. We made an extensive collection in 1891-97, which we have -deposited in the British Library of Political Science, attached to the -London School of Economics and Political Science, where it has been, -to some extent, kept up to date, and where it is accessible to any -serious student. Some old pamphlets and reports of interest are in -the Goldsmiths’ Library at the University of London. Of Trade Union -publications since 1913 the most extensive collection is that of the -Labour Research Department, attached to the Labour Party, 34 Eccleston -Square, London. - - - - -APPENDIX VIII - -THE RELATIONSHIP OF TRADE UNIONISM TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDUSTRY - - -In our work on _Industrial Democracy_, published in 1897, we formulated -the following tentative conclusions with regard to the participation of -the workmen’s organisations in industrial management, and the relation -of Trade Unionism to political Democracy: - -“This survey of the changes required in Trade Union policy leads us -straight to a conclusion as to the part which Trade Unionism will be -expected to play in the management of the industry of a democratic -state. The interminable series of decisions, which together make up -industrial administration, fall into three main classes. There is, -first, the decision as to what shall be produced--that is to say, the -exact commodity or service to be supplied to the consumers. There is, -secondly, the judgement as to the manner in which the production shall -take place, the adoption of material, the choice of processes, and the -selection of human agents. Finally, there is the altogether different -question of the conditions under which these human agents shall be -employed--the temperature, atmosphere, and sanitary arrangements amid -which they shall work, the intensity and duration of their toil, and -the wages given as its reward. - -“To obtain for the community the maximum satisfaction it is essential -that the needs and desires of the consumers should be the main factor -in determining the commodities and services to be produced. Whether -these needs and desires can best be ascertained and satisfied by the -private enterprise of capitalist profit-makers, keenly interested -in securing custom, or by the public service of salaried officials, -intent on pleasing associations of consumers (as in the British -Co-operative Movement), or associations of citizens (the Municipality -or the State), is at present the crucial problem of Democracy. But -whichever way this issue may be decided, one thing is certain, namely, -that the several sections of manual workers, enrolled in their Trade -Unions, will have, under private enterprise or Collectivism, no more -to do with the determination of what is to be produced than any other -citizens or consumers. As manual workers and wage-earners, they bring -to the problem no specialised knowledge; and as persons fitted for the -performance of particular services, they are even biassed against the -inevitable changes in demand which characterise progressive community. -This is even more the case with regard to the second department of -industrial administration--the adoption of material, the choice of -processes, and the selection of human agents. Here, the Trade Unions -concerned are specially disqualified, not only by their ignorance of -the possible alternatives, but also by their overwhelming bias in -favour of a particular material, a particular process, or a particular -grade of workers, irrespective of whether these are or are not the -best adapted for the gratification of the consumers’ desires. On -the other hand, the directors of industry, whether thrown up by the -competitive struggle or deliberately appointed by the consumers or -citizens, have been specially picked out and trained to discover the -best means of satisfying the consumers’ desires. Moreover, the bias of -their self-interest coincides with the object of their customers or -employers--that is to say, the best and cheapest production. Thus, if -we leave out of account the disturbing influence of monopoly in private -enterprise, and corruption in public administration, it would at first -sight seem as if we might safely leave the organisation of production -and distribution under the one system as under the other to the expert -knowledge of the directors of industry. But this is subject to one -all-important qualification. The permanent bias of the profitmaker, -and even of the salaried official of the Co-operative Society, the -Municipality, or the Government Department, is to lower the expense -of production. So far as immediate results are concerned, it seems -equally advantageous whether this reduction of cost is secured by a -better choice of materials, processes, or men, or by some lowering -of wages or other worsening of the conditions upon which the human -agents are employed. But the democratic state is, as we have seen, -vitally interested in upholding the highest possible Standard of Life -of all its citizens, and especially of the manual workers who form -four-fifths of the whole. Hence the bias of the directors of industry -in favor of cheapness has, in the interests of the community, to be -perpetually controlled and guided by a determination to maintain, and -progressively to raise, the conditions of employment. - -“This leads us to the third branch of industrial administration--the -settlement of the conditions under which the human beings are to be -employed. The adoption of one material rather than another, the choice -between alternative processes or alternative ways of organising the -factory, the selection of particular grades of workers, or even of a -particular foreman, may affect, for the worse, the Standard of Life of -the operatives concerned. This indirect influence on the conditions -of employment passes imperceptibly into the direct determination -of the wages, hours, and other terms of the wage contract. On all -these matters the consumers, on the one hand, and the directors of -industry on the other, are permanently disqualified from acting as -arbiters. In our chapter on ‘The Higgling of the Market’ we described -how, in the elaborate division of labour which characterises the -modern industrial system, thousands of workers co-operate in the -bringing to market of a single commodity; and no consumer, even if -he desired it, could possibly ascertain or judge of the conditions -of employment in all these varied trades. Thus, the consumers of -all classes are not only biassed in favour of low prices; they are -compelled to accept this apparent or genuine cheapness as the only -practicable test of efficiency of production. And though the immediate -employer of each section of workpeople knows the hours that they work -and the wages that they receive, he is precluded by the stream of -competitive pressure, transmitted through the retail shopkeeper and -the wholesale trader, from effectively resisting the promptings of his -own self-interest towards a constant cheapening of labour. Moreover, -though he may be statistically aware of the conditions of employment -his lack of personal experience of those conditions deprives him of -any real knowledge of their effects. To the brain-working captain of -industry, maintaining himself and his family on thousands a year, -the manual-working wage-earner seems to belong to another species, -having mental faculties and bodily needs altogether different from his -own. Men and women of the upper or middle classes are totally unable -to realise what state of body and mind, what level of character and -conduct, result from a life spent, from childhood to old age, amid the -dirt, the smell, the noise, the ugliness, and the vitiated atmosphere -of the workshop; under constant subjection to the peremptory, or it may -be brutal, orders of the foreman; kept continuously at the laborious -manual toil for sixty or seventy hours in every week of the year; and -maintained by the food, clothing, house-accommodation, recreation, and -family life which are implied by a precarious income of between ten -shillings and two pounds a week. If the democratic state is to attain -its fullest and finest development, it is essential that the actual -needs and desires of the human agents concerned should be the main -considerations in determining the conditions of employment. Here then -we find the special function of the Trade Union in the administration -of industry. The simplest member of the working-class organisation -knows at any rate where the shoe pinches. The Trade Union official is -specially selected by his fellow-workmen for his capacity to express -the grievances from which they suffer, and is trained by his calling -in devising remedies for them. But in expressing the desires of their -members, and in insisting on the necessary reforms, the Trade Unions -act within the constant friction-brake supplied by the need of securing -employment. It is always the consumers and the consumers alone, whether -they act through profit-making _entrepreneurs_ or through their own -salaried officials, who determine how many of each particular grade of -workers they care to employ on the conditions demanded.... Thus we find -no neat formula for defining the rights and duties of the individual -in society. In the democratic state every individual is both master -and servant. In the work that he does for the community in return -for his subsistence he is, and must remain, a servant, subject to -the instructions and directions of those whose desires he is helping -to satisfy. As a Citizen-Elector jointly with his fellows, and as a -Consumer to the extent of his demand, he is a master, determining, -free from any superior, what shall be done. Hence, it is the supreme -paradox of democracy that every man is a servant in respect of the -matters of which he possesses the most expert proficiency, namely, -the professional craft to which he devotes his working hours; and he -is a master over that on which he knows no more than anybody else, -namely, the general interests of the community as a whole. In this -paradox, we suggest, lies at once the justification and the strength -of democracy. It is not, as is commonly asserted by the superficial, -that Ignorance rules over Knowledge, and Mediocrity over Capacity: -In the administration of society Knowledge and Capacity can make no -real and durable progress except by acting on and through the minds of -the common human material which it is desired to improve. It is only -by carrying along with him the ‘average sensual man,’ that even the -wisest and most philanthropic reformer, however autocratic his power, -can genuinely change the face of things. Moreover, not even the wisest -of men can be trusted with that supreme authority which comes from -the union of knowledge, capacity, and opportunity with the power of -untrammelled and ultimate decision. Democracy is an expedient--perhaps -the only practicable expedient--for preventing the concentration in any -single individual or in any single class of what inevitably becomes, -when so concentrated, a terrible engine of oppression. The autocratic -emperor, served by a trained bureaucracy, seems to the Anglo-Saxon a -perilously near approach to such a concentration. If democracy meant, -as early observers imagined, a similar concentration of Knowledge and -Power in the hands of the numerical majority for the time being, it -might easily become as injurious a tyranny as any autocracy. An actual -study of the spontaneous democracies of Anglo-Saxon workmen, or, as we -suggest, of any other democratic institutions, reveals the splitting -up of this dangerous authority into two parts. Whether in political or -in industrial democracy, though it is the Citizen who, as Elector or -Consumer, ultimately gives the order, it is the Professional Expert who -advises what the order shall be. - -“It is another aspect of this paradox that, in the democratic state, no -man minds his own business. In the economic sphere this is a necessary -consequence of division of labour; Robinson Crusoe, producing solely -for his own consumption, being the last man who minded nothing but -his own business. The extreme complication brought about by universal -production for exchange in itself implies that every one works with a -view to fulfilling the desires of other people. The crowding together -of dense populations, and especially the co-operative enterprises which -then arise, extend in every direction this spontaneous delegation to -professional experts of what the isolated individual once deemed ‘his -own business.’ Thus, the citizen in a modern municipality no longer -produces his own food or makes his own clothes; no longer protects -his own life or property; no longer fetches his own water; no longer -makes his own thoroughfares, or cleans or lights them when made; no -longer removes his own refuse or even disinfects his own dwelling. -He no longer educates his own children, or doctors and nurses his -own invalids. Trade Unionism adds to the long list of functions thus -delegated to professional experts the settlement of the conditions on -which the citizen will agree to co-operate in the national service. -In the fully-developed democratic state the Citizen will be always -minding other people’s business. In his professional occupation he -will, whether as brain-worker or manual labourer, be continually -striving to fulfil the desires of those whom he serves; whilst as an -Elector, in his parish or his co-operative society, his Trade Union or -his political association, he will be perpetually passing judgment on -issues in which his personal interest is no greater than that of his -fellows. - -“If, then, we are asked whether democracy, as shown by an analysis of -Trade Unionism, is consistent with Individual Liberty, we are compelled -to answer by asking, What is Liberty? If Liberty means every man being -his own master, and following his own impulses, then it is clearly -inconsistent, not so much with democracy or any other particular form -of government, as with the crowding together of population in dense -masses, division of labour, and, as we think, civilisation itself. What -particular individuals, sections, or classes usually mean by ‘freedom -of contract,’ ‘freedom of association,’ or ‘freedom of enterprise’ -is freedom of opportunity to use the power that they happen to -possess--that is to say, to compel other less powerful people to accept -their terms. This sort of personal freedom in a community composed of -unequal units is not distinguishable from compulsion. It is, therefore, -necessary to define Liberty before talking about it; a definition which -every man will frame according to his own view of what is socially -desirable. We ourselves understand by the words ‘Liberty’ or ‘Freedom,’ -not any quantum of natural or inalienable rights, but such conditions -of existence in the community as do, in practice, result in the utmost -possible development of faculty in the individual human being. Now, in -this sense democracy is not only consistent with Liberty, but is, as -it seems to us, the only way of securing the largest amount of it. It -is open to argument whether other forms of government may not achieve -a fuller development of the faculties of particular individuals or -classes. To an autocrat, untrammelled rule over a whole kingdom may -mean an exercise of his individual faculties, and a development of -his individual personality, such as no other situation in life would -afford. An aristocracy or government by one class in the interests -of one class, may conceivably enable that class to develop a -perfection in physical grace or intellectual charm attainable by no -other system of society. Similarly, it might be argued that, where -the ownership of the means of production and the administration of -industry are unreservedly left to the capitalist class, this ‘freedom -of enterprise’ would result in a development of faculty among the -captains of industry which could not otherwise be reached. We dissent -from all these propositions, if only on the ground that the fullest -development of personal character requires the pressure of discipline -as well as the stimulus of opportunity. But however untrammelled -power may affect the character of those who possess it, autocracy, -aristocracy, and plutocracy have all, from the point of view of -the lover of liberty, one fatal defect--they necessarily involve a -restriction in the opportunity for development of faculty among the -great mass of the population. It is only when the resources of the -nation are deliberately organised and dealt with for the benefit, not -of particular individuals or classes, but of the entire community; -when the administration of industry, as of every other branch of human -affairs, becomes the function of specialised experts, working through -deliberately adjusted Common Rules; and when the ultimate decision on -policy rests in no other hands than those of the citizens themselves, -that the maximum aggregate development of individual intellect and -individual character in the community as a whole can be attained. - -“For our analysis helps us to disentangle from the complex influences -on individual development those caused by democracy itself. The -universal specialisation and delegation which, as we suggest, -democratic institutions involve, necessarily imply a great increase -in capacity and efficiency, if only because specialisation in service -means expertness, and delegation compels selection. This deepening and -narrowing of professional skill may be expected, in the fully-developed -democratic state, to be accompanied by a growth in culture of which our -present imperfect organisation gives us no adequate idea. So long as -life is one long scramble for personal gain--still more, when it is one -long struggle against destitution--there is no free time or strength -for much development of the sympathetic, intellectual, artistic, or -religious faculties. When the conditions of employment are deliberately -regulated so as to secure adequate food, education, and leisure to -every capable citizen, the great mass of the population will, for the -first time, have any real chance of expanding in friendship and family -affection, and of satisfying the instinct for knowledge or beauty. It -is an even more unique attribute of democracy that it is always taking -the mind of the individual off his own narrow interests and immediate -concerns, and forcing him to give his thoughts and leisure, not to -satisfying his own desires, but to considering the needs and desires of -his fellows. As an Elector--still more as a chosen Representative--in -his parish, in his professional association, in his co-operative -society, or in the wider political institutions of his state, the -‘average sensual man’ is perpetually impelled to appreciate and to -decide issues of public policy. The working of democratic institutions -means, therefore, one long training in enlightened altruism, one -continual weighing, not of the advantage of the particular act to the -particular individual, at the particular moment, but of those ‘larger -expediencies’ on which all successful conduct of social life depends. - -“If now, at the end of this long analysis, we try to formulate our -dominant impression, it is a sense of the vastness and complexity -of democracy itself. Modern civilised states are driven to this -complication by the dense massing of their populations, and the course -of industrial development. The very desire to secure mobility in the -crowd compels the adoption of one regulation after another, which limit -the right of every man to use the air, the water, the land, and even -the artificially produced instruments of production, in the way that he -may think best. The very discovery of improved industrial methods, by -leading to specialisation, makes manual labourer and brainworker alike -dependent on the rest of the community for the means of subsistence, -and subordinates them, even in their own crafts, to the action of -others. In the world of civilisation and progress, no man can be his -own master. But the very fact that, in modern society, the individual -thus necessarily loses control over his own life, makes him desire to -regain collectively what has become individually impossible. Hence -the irresistible tendency to popular government, in spite of all its -difficulties and dangers. But democracy is still the Great Unknown. -Of its full scope and import we can yet catch only glimpses. As one -department of social life after another becomes the subject of careful -examination we shall gradually attain to a more complete vision. Our -own tentative conclusions, derived from the study of one manifestation -of the democratic spirit, may, we hope, not only suggest hypotheses for -future verification, but also stimulate other students to carry out -original investigations into the larger and perhaps more significant -types of democratic organisation.” - -In 1920, after nearly a quarter of a century of further experience and -consideration, we should, in some respects, put this differently. The -growth, among all classes, and especially among the manual workers and -the technicians, of what we may call corporate self-consciousness and -public spirit, and the diffusion of education--coupled with further -discoveries in the technique of democratic institutions--would lead us -to-day to include, and even to put in the forefront, certain additional -suggestions, which we can here only summarise briefly. - -There is, in the first place, a genuine need for, and a real social -advantage in giving recognition to, the contemporary transformation -in the status of the manual working wage-earners, on the one hand, -and of the technicians on the other, as compared with that of the -manager or mere “captain of industry.” This change of status, which is, -perhaps, the most important feature of the industrial history of the -past quarter of a century, will be most easily accorded its legitimate -recognition in those industries and services in which the profit-making -capitalist proprietor is dispensed with in favour of public ownership, -whether national, municipal, or co-operative. This is, incidentally, -an important reason for what is called “nationalisation.” It is a -real social gain that the General Secretary of the Swiss Railwaymen’s -Trade Union should sit as one of the five members of the supreme -governing board of the Swiss railway administration. We ourselves look -for the admission of nominees of the manual workers, as well as of -the technicians, upon the executive boards and committees, on terms -of complete equality with the other members, in all publicly owned -industries and services; not merely, or even mainly, for the sake -of the advantages of the counsel and criticism that the newcomers -may bring from new standpoints, but principally for the sake of -both inspiring and satisfying the increasing sense of corporate -self-consciousness and public spirit among all those employed in these -enterprises. - -In the second place we should lay stress on the change that is taking -place in the nature (and in the conception) of authority itself. In -our analysis of 1897 we confined ourselves unduly to a separation of -spheres of authority. Whilst still regarding that analytic separation -of “management” into three classes of judgements or decisions as -fundamentally valid, we should nowadays attach even more importance -to the ways in which authority itself, in industry as well as in the -rest of government, is being rapidly transformed, alike in substance -and in methods of expression. The need for final decisions will remain, -not merely in emergencies, but also as to policy; and it is of high -importance to vest the responsibility for decision, according to the -nature of the case, in the right hands. But we suggest that a great -deed of the old autocracy in industry and services, once deemed to -be indispensable, is ceasing to be necessary to efficiency, and will -accordingly, as Democracy becomes more genuinely accepted, gradually -be dispensed with. A steadily increasing sphere will, except in -matters of emergency, be found for consultation among all grades and -sections concerned, out of which will emerge judgements and decisions -arrived at, very largely, by common consent. This will, we believe, -produce actually a higher standard of industrial efficiency than mere -autocracy could ever hope for. Where knowledge is a common possession -the facts themselves will often decide; and though decisions may be -short, sharp, and necessarily formulated by the appropriate person, -they will not inevitably bear the impress of (or be resented as) the -dictates of irresponsible autocracy. We may instance two large classes -of considerations which will, we think, with great social advantage, -come to be matters for mutual consultation in those committees -and councils which already characterise the administration of all -industry on a large scale, whether under private or public ownership, -and which will, in the future, be increasingly representative of -all grades of workers by hand or by brain. To such committees and -councils there will come, as a matter of course, a stream of reports -from the disinterested outside costing experts, which will carry with -them no coercive authority, but which will graphically reveal the -efficiency results, so far as regards cost and output, of each part -of the enterprise, in comparison both with its own past, and with -the corresponding results of other analogous enterprises. Similarly, -there will come a stream of financial and merely statistical reports -from equally disinterested outside auditors and statisticians, -making graphic revelations as to the progress of the enterprise, in -comparison with its own previous experience and with the progress -of like enterprises elsewhere. Further, there will be a stream of -what we may call scientific reports, also from disinterested outside -experts, not only describing new inventions and discoveries in the -technique of the particular enterprise, but suggesting, in the light -of recent surveys of the work, how they could be practically applied -to its peculiar circumstances. These three classes of reports, all of -them by disinterested experts, engaged in keeping under review all -analogous enterprises at home or abroad, and having neither interest -in, nor authority over, any of them, will, we suggest, be discussed by -the members of the committees and councils on terms of equality; the -decisions being taken, according to the nature of the case, by those in -whom the responsibility for decision may be vested. - -But there will be a second extensive class of reports of a different -character, conveying not statements of fact but views of policy. -There will, we must assume, be reports from those responsible, not -merely or mainly for satisfying the existing generation of consumers, -producers, or citizens, but for safeguarding the interests of the -community as a whole, in the future as well as in the present. There -will be the reports from the organs of the consumers or users of the -particular commodity or service (such as the District Committees -representing telephone users set up by the Postmaster-General as -organs of, criticism and suggestion for his telephone administration). -Finally there will be reports conveying criticisms and suggestions -from committees or councils representing other enterprises, or other -sections of producers (whether technicians or manual workers), which -may have something to communicate that they deem important. These -reports will, none of them, come with coercive authority, but merely -as conveying information, to be considered in the consultations out of -which the necessary decisions will emerge. - -Opinions may differ as to the competence to take part in such -consultations of the selected representatives of the manual workers -and the technicians respectively. We are ourselves of opinion that, -taking the business as a whole, such representatives will be found to -compare, in competence, quite favourably with the average member of a -Board of Directors. But whether or not the counsels and decisions of -great industrial enterprises are likely to be much improved by such -consultations--and we confidently expect that they will be--we suggest -that it is predominantly in this form that the principles of Democracy -may, in practice, be applied to industrial administration; and that it -will be for the Professional Associations of the technicians and the -Trade Unions of the manual workers to prove themselves equal to the -transformation in their status that this or any other application of -Democracy involves. - -But here we must pause. In a future work on the achievements, policy, -and immediate controversies of the British Labour and Socialist -Movement we shall give the historical and the psychological analysis, -in the light of the experience of the past few decades, upon which we -base our present conclusions. - - - - -INDEX - - - Aberdare, 514 - - Aberdare, Lord, 276-7, 285 - - Aberdeen, cotton-weavers of, 82; - tailors of, 79 - - Abnormal place, 513-16 - - Abraham, William, 596 - - Acetylene Welders, 495 - - Acland, Sir A. H. Dyke, 308 - - Actions for damages, 597-634 - - Actors’ Association, 507 - - Actuarial position of T.U., 267-8 - - Adamson, W., 699 - - Admiralty Constructive Engineers, 507 - - Agricultural Labourers, 136, 144-6, 328-34, 405, 416, 439-40, 488-9, - 624, 648 - - Agriculture, Royal Commission on, 648 - - Albert Hall, 666, 669 - - Alison, Sir Archibald, 170, 173 - - “All Grades Movement,” 525-6 - - Allan, Wm., 210-14, 232, 234 (life), 233-40, 243, 248, 350, 362, 419. - - Alliance Cabinet Makers’ Association. - _See_ Cabinet Makers - - Almshouses, provided by the Liverpool Shipwrights, 39 - - Althorpe, Lord, 132 - - Amalgamated Association of Boot and Shoe Makers, 436 - - Amalgamated Association of Miners, 306, 349, 511 - - Amalgamated Engineering Union, 488, 551 - - Amalgamated Metal Wire and Tube Makers’ Society, 359 - - Amalgamated Society of. - _See_ Carpenters, Engineers, Cotton-spinners, Cotton-weavers, Boot - and Shoemakers, Builders’ Labourers, Card and Blowing Room - Operatives, Metal Planers, Railway Servants, Tailors, Watermen and - Lightermen - - Amalgamated Tramway and Vehicle Workers, 744 - - Amalgamations and Federations, 546-554 - - American Federation of Labour, 135, 556 - - Amicable and Brotherly Society of Machine Printers (Cotton and - Calico), 70, 75 - - Amicable Society of Woolstaplers, 83 - - Anderson, W. C., 699 - - Anti-corn Law League, 174, 176 - - Applegarth, Robert, 232, 233-40, 236-7 (life), 248, 350, 362, 391, - 419, 680 - - Appleton, W. A., 556 - - Apprentices, 27, 29, 38, 45, 47, 83, 267 - - Apprentices, Statute of, 47, 59, 66, 250-51 - - Arbitration, 29, 71, 226-7, 337, 643 - - Arch, Joseph, 329, 334, 680, 682 - - Armstrong, Lord, 315 - - Arnot, R. Page, 489, 511, 524, 532, 633, 662 - - Ashley, Sir W. J., 4, 5, 13, 15, 29, 511, 735-7 - - Ashton, murder of, 122 - - Ashton, Thomas, 311, 356 - - Ashton-under-Lyne, strikes at, 119, 122 - - Ashworth, 169 - - Asquith, H. H., 528-9, 636, 645, 692 - - Assinder, G. F., 599 - - Associated. - _See_ Blacksmiths, Carpenters, Engineers, Iron-forgers, - Railwaymen, and Shipwrights - - Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, 439, 505, - 527, 530, 535, 539, 545. - _See also_ Railwaymen - - Associations of Consumers, 706-18 - - Associations of Producers, 653-63, 704-18, 752-62 - - Atchison’s Haven, 10 - - Austin, Michael, 596 - - Ayrshire Miners, 681 - - - Bachelor Companies, 4, 5, 6, 7 - - Baernreither, Dr., 220, 300 - - Baker, C., 634 - - Bakers, 369, 438, 559 - - Bamford, Samuel, 96, 164 - - Bank Officers’ Guild, 505 - - Barker, Ernest, 414 - - Barnes, Geo. N., 490, 692-3, 695, 698 - - Barnsley, first working-man Town Councillor elected in, 305 - - Basketmakers, 14, 45, 438, 552 - - Bass, Michael, 523 - - Bass-dressers, 336 - - Beale, C. G., 530 - - Beamers, 477 - - _Beehive_, the, 36, 254-5, 298 - - Beer, M., 131, 157, 162, 175, 414, 680 - - Beesly, Professor E. S., 222, 231-2, 236, 238, 246, 250, 263-4, 269, - 275, 288, 293, 298, 312, 341, 362, 415, 510. - _See_ Positivists - - Belfast, 123, 136, 523 - - Belfast and Dublin Locomotive Engine-drivers’ and Firemen’s Trade - Union, 523 - - Bell, Sir Hugh, xiv - - Bell Inn, Old Bailey, 205, 243, 245 - - Bell, Richard, 526-7, 601, 684 - - Bell, Robert, 58 - - Benbow, William, 163-4 - - Bennett, T. R., 246 - - Bentham, Jeremy, 96, 178 - - Bernstein, Eduard, 652 - - Besant, Mrs. Annie, 396, 399, 402 - - Bevan, G. Phillips, 347 - - Bibliography, 751 - - Birmingham, building trades of, 129; - “Builders’ Parliament” at, 130; - tailors of, 32; - Trade Unionism in, 358-9; - Trades Council of, 280, 329-30, 399; - trades procession at, 177 - - Birtwistle, Thomas, 309 - - Bit and Spur Makers, 92 - - Blackburn, 307, 697; - riots at, 344 - - Blackburn List, the, 226 - - “Black-coated proletariat,” 503-9 - - Blacklisting, 284, 598 - - Blacksmiths, Associated Society of. Scotland. - _See_ Smiths - - Blastfurnacemen. - _See_ Ironworkers - - Bleachers, 478, 480 - - Block Printers, Glasgow, 552 - - Blok, P. J., 24 - - Boa, Andrew, 290 - - “Board of Green Cloth” at Dublin, 104 - - Boilermakers, 174, 205, 230, 247, 259, 261-2, 314, 321-2, 348, 353, - 365, 378, 428-31, 490-91, 559, 744 - - Bolton, calico-printers at, 79; - cotton operatives of, 81, 92, 307; - engineers of, 207-8 - - Bondfield, Miss Margaret, 496 - - Bookbinders, 23, 77, 79, 91, 176, 188, 196-7, 201, 244-5, 437-8, 744 - - Boot and Shoe Operatives, 57, 68, 77, 79-80, 143, 150, 192, 228, - 236, 336, 407, 436-7, 493-4, 744. - _See also_ Shoemakers - - Booth, Charles, 375, 380-81 - - Bowerman, C. W., 362 - - “Box Club,” 36-7 - - Boy labour, 202 - - Brace, W., 692 - - Bradford, woollen strike of 1825, 111 - - Bradlaugh, Charles, 289, 370-71 - - Bradninch, woolcombers in, 34 - - Brainworkers, inclusion of, 697; - organisations of, 503-9 - - Bramwell, Lord, 279, 363 - - Branch meeting, description of, 446-8 - - Brassey, Lord, 269 - - Brassfounders. - _See_ Brassworkers - - Brassworkers, 323, 353, 358-9, 430-31, 486-8, 744 - - Braziers, 80, 91 - - Breeches Makers’ Benefit Society, 24 - - Brentano, Dr. Luigi, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 25, 39, 47, 52, 209, 212, - 339, 677 - - Brett, Lord Justice, 285 - - Bricklayers, 125, 169, 223, 226-32, 241, 245, 275, 282, 354, 365, - 407, 428-9, 431-3, 559, 744 - - Bricklayers’ and Plasterers’ Company, Dublin, 721-4 - - Brickmakers, 241, 267-9; - Hebrew in Egypt, 2 - - Brief Institution, 40, 67 - - Bright, John, 35-6, 178, 247, 293, 382 - - Brighton Trades Council, 558 - - Bristol, 14, 33, 35, 53, 133, 243, 252, 350 - - British and Foreign Consolidated Association of Industry, Humanity, - and Knowledge, 167 - - British Association of Steel Smelters. - _See_ Steel Smelters - - Broadhead, W., 268-9 - - Broadhurst, Henry, 240, 285, 289, 295, 311-12, 325, 353, 362-3, 365, - 370, 372, 395, 401, 408, 635, 680 - - Brontë, Charlotte, 89 - - Brooklands Agreement, 476 - - Brooks, J. G., 655 - - Brougham, Lord, 156, 178 - - Brushmakers, 14, 45, 75, 84, 91, 438 - - Buchez, 225 - - Builders’ Labourers, 125, 483 - - “Builders’ Parliament” of 1833, 130; - of 1918-19, 483, 649 - - Building Trades, early combinations, 8-11; - lock-out in 1833, 150; - in 1860, 228-32; - in 1912, 690; - nine hours movement in, 312-17; - statistics of, 407, 428-9, 431-3, 481-3 - - Bull & Co., 343 - - Bullinger, 4 - - Burdett, Sir Francis, 69, 109 - - Burgess, Joseph, 412 - - Burnett, John, 19, 36, 211, 314-15 (life), 316, 325, 347, 368, 423, - 530 - - Burns, John, 298, 375, 383, 385 - (life), 387-8, 396, 400, 402-3, 407-13, 419, 490, 636, 682 - - Burrows, Herbert, 402 - - Burt, Thomas, 181, 289-90, 296, 307, 340, 342, 362, 510-11, 625, 635, - 680 - - Burton, hatters of, 53 - - Bussy, J. F. Moir, 524 - - Buxton, Lord, 404 - - Buxton, Sir T. Fowell, 264 - - Byron, Lord, 89 - - - Cab-fare regulations, 9 - - Cabinetmakers, 76-8, 83-4, 136, 243, 248, 290, 389, 432-3, 481, 744-5 - - Cabmen, 369 - - “Ca’ Canny,” 487 - - Cairns, Earl, 275 - - Calender-men, Glasgow, 110 - - Calhoun, J. C., 167 - - Calico Engravers of Manchester, 80 - - Calico-printers, 45, 56-7, 70, 75, 79, 90, 121, 193, 436 - - Callender, W. R., 272 - - Cambridge, tailors of, 68 - - Campbell, Alexander, 30, 240, 243, 249-53 - - Campbell, G. L., 366 - - Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Henry, 635 - - Candidatures, independent, 287-9 - - Canning, 60 - - Capitalist, elimination of, 673-6 - - Card and Blowing Room Operatives, Amalgamated Association of, 435, - 475-80. - _See also_ Cotton Operatives and Textiles - - Carlisle, cotton-weavers of, 82 - - Carmarthenshire, coal-miners of, 44 - - Carmen, 439-40 - - Carpenters, 18, 75, 110, 125, 169, 192, 202, 224, 228-32, 245, 254, - 259, 265-7, 313, 319, 323-4, 343, 346, 354-5, 391, 415, 432-3, - 481, 744; - Company of London, 18; - of Dublin, 721-4 - - Carpet-weavers, 112, 224, 435-6 - - Cartwright, 36 - - Census of Trade Unionists, 741-750 - - Central Institute, 593 - - Chalmers, G., 62 - - Chamberlain, Joseph, 370, 373 - - Champertors, 67 - - Champion, H. H., 387, 400 - - Chandler, F., 354 - - Channel Isles, etc., T.U. in, 743 - - Chapel, 27, 74, 489 - - Character Note, 29, 284 - - Chartism, 164, 174-8, 649, 653 - - Checkweigher, 302, 304-6, 466, 489 - - Chester, hatters of, 53 - - Chimney-sweeps, 136 - - Chinese Labour, 691 - - Chippers and Drillers, 548 - - Chipping Norton case, 332 - - Christian Socialists, the, 215, 225, 246, 263-4, 707. - _See also_ Hughes, Ludlow and Neale - - Churchill, Winston, 494, 501 - - Cigarmakers, T.U. among, 438 - - “Citizen Guard,” 544 - - City of Glasgow Bank failure, 345 - - Civil Service, 507-8; - Arbitration Tribunal, 508-9 - - Clark, W. S., 601, 607, 634 - - Clayden, A. W., 329 - - Clerical Workers’ Union of Ireland, 473 - - Clerks, 440, 473, 504-5, 744 - - Clode, 3, 6 - - Clothiers, 33-6, 40, 67-8, 151 - - Clothiers’ Community, the, 40 - - Clothing Trades, statistics of, 428-429, 436-7 - - Clothworkers’ Company, 5, 33-4 - - Clyde, depression on, 346; - engineers on, 690; - ferment on, 656, 659; - shipyard workers of, 256; - shorter day on, 316; - strike on, in 1877, 343; - “Weekly Pays” on the, 552 - - Clyde Workers’ Committee, 488, 640, 659 - - Clynes, J. R., 497, 692 - - Coachmakers, 46, 80, 230, 423, 438, 744 - - Coal Industry Commission, 511, 518-22, 648, 662-3 - - Coal-miners. - _See_ Miners - - Coal-porters, 18, 439, 500-501 - - Cobbett, Wm., 94, 96, 132, 154-5; - the younger, 253 - - Cobden, Richard, 178, 383 - - Cohen, H., 599, 601 - - Cokemen, 434, 512, 549 - - Cole, G. D. H., 485, 524, 532, 553, 633, 637, 660 - - Cole, Percy, 491 - - Colliery Clerks, 513, 549; - Enginemen, 434, 512, 549; - Mechanics, 434 - - Combe, Delafield & Co., 150 - - Combination Acts, 64, 251 - - “Committee Liquor,” 203 - - Common employment, 364-6 - - Common Rules, 758 - - Composite Branches, 483 - - Compositors, 27, 57-8, 77-8, 169, 176, 181, 196, 198-9, 201, 205, - 361, 389, 398-9, 415, 437-8, 492-3, 606, 666, 671, 744, - _See also_ Typographical - - Conditions of Employment, 754 - - Confédération Générale de Travail, 655 - - Conference of Amalgamated Trades, 263-83 - - Confiscation of funds proposed, 140 - - Congress, Trades Union, origin of, 280-81; - description of, 561-6; - summons to, 738-740 - - Congreve, Richard, 269 - - Connolly, T., 248, 273; - James, 472-3, 655-7 - - Conscription, 639-40, 666-7 - - Consolidated Society of Bookbinders, London. - _See_ Bookbinders - - Conspiracy, law of, 67, 367, 598; - to injure, 598 - - Constitution of Labour Party, 697; - of Trade Unions, 716 - - Consumers, organisation of, 762 - - Contagious Diseases Acts, 237 - - Contracting Out, 366 - - Cook, A. G., 399 - - Co-operative Employees, 504, 559, 744; - Movement, 225, 647, 675, 752-62; - production, 168, 194, 225-6, 335-6, 650-51, 659, 707-8; - Society of Smiths. - _See_ Smiths; - Union, the, 545, 691; - Wholesale Society, 541; - workshops, 194 - - Coopers, 74-5, 104, 230, 350, 423, 438, 548, 685 - - Co-partnership, 653 - - Copper-miners, absence of T.U. among, 434 - - Cordwainers. - _See_ Boot and Shoe Operatives - - Corn Production Act, 475, 498 - - Costing experts, 761 - - Cotton-spinners, 7, 41, 56, 81, 92, 116-24, 127, 151-2, 170-71, 176, - 181, 191, 226, 259, 307-13, 415-16, 423, 435, 475-80, 744 - - Cotton-weavers, 56-9, 81-2, 86, 109, 307-13, 344, 435, 475-80 - - Coulson, Edward, 233-40, 248, 252, 255, 282, 362 - - Coventry, 95 - - Cowen, Joseph, 316 - - Cox, Harold, 391, 393 - - Craft Gilds, 4-21; - labourers excluded from, 43 - - Cranmer, Archbishop, 4 - - Crawford, William, 296, 303-4, 391 - - Crayford, calico-printers of, 193 - - Cremer, Sir W. R., 248, 289, 682 - - Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871, 282-3, 290-91, 364 - - Crompton, Henry, 265, 278, 282, 284, 286, 298, 338, 362, 374. - _See_ Positivists - - Cromwell, combinations reported to, 3 - - Crooks, W., 685 - - Cross, Viscount, 291, 312, 618, 624 - - Cruikshank, James, 20 - - Cubitt’s, Messrs., strike at, 150 - - Cunningham, Dr. William, 9, 15, 16, 49, 52, 55, 62, 308 - - Curriers, 37, 45, 46, 59, 90, 92, 181, 236 - - Customs officers, 507 - - Cutlers, 73, 80, 92, 108, 241 - - Cutlers’ Company, 39 - - - _Daily Citizen_, 689 - - _Daily Herald_, 502, 542, 689 - - Dale, David, 328, 339 - - Danter, 255, 318 - - Dartmouth, 34 - - Davenport, W., 30 - - Davis, J. E., 251 - - Davis, R. J., 503 - - Davis, W. J., 281, 324, 356, 358-9 (life), 368, 391, 395, 401, 554, - 601, 680 - - Davitt, Michael, 473 - - Defoe, Daniel, 35 - - Delahaye, Victor, 385 - - De Leon, Daniel, 656 - - Demarcation disputes, 247, 353 - - Democracy, nature of, 704-18; - analysis of, 752-62 - - Deportation of Clyde workers, 640 - - Deputies, 513, 549 - - Derby, hatters of, 53; - potters of, 133; - “turn-outs” of, 137-8 - - Devon, clothiers of, 33-5, 68 - - Devonport, Lord, 501-2 - - Dilke, Sir Charles, 238, 494, 617 - - Dilution, 637-43. - - Direct action, 663-73, 712 - - Directory of Trade Unions, 244-5 - - District Committee, 221-2, 449; - Councils, 547 - - District Delegate, 322, 462-3 - - Dock Foremen and Clerks, London Society of, 440 - - Dockers, 401-5, 416, 420, 439, 497-502, 744 - - Document, the, 130, 150-51, 164, 193, 215-16, 244, 255 - - Doherty, John, 107, 117-18, 122, 124 - - Dolléans, E., 175 - - Dorchester labourers, 138, 144-8 - - Dowlais iron workers, 224 - - Drake, Barbara, 637 - - Dronfield, William, 240, 252, 257-8 - - Druitt, 278-9 - - Drummond, C. J., 398 - - Drummond, Henry, 277 - - Drury, John, 184, 186 - - Dublin, 14, 37, 53, 76, 104, 172, 243, 551, 721-4 - - Dugdale, 6 - - Duncombe, Thomas Slingsby, 185-7, 193-5, 277 - - Dundee, 136 - - Dunning, T. J., 23, 188, 228, 240, 243, 245, 252, 321 - - Dunsford, Martin, 34 - - Durham, coal-miners of, 44, 181-2, 186, 304, 342, 349, 386, 391-2, - 511-12, 517 - - Dyer, Colonel, xiv - - Dyers, 100, 243, 436, 478, 480, 552 - - - Eastern Counties Labour Federation, 405. - _See also_ Agricultural Labourers - - Edinburgh, compositors of, 58; - trade clubs of, 177; - Trades Council of, 242, 252; - Upholsterers’ Sewers’ Union at, 336 - - Educational Institute of Scotland, 473 - - Eight Hours Bill, textile agitation for, in 1867-75, 309; - general, 387, 390-92, 408, 648 - - Eight hours day, 402-3; - demanded in 1834, 151; - on the railways, 535 - - Elcho, Lord. - _See_ Wemyss, Earl of - - Eldon, Lord, 105 - - Election expenses, 368 - - Electioneering by Trade Unions, 274-5 - - Electrical Trades Union, 488, 551 - - Elizabeth, Act of, 47-9 - - Ellenborough, Lord, 59-60, 144 - - Ellicott, Dr., Bishop of Gloucester, 332 - - Ellis, Sir T. Ratcliffe, 530 - - Ely, Bishop of, 3 - - Emblem, 450 - - Emigration, 201-2, 328 - - Employer and Workman Act, 291, 625 - - Employers’ Associations, service of, 479; - as combinations, 73 - - Employers’ liability, 364-6, 370, 373 - - Employers of Labour, National Federation of Associated, 326-7 - - Employment Exchanges, 646 - - Engels, Friedrich, 186 - - Engineering and Shipbuilding Federation, 552-3 - - Engineers, 174, 176, 178, 196-7, 201, 204-24, 230, 232-4, 245, 255, - 259, 261, 313-17, 346, 348, 353, 355, 384-5, 408, 415-16, - 420-21, 551, 555, 559, 636, 643, 692, 744; - statistics of, 407, 428-31, 484-490; - strike of 1836, 206; - strike of 1852, 214-16; - strike of 1897, 484-5 - - Enginemen, 440 - - Equalisation of funds, 220 - - Erle, Sir William, 195, 264, 279 - - Evans, D., 511 - - Evans, Frederick, 523 - - Eversley, Lord, 228 - - Excess Profits Duty, 641 - - Excise officers, 507-8 - - Exeter, 34-5, 136 - - - Fabian Research Department. - _See_ Labour Research Department - - Fabian Society, 375, 399, 414, 561, 642, 662, 680-82, 684 - - Factory Acts, 679 - - Factory Acts Reform Association, 310-13 - - Factory inspectors, 371-2 - - Fagniez, 3, 7, 8 - - Fairbairn, Sir W., 84, 205 - - Fair Trade League, 394-5 - - “Fair Wages” agitation, 398-9, 558 - - Farr, Dr. William, 228 - - Farriers, 46 - - Farringdon, prosecution of labourers at, 332 - - Farwell, Lord Justice, 627 - - Faulkner, H. V., 175 - - Fawcett Association, 508 - - Fawcett, Henry, 228, 238, 312 - - Federal Council of Secondary School Associations, 506 - - Federation of British Industries, 545 - - Federation of the Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades, 355, 421, 552-3 - - Federation of Organised Trade Societies, 356 - - Felkin, W., 38, 52, 169 - - Feltmakers’ Company, 28, 30, 52-3 - - Female Umbrella Makers, 337 - - Fenwick, Charles, 362 - - Fernehough, Thomas, 260 - - Ferrand, M.P., 186 - - Fielden, J., 132, 151, 158 - - Fielding, Sir John, 54 - - Figgis, J. N., 611 - - Filesmiths of Sheffield, 80 - - Findlay, Sir George, 525 - - Finlaison, 268 - - Flannel-weavers of Rochdale, 127 - - Flax Roughers, 473; - workers, 133, 435-6 - - Flint Glass Makers, 181, 183-4, 197, 199-202, 228, 230, 379-80, 423, - 744 - - Forbes, Archibald, 329 - - Foreign policy of Labour Party, 695-6 - - Foremen, 440, 506 - - Forest of Dean Miners’ Association, 434. _See also_ Miners - - Forster, W. E., 228 - - Foster, Thomas, 118-20; - (another) 648 - - Foxwell, Professor H. S., 58, 155, 157, 162, 308 - - Framework-knitters, 14, 38-9, 51, 51-2, 62, 75, 88-9, 94, 121 - - Franchise, 368, 372, 624, 672 - - Franklin, Benjamin, 27 - - Free Colliers of Scotland, 20 - - Freemasons, 19 - - French Polishers, 432-3 - - Friendly Benefits, 222, 445, 620-21 - - Friendly Societies, 19, 24; - Act for, 261 - - Friendly Society of Oddfellows, 19 - - Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons. - _See_ Stonemasons - - Friendly Union of Mechanics, 208 - - Friendly United Smiths of Great Britain and Ireland, 207. - _See also_ Smiths - - Friziers, 91 - - Frost, Williams, and Jones, Newport Chartists, 177 - - Froude, J. A., 48 - - Furnishing Trades, 481 - - Fynes, Richard, 90, 124, 181, 186 - - - Gaevernitz, von Schulze, 339, 414 - - Galloway, 61, 205 - - Galton, F. W., 23, 97, 150 - - Gammage, R. G., 175 - - Garibaldi, 247 - - Garment Workers. - _See_ Tailors - - Garton Foundation, 648 - - Gascoyne, Colonel, 71 - - Gas-stokers, London (1872), 284-5; - strike of (1834), 138, (1888) 395. - _See_ Gas-workers - - Gast, John, 84-5, 107, 111, 115 - - Gas-workers, 402, 406, 420, 439, 497, 499 - - Gateshead Trades Council, 561 - - Geddes, Sir Auckland, 536-7 - - Geddes, Sir Eric, 536-8 - - Geldart, W. M., 609, 634 - - General Federation of Trade Unions 554-7, 603-4, 700 - - General Labourers’ National Council, 499 - - General Railway Workers’ Union, 405-6, 524, 530. - _See also_ Railwaymen - - General staff, need for, 546 - - General Union of Carpenters. - _See_ Carpenters - - General Union of Sheet Metal Workers. - _See_ Sheet Metal Workers - - General Union of Textile Workers, 480 - - General Workers, 497-502 - - George, D. Lloyd, 509, 518, 522, 527, 537-9, 541, 543-4, 645, 692, - 694-5 - - George, Henry, 375-6, 389 - - Gierke, O., 611-12 - - Giffen, Sir Robert, 424 - - Gig-mill, 48 - - Gild of St. George, Coventry, 6 - - Girdlestone, Canon, 329 - - Gladstone, W. E., 248, 262, 284-6, 302, 365 - - Glasgow, calico-printers of, 75; - cotton operatives of, 56, 58-9, 89, 170-71; - gilds of, 14; - labourers’ society in, 417; - stonemasons of, 347; - Trades Council of, 240, 242-3, 252-3, 258, 280; - violent Trade Unionism of, 165 - - Glass-bottle Makers, 259, 423, 441, 744 - - Glass-workers. - _See_ Flint Glass Makers and Glass-bottle Makers - - Glaziers of London, 66 - - Gloucestershire, clothiers of, 33-5; - weavers of, 50; - woollen-workers of, 33-4, 50 - - Glovers, 43, 437 - - Goderich, Lord. - _See_ Ripon, Marquis of - - Gold, Silver, and Kindred Trades Society, 551 - - Goldasti, 20 - - Goldbeaters, 37, 91 - - Gompers, Samuel, 556 - - _Gorgon_, the, 99 - - Government of Industry, 752-62 - - Government officials, 507-8 - - Graham, Sir James, 60, 185 - - Graham, R. B. Cunninghame, 386, 682 - - Grain-porters, 501 - - Grand National Consolidated Trades Union, 125, 417; - rules of, 725-733 - - Grey, Sir George, 185 - - Grinders, 80, 260 - - Gross, Dr., 15 - - Grote, George, 178 - - Guild Socialism, 548, 660-1 - - Guilds. - _See_ Craft Gilds - - Guile, Daniel, 233-40, 238 (life of), 252, 291, 362 - - Gurney, J, and W. B., 89 - - Gurney, Russell, 275 - - - Haddleton, 197 - - Halévy, Élie, 648 - - Halifax, woollen-workers of, 35 - - Hall, Rev. Robert, 94 - - Halliday, Sir Leonard, 4 - - Halliday, Thomas, 289 - - Hallsworth, Joseph, 503 - - Halsbury, Lord, 610, 614 - - Hamilton, A. H. A., 33 - - Hammond, J. L. and B., 70-71, 82, 86, 89, 100, 105, 112, 115, 144 - - Hanley Trades Council, 558 - - Hansom, 130 - - Hardie, J. Keir, 396, 681-4, 688 - - Harford, E., 390 - - Harrel, Sir David, 530 - - Harrison, Frederic, 246, 262, 263, 265, 267, 270-71, 273-4, 275, 279, - 284, 286, 295-7, 298, 362, 374, 610. - _See also_ Positivists - - Harvey, George, 511 - - Hasbach, Dr. W., 329, 405 - - Hatters, 28, 30, 45, 52-3, 68, 90, 437. - _See also_ Feltmakers’ Company - - Headlam, Rev. S. D., 399 - - Heath, F. G., 329 - - Henderson, Arthur, 490, 529-30, 666, 669, 680, 685, 692, 694-5, 699 - - Henson, Gravener, 38, 77, 81, 89, 94, 100, 105 - - Hepburn, Tommy, 124 - - _Herald of the Rights of Industry, The_, 158 - - Herbert, Hon. Auberon, 329 - - Hewins, W. A. S., 49 - - Hexham, hatters of, 53 - - Hibbert and Platt, 214 - - Hill, Frank, 14, 228 - - Hill, Frederic, 257, 272 - - Hilles, Richard, 4 - - Hobhouse, Benjamin, 69, 70 - - Hobhouse, John Cam, 122 - - Hobson, S. G., 660 - - Hodge, John, 491, 692, 695 - - Hodges, Frank, 517, 673-5, 715 - - Hodgskin, T., 162 - - Holders-up. - _See_ Boilermakers. - - Holland, John, 124 - - Holland, Lord, 70 - - Holyoake, G. J., 302 - - Holy town, miners of, 193 - - Hornby _v._ Close, 262 - - Hosiery-workers, 435-6. - _See also_ Framework-knitters - - Hour, payment by the, 245-6 - - House of Call, 69, 77, 445 - - Hovell, Mark, vi, 158, 164, 170, 175 - - Howell, George, 12-13, 17, 27, 30, 40-41, 65, 71, 100, 105, 139, 144, - 170, 173, 188, 195, 228, 240, 245, 248, 255, 275, 281, 285-6, - 289, 291-2, 295, 298, 325, 329-30, 352, 361, 370, 372, 391, - 395, 416, 599, 601, 616-17, 623, 665, 682, 748 - - Howick, Lord, 146 - - Hoxie, R. F., 717 - - Hozier, J. H. C., 393. - - Huddersfield, 125 - - Hughes, Judge Thomas, Q.C., 216, 228, 244, 246, 265, 270, 274-5, 282, - 290, 263-4, 341. - _See also_ Christian Socialists - - Hughson, David, 32, 34 - - Hull, ropemakers of, 91; - Trade Unionism at, 136 - - Hume, James Deacon, 158 - - Hume, Joseph, M.P., 72, 81, 99-168, 142, 186, 251, 277, 415 - - Humphrey, A. W., 237, 275, 289, 604, 680 - - Humphries, E., 195 - - Hunt, D. R. C., 599 - - Hunt, Henry, 96, 164 - - Hunter, Thomas, 170 - - Huskisson, W., M.P., 60, 105-6 - - Hutchinson, Alexander, 153, 207-8 - - Hutton, R. H., 228, 246 - - Hutton, W., 177 - - Huysmans, Camille, 666, 669, 670 - - Hyde, spinners’ strike at, 117 - - Hyett, W. H., 111 - - Hyndman, H. M., 376-7, 387, 400, 409-11 - - - “Illegal men,” 59 - - Incorporation of Trade Unions, 596 - - Independent Labour Party, 384, 652, 680-84, 692 - - Independent Order of Engineers and Machinists. - _See_ Engineers - - Index numbers, 339 - - Industrial Conscription, 639-40 - - Industrial Courts Act, 1919, 643 - - Industrial Remuneration Conference, 380 - - Industrial Unionism, 656-9 - - Industrial Unions, 548-50 - - Industrial Workers of the World, 655 - - Industries, difficulty of delimiting, 714 - - Ingram, Dr. J. K., 26 - - Initiation Parts, 149 - - Injunctions, 599, 600, 688 - - Inspectors, 504-5 - - Insurance Agents, 440, 507 - - Inter-Allied Conferences, 693-6 - - Interlocutor, 581 - - International Association of Working-men, 235-6, 248, 297, 316, 379, - 396-7, 421, 666, 693-6 - - International Federations of Trade Unions, 555-6 - - Intimidation, 597 - - Ireland, laws in, 68-9; - Trade Unionism in, 472-3 - - Irish Bank Officials’ Association, 505 - - Irish Clerical Workers’ Union, 505 - - Irish Labour Party, 473 - - Irish Railway Workers’ Trade Union, 524 - - Irish Teachers’ Society, 473 - - Irish Textile Workers’ Federation, 473 - - Irish Trades Union Congress, 473 - - Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, 492, 552, 749 - - Iron and Steelworkers, Associated Society of. - _See_ Ironworkers - - Iron Forgers, Associated Fraternity of, or Old Smiths, 205 - - Ironfounders, 78, 121, 174, 176, 198-9, 200-203, 205, 213, 226, 233, - 245, 261, 319-20, 348-9, 353, 391, 415, 429-30, 488, 685, 692, - 744 - - Irongrinders, 744 - - Ironmoulders. - _See_ Ironfounders - - Iron shipbuilders. - _See_ Boiler makers - - Iron Trade--Midland Wages Board, 734-5; - North of England Wages Board, 734-5 - - Ironworkers, 240, 259, 273, 324, 339, 349, 430-31, 491-2, 734-5; - of Dowlais, 224; - of Staffordshire, 256; - sliding scales of, 734-5 - - - Jackson and Graham, 290 - - Jackson, Col. Raynsford, 344 - - James, 37 - - James of Hereford, Lord, 206, 493, 610, 615-16, 618, 626 - - Jeffrey, Lord, 72 - - Jevons, H. Stanley (the younger), 186, 511, 516 - - Jewish Unions, 478 - - Joiners. - _See_ Carpenters - - Joint Board, 700 - - Joint Committees. - _See_ Arbitration, Whitley Councils - - Jones, Benjamin, 225, 708 - - Jones, Daniel, 734 - - Jones, Lloyd, 243, 298, 329, 340-41 (life), 510 - - Jones, W. C., 341 - - Journalists, 493, 507 - - Journeyman Fraternities, 4-9 - - Journeymen Steam Engine and Machine Makers and Millwrights Friendly - Society, 204-20. - _See also_ Engineers - - Jude, Martin, 182, 299 - - Junta, the, 233-98 - - Jupp, 18 - - Jury service, 367-8, 372 - - Justices of the Peace, 372, 594 - - - Kane, John, 240 (life of), 273, 286, 289, 299, 324, 339 - - Karslake, Sir John, 275 - - Kay-Shuttleworth, Sir James, 228 - - Keeling, F., 500 - - Keelmen, 44 - - Kenney, Rowland, 524, 527 - - Kettel, F. E., 329 - - Kettle, Sir Rupert, 338-9 - - Kidderminster, 112; - carpet-weavers of, 224 - - Kitchen-range, etc., Fitters’ Union, 323 - - Knight, Charles, 141, 178 - - Knight, Robert, 322, 324, 351, 355, 378, 421, 554 - - Knights of Labour, 135 - - - Laboratory workers, 506 - - Labour and the New Social Order, 679, 697 - - Labour Commission, 595-6, 602, 650, 735 - - Labour Department, 596 - - _Labour Elector, The_, 387 - - Labour Electoral Committee, 680 - - Labour League, London and Counties, 417, 439 - - Labour members, characteristics of, 701-2 - - Labour Party, 604 - - Labour Representation League, 287-9, 680 - - Labour Research Department, 225, 542, 561, 751 - - _Labour Standard, The_, 298 - - Labour Time, 162-3 - - Labourers, no early organisation among, 43; - statistics of, 428-9, 438-40; - increase of, 497-502 - - Lacemakers, 435-6, 441, 559 - - Ladies’ Shoemakers’ Society, 238 - - _Laisser-faire_, 56 - - Lanarkshire, cotton-weavers of, 58, 170 - - Lancashire Federation of Protection Societies, 478 - - Lancashire Miners, 182, 433, 511 - - Land Nationalisation, 389, 390, 395 - - Langford, 32 - - Lansbury, George, 689 - - Larkin, James, 472-3 - - Lathom, R. M., 680 - - Laundresses, T.U., 336 - - Law, Bonar, 668 - - Law reforms, 367-8 - - Lawrence, F. Pethick, 681 - - Lawrence, Miss Susan, 494, 496 - - Laws, Mr., 287 - - Layton, W. T., 527 - - Lead miners, absence of T.U. among, 434 - - Leathergrounders, 92 - - Leatherworkers, 437, 552 - - Lee, H. W., 501 - - Leech, H. J., 293 - - Leeds, 35; - clothing trade of, 35, 40, 127; - Clothiers’ Union, 133, 147 - - Leeds, Huddersfield, and Bradford District Union, 147 - - Legal assaults, 597-634 - - Legal Minimum Wage, under Trade Boards Act, 494-5; - under Corn Production Act, 498; - under Mines Act, 514-16 - - Leicester, 94, 125, 137; - hosiery workers of, 335; - Trades Council, 558; - woolcombers of, 36 - - Levi, Leone, 424 - - Levine, Louis, 655 - - Lewis, Sir G. C., 247 - - Liberty, analysis of, 757 - - Lichfield, Earl of, 254 - - Life Assurance Agents. - _See_ Insurance Agents - - Linen Weavers, 436 - - _Link, The_, 402 - - Liquor, 448; - allowance, 203-4 - - Litchfield, R. B., 246 - - Liverpool, building trades of, 128-130; - dockers of, 405; - hatters of, 53; - ropemakers of, 91; - shipwrights of, 551; - Trades Council, 242-3, 252, 354-5 - - Liverpool, Lord, 105 - - Liverpool Sailmakers’ Friendly Association of Shipwrights, - _See_ Shipwrights - - Liverpool, Trades Guardian Association of, 243 - - Lloyd, C. M., 160 - - Local Government elections, 305, 399, 413; - employees, 508; - successes, 703-4 - - Local _versus_ Central Administration, 714 - - Lock-out, the, 255-6; - of agricultural labourers, 332, 334 - - London and Counties Labour League, 417, 439 - - London Carpenters’ Company, 18; - city companies of, 14; - coal-porters of, 18; - early combinations in the City of, 2, 3; - framework knitters of, 14, 38, 51-2; - joiners’ company of, 18; - shipwrights’ company of, 18; - Trades Council, 231, 236, 238, 285, 333, 558-60; - woodsawyers of, 18 - - London Consolidated Society of Bookbinders, 188, 196 - - London Society of Compositors, 181, 399, 415, 437-8, 492 - - London Working Men’s Association, 298, 680 - - Londonderry, Lord, 90, 166, 186 - - Longe, F. D., 228 - - Looms, renting of, forbidden, 48 - - Loveless, George, John, and James, 144-6, 148 - - Lovett, Samuel, 96 - - Lovett, William, 84, 114, 145, 156, 157, 172, 174 - - Lowe, Robert. - _See_ Sherbrooke, Lord, 285 - - Lucraft, Benjamin, 235, 289 - - Luddites, the, 87-9 - - Ludlow, J. M., 14, 26, 216, 228, 246, 264, 341. - _See_ Christian Socialists - - Lushington, Sir Godfrey, 228, 246, 264 - - Lushington, Vernon, 264 - - - Macarthur, Miss Mary, 494, 496 - - Macclesfield, hatters of, 30 - - McConnel and Co., 308 - - McCulloch, J. R., 23, 99, 197 - - Macdonald, Alexander, 240, 249, 252, 277, 286, 289, 290, 299, 300 - (life of), 301-7, 338, 342, 362, 393, 510, 680 - - MacDonald, J. Ramsay, 23, 337, 529, 666, 669, 684-5, 688, 699 - - McGowan, Patrick, 118, 120 - - Machine, Engine, and Iron Grinders’ Society, 744-7 - - Machine Printers, 744. - _See also_ Compositors - - Machine Workers. - _See_ Engineers - - Machinery, export of, 100, 103 - - M’Hugh, Edward, 582 - - MacManus, A., 619 - - Madox, T., 612 - - Maitland, F. W., 611-12 - - Maitland, General, 88 - - _Man, The_, 134 - - Management, analysis of, 752 - - Manchester--Association of T.U. Officials, Manchester and District, - 324; - brickmakers of, 268; - building trades of, 130-31, (strike of 1846) 193; - carpenters of, 343; - cotton-spinners of, 81; - lengthening of hours at, 348; - painters of, 275; - Trades Council, 243, 280, 558-60, 738-40 - - Mandamus, 600 - - Manley, Thomas, 22 - - Mann, Tom, 383-4 - (life), 396, 402, 406-7, 409, 412-14, 419, 490, 595-6, 651-2, 657-8 - - Manners, Lord John, 186 - - Manning, Cardinal, 332, 404 - - Marcroft family, the, 152 - - Marine Engineers’ Union. - _See_ Engineers - - Marlborough, Duke of, 332 - - Marshall, James, 170 - - Martineau, Harriet, 141 - - Marx, Karl, 162, 235, 297, 367, 376, 389 - - Masons. - _See_ Stonemasons - - Master and Servant, law in 1844, 185-6; - Act of 1867, 249-53 - - Match girls, London strike of, 402 - - Maudsley, 61 - - Maurice, Rev. F. D., 228 - - Mavor, James, 524 - - Mawdsley, James, 379, 479, 596 - - Mawdsley, Thomas, 311 - - Maxwell, William, 598 - - May, John, 33 - - Mayhew, 11 - - Mechanics’ Friendly Union Institution, 208 - - _Mechanics’ Magazine_, the, 197 - - Medico-Political Union, 506-7 - - Melbourne, Lord, 138-48 - - _Memorandum on War Aims_, 695 - - Memorial of Freedom and Peace, 593 - - Menger, Anton, 155, 157, 162 - - Mercantile Marine Offices, Superintendents of, 507 - - Merchant Shipping Acts, 607 - - Merchant Taylors’ Company, 3, 6 - - Mersey Quay and Railway Carters’ Union. - _See_ Carmen - - Merton College buildings, 10, 11 - - Mess, H. A., 500 - - Middleton, J. S., 691 - - Midland Iron Trade Board, 734 - - Miles, Wm., 185 - - Military Service Acts, 639-40 - - Mill, James, 96, 157 - - Mill, John Stuart, 287, 617 - - Millers, 59, 438; - of Kent, 59-60 - - Millmen. - _See_ Ironworkers - - Millwrights, 45, 69, 83-4, 92, 204-6 - - Miners, 415, 510-22, 624, 690; - Amalgamated Association of, 289; - Co-operative Production and, 335; - Association of, G. B. and I., 181, 182, 186, 299, 517-18; - Eight Hours Act, 686; - Federation, 393-4, 408, 433-4, 510-22, 538, 549-50, 553, 555, 648, - 661, 662-3, 665, 668, 673-5, 685, 715; - Minimum Wage Act, 687; - of Ayrshire, 681; - of Carmarthenshire, 44; - of Durham, 44, 124, 166, 182-3, 296, 304, 335, 338, 342, 349, 386, - 391, 392, 434, 511-12, 517, 744; - of Holytown, 193; - of Lancashire, 111-12, 123, 143, 182-183, 188, 392-3, 433, 511; - of Lothian, 434; - of Midlands, 349, 393, 511; - of Monmouthshire, 89; - of Northumberland, 124, 127, 182, 296, 335, 338, 340, 342, 347, - 349, 386, 391-2, 433, 511-12; - of Nottingham, 258; - of Scotland, 192, 393, 434, 511; - of Somerset, 44; - of Staffordshire, 124, 511; - of South Wales, 89, 343, 349, 434, 511, 640, 690; - of Yorkshire, 124, 182, 228, 230, 256, 301-2, 304-5, 335, 338, - 349, 370, 392-3, 433, 510-11, 522, 744; - reorganisation of, in 1858, 300-7; - statistics of, 407, 428-9, 433-4; - strike of 1810, 90. - _See also_ Iron-miners, Lead-miners, Copper-miners. - - Miners’ Attorney-General, the, 183 - - _Miners’ Next Step_, the, 657 - - Minimum to Sliding Scale, 340-42 - - Minimum Wage Commission, 648 - - Mining Association of Great Britain, 553 - - Ministry of Reconstruction, 647-8 - - Mogul Case, 598 - - Molestation, 597 - - Moncrieff, Lord, 343 - - Moore, Peter, 251 - - Morley, Samuel, 310, 332 - - Morris, William, 377 - - Morrison, James, 131 - - Mottershead, 289 - - Mulineaux, Thomas, 30 - - Mundella, A. J., 264-5, 274-5, 282, 288, 290, 310, 338-9, 362 - - Municipal Employees’ Association, 508 - - Munitions, Levy, 641; - Ministry of, 637-43; - Munitions of War Acts, 637, 643; - Tribunals, 639, 643, 646 - - Munro, Prof. J. E. Crawford, 308, 734-7 - - Murphy, J. T., 490, 659 - - Musical Instrument Makers, 92 - - Musicians, 744 - - Mutual Association of Coopers. - _See_ Coopers - - Mutuality, 487 - - - Nash, Vaughan, 404 - - National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association, 551, 744. - _See also_ Furnishing, French Polishers, Cabinetmakers, Upholsterers - - National Amalgamated Sailors’ and Firemen’s Union. - _See_ Sailors. - - National Association for the Protection of Labour, 120-24 - - National Association of Miners, 299-300 - - National Association of Operative Plasterers. - _See_ Plasterers - - National Association of United Trades for the Protection of Labour, - 186-95 - - National Association of United Trades, 277 - - National Companies, 160 - - National Cordwainers’ Society, 192 - - National Council of Colliery Workers, 550 - - National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, 482-3; - of Colliery Enginemen, 550; - of Colliery Mechanics, 550; - of Deputies, 550; - of General Workers, 499-500; - of Mine Managers, 550; - of Professional Workers, 506-7; - of Women Workers, 495 - - National Guilds, 660-61 - - National Industrial Conference, 648 - - National Insurance Act, 475, 495, 498, 503, 555, 636, 689 - - National Society of Amalgamated Brassworkers. - _See_ Brassworkers - - National Transport Workers’ Federation, 500-502, 538, 543 - - National Typographical Association, 181, 191 - - National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives. - _See_ Boot and Shoe Operatives - - National Union of Clerks, 505; - of Dock Labourers. - _See_ Dockers; - of General Workers, 692. - _See also_ Gas-workers; - of Miners, 300-307, 511-12; - of Railway Clerks, 524; - of Railwaymen, 530-46. - _See also_ Railwaymen; - of Teachers, 440, 473, 506; - of the Working Classes, 156 - - National United Trades’ Association for the Employment of Labour, 192 - - Nationalisation, 651; - of the coal supply, 517-22; - of Mines Bill, 662-3; - of railways, 534. - - Navvies, 439. - _See also_ Labourers - - Neale, E. Vansittart, 216, 341. - _See_ Christian Socialists - - Neale, Professor, 264 - - _New Age_, the, 660 - - New Sarum, Cordwainers at, 57 - - “New Unionism,” the, of 1833-34, 153-67; - of 1845-52, 195-204; - of 1889-90, 414-21 - - Newcastle, potters of, 133; - ropemakers of, 91; - Trades Council, 252 - - Newcastle-on-Tyne--engineers’ strike at, 315-16; - gilds of, 14; - shoemakers at, 24 - - Newton, George, 258 - - Newton, William, 206-24, 234, 243, 680 - - Newton-le-Willows, trial of engineers of, 209-10 - - Nine Hours’ Bill, 311-12, 625 - - Nine Hours’ Day, 245, 391, 397; - attack on, 347, 355; - in building trades, 228-32; - movement in engineering and building, 313-17 - - Nixon, J., 340 - - Non-Unionists, 441, 443; - refusal to work with, 295-6 - - Normal Day, the, 246 - - Normansell, John, 305 - - North of England Manufactured Iron Board, 734-5 - - Northern Counties’ Amalgamated Association of Weavers, 423, 478 - - _Northern Star, The_, 166, 174-7, 181-2, 186, 216 - - Northumberland Miners, 181-2, 304, 340, 342, 347, 349, 386, 391-2, - 511-12, 625, 744 - - _Notes and Queries_, 34 - - Nottingham, 52; - framework knitters of, 52; - Hosiery Board, 338; - stockingers of, 62; - Trades Council, 252, 558 - - - O’Brien, J. Bronterre, 178 - - Obstruction, 597 - - O’Connell, Daniel, 148, 171, 173 - - O’Connor, Fergus, M.P., 174-5, 177-8, 182, 188. See _Northern Star_ - - Odger, George, 233-98, 238 (life), 243, 245, 247-8, 361-2, 680 - - O’Grady, J., 683 - - Oldham, cotton operatives of, 307; - strike of, in 1834, 151-2; - cotton spinners of, 41, 559; - strike of, in 1871, 310; - engineers of, 214 - - “One Big Union,” 114 - - Onslow, Serjeant, 61-2 - - Operative Society of Bricklayers. - _See_ Bricklayers - - _Operative, The_, 213 - - Orage, A. R., 660 - - Osborne Judgement, 608-34, 686 - - Osborne, W. V., 608-9, 628 - - Ouseburn Engine works, 335 - - Outrages, Glasgow, 165, 170-71; - Manchester, 268; - Sheffield, 259-260, 268 - - Overlap. - _See_ Demarcation - - Overlookers, 477 - - Overmen, 434, 513, 549 - - Over-steaming, 679 - - Overtime, 317; - in Government Departments, 390-91; - prevalence of, 348 - - Owen, Robert, 130, 132, 134-5, 154-64, 167-8, 177, 251, 341, 409-10, - 418-19 - - Owenism, 653, 707 - - Oxford, Cordwainers at, 5 - - - Pacifists, the, 691-6 - - Packing-case Makers, 432 - - Painters, 125, 275, 432-3, 481, 548; - of Dublin, 721-4; - of Liverpool, 128; - of London, 66 - - Paisley, operatives at, 23; - weavers of, 23 - - Papermakers, 68, 77, 90, 92, 438, 493 - - Paris, Comte de, 272 - - Parker, James, 692, 698 - - Parliamentary Committee of Trades Union Congress, 361, 554-6, 700; - cotton officials demur to alliance with, 310; - origin of, 281, 283 - - Parnell, Sir Henry, 172-3 - - Particulars Clause, 679 - - Patent laws, 368-9 - - Paterson, Mrs., 336-7 (life) - - Patrimony in apprenticeship, 83 - - Patternmakers, 205, 353, 430, 488, 551; - society formed, 322; - statistics of, 745, 749 - - Payment by Results, 643; - in engineering, 485-7 - - Payment of members, 368, 374, 631 - - Peasant proprietorship, 368, 389-390, 395 - - Pease, E. R., 414, 680 - - Peel, Sir Robert (the elder), 57, 60; - (the younger), 139 - - Pemberton, Benjamin, 721-2 - - Pension Committee, 594, 646 - - Penty, A. J., 660 - - Percy, M., 511 - - Perthshire, 136 - - “Philanthropic Hercules,” 114 - - Pianoforte Makers, 230 - - Picketing, 278, 598, 607; - legalisation of, 291 - - Picton, Sir J. A., 40 - - Piecers, 435; - associations of, 7 - - Piecework Lists in cotton industry, 307-9 - - Pilots, 440 - - Pinmakers, Corporation of, 42 - - _Pioneer_, or _Trades Union Magazine, The_, 131 - - Pipemakers, 91 - - Pit Committee, 521 - - Pitt, William, 69, 71 - - Place, Francis, 32, 61, 73, 84-5, 89, 94, 96-110, 114, 117, 156, 159, - 175, 251, 415, 416 - - Plasterers, 125, 354, 432-3, 744; - of Dublin, 172, 721-4 - - Platers’ Helpers, 353-4, 360 - - Plimsoll, S., 354, 370 - - Ploughmen’s Union, Perthshire, 136 - - Plumbers, 125, 169, 316, 348, 429, 432-3, 481, 744 - - Podmore, Frank, 130, 160 - - Police Union, 509 - - Political expenditure, 632 - - Pollock, Sir F., 597 - - _Poor Man’s Advocate, The_, 117, 120 - - _Poor Man’s Guardian, The_, 114, 134, 136, 142-3, 155 - - Porters, 442 - - Positivists, 246, 262-4. - _See_ Beesly, Crompton, and Harrison - - Post Office annuities, 248, 296-7; - employees, 507-8, 539; - Savings Bank, 262 - - Post Office workers, 440, 744; - union of, 508, 661 - - Postal and Telegraph Clerks’ Association, 507-8, 662 - - Postmen’s Federation, 507-8 - - Potter, Edmund, 274 - - Potter, George, 231 - - Potter, George, 248, 252, 254-5, 272-3, 289, 298, 361, 680 - - Potters, 133, 147, 168-9, 181, 185, 192, 201, 438, 552; - and co-operative production, 336; - of Staffordshire, 123; - of Wolverhampton, 143; - Union, 181, 197 - - _Potters’ Examiner, The_, 197, 202 - - Precious metals, workers in, 431, 551 - - Premium Bonus System, 643 - - Pressmen, 27; - prosecution of, 78; - _See_ Compositors - - Preston, carpenters of, 75; - cotton-spinners’ strike of 1836, 169; - gilds of, 14 - - Price, Rev. H., 112 - - Price, L. L., 338, 736 - - Printers. - _See_ Compositors, Pressmen, and Typographical - - Printing Trades, statistics of, 428, 437-8, 744-9 - - Prior, J. D., 240, 324, 362-3, 372 - - Prison Officers’ Federation, 507 - - Production for use, 709 - - Professional Association, 711-12 - - Profiteering Act, 675 - - Profit-sharing, 403 - - Publicity, use of, 222-3 - - Puddlers. - _See_ Ironworkers - - Pugh, Arthur, 491 - - Purcell, A., 560 - - - Quarrymen, 433-4 - - Quittance Paper, 208. - - - Radstock Miners’ Association. - _See_ Miners, Somersetshire - - Rae, Sir William, 95 - - Railway Clerks’ Association, 504-5, 523, 534, 539, 545, 661, 744 - - Railway Telegraph Clerks’ Association, 523 - - Railway Working Men’s Benefit Society, 523 - - Railwaymen, 365, 390, 407, 439, 442, 504-5, 522-46, 550, 559, - 600-634, 661, 666, 684, 687, 690, 744; - statistics of, 407, 744-9 - - Railway Women’s Guild, 497 - - Ramsey, conference at, 117 - - Rattening, 260 - - Raynes, Francis, 89 - - Razor-grinders, 184, 343 - - Reade, Charles, 257 - - “Red Van” Campaign, 405 - - Reform Act of 1832, 155-6, 177; - of 1867, 248; - of 1918, 698 - - Registrar of Friendly Societies, Chief, 261, 423, 619 - - Renals, E., 339 - - Rennie, 84 - - Representative actions, 602 - - Restoration of Trade Union conditions, 642-3 - - Restraint of trade, 67, 262, 617 - - Revolution in Thought, 649-76 - - Rhondda, 514 - - Ribbon-weavers, Coventry, 95 - - Ricardo, David, 178 - - Richmond the spy, 89 - - Rick-burning, 144 - - Riley’s _Memorials_, 3, 6 - - Ripon, Marquis of, 215, 244 - - Rites of admission, 127 - - Roberts, G. H., 666, 692, 698 - - Roberts, W. P., 182-5, 210, 510 - - Rochdale, flannel-weavers of, 127; - Pioneers, 177, 225 - - Roebuck, J. A., 148 - - Rogers, J. E. Thorold, 10, 49, 56 - - Rollit, Sir Albert, 501 - - Roman Catholic Unions, 478 - - Ropemakers, 91, 438 - - Rose, George, 61, 70 - - Rosebery, Lord, 374 - - Rosenblatt, F. F., 175 - - Rosslyn, Lord, 108 - - Rotherhithe Watermen, 11 - - Rowlands, J., 682 - - Rowlinson, John, 208 - - Ruegg, A. H., 599 - - Rules, Trade Union, 651 - - Rutland, Duke of, 332 - - Ryan, W. P., 473 - - - Saddlers, 92; - of London, 3 - - Sadler, Michael, 123 - - Sailmakers, 46, 120, 430 - - Sailors, 405-6, 438, 440, 500-501, 607, 665; - on North-East Coast, 104, 106, 108 - - St. Leonards, Lord, 230 - - Salisbury, bootmakers of, 57 - - Samuel, Herbert, 508 - - Sankey, Mr. Justice, 518-22, 668 - - Saturday half-holiday, 229; - Oldham Spinners’ strike for, 310 - - Saw-grinders, 260 - - Sawyers, 433 - - Scale Beam-makers, 92 - - Scalemakers, 92 - - Schoenlank, Dr. Bruno, 25 - - Scissorsmiths, 39, 80 - - Scott, W., 124 - - Scottish Farm Servants’ Union, 498-9 - - Scottish National Operative Tailors’ Society. - _See_ Tailors - - Scottish Society of Railway Servants, 524-5 - - Scottish Typographical Association, 181, 423, 437, 482. - _See also_ Compositors - - Scottish United Operative Masons, 196 - - Seagoing Engineers’ Union. - _See_ Engineers - - Seaham, 166 - - Secondary School Teachers, 506 - - Secular Education, 628 - - Self-governing Workshops, 225 - - Selley, Ernest, 329, 405 - - Selsby, 209-10, 234 - - Senior, Nassau, 103, 139-41, 173 - - Serfdom of miners, 89 - - Sewing-machine, introduction of, 228 - - Shackleton, Sir D., 685 - - Shaen, Roscoe & Co., 275 - - Shaftesbury, Lord, 293, 434 - - Shale Oil-Workers, 434 - - Shaw, Lord, 626 - - Shearmen of Dundee, 136; - of Wiltshire, 144 - - Sheet Metal Workers, 431 - - Sheffield, 94; - carpenters of, 232, 236; - conference at, 257; - cutlery made, 39; - gilds of, 14; - Mercantile and Manufacturing Union, 73, 80; - outrages at, 259-61, 263, 268-9; - prosecution at, 184-5; - Trades Council, 242-3, 252, 280, 299; - United Trades of, 184, 187 - - Shepton Mallet, woollen-workers of, 51 - - Sherbrooke, Lord, 285 - - Sheridan, R. B., 57, 71 - - Ship Constructors’ and Shipwrights’ Association, 551. - _See also_ Shipwrights - - Shipton, George, 240, 290, 298, 325, 331, 362, 395, 406, 408 - - Shipwrights, 45, 77, 247, 353, 429-30, 490-91, 551; - of Deptford, 85; - of Liverpool, 39-40, 71; - of London, 104, 110; - of Newcastle, 106; - of the Clyde, 256 - - Shirland Colliery, 335 - - Shirt and Collar-makers, Women’s Society of, 336 - - Shoemakers’ wages in London in 1669, 21; - of Wisbech, early combination of, 3 - - Sholl, S., 37, 55 - - Shop Assistants, 440, 503-4, 744; - of Sheffield, 109; - organisation among, 136-7; - statistics of, 745-749 - - Shop Stewards, 488-90, 659, 690 - - Shopmen, Railway, 531 - - Shorrocks, Peter, 278-9 - - Short Time Committees, 194 - - Show Stewards, 716 - - Sidgwick, Henry, 308 - - Sigismund, the Emperor, 20 - - Silk-weavers, 37, 54-5, 66, 68, 98, 112, 121, 435-6; - at Coventry, 95; - at Spitalfields, 37; - at Dublin, 37 - - Silversmiths, 80, 91, 551 - - Simpson, Mrs., 141 - - Six Acts, the, 95 - - Six Hours’ Day, 517-22 - - Skelton, O. D., 414 - - Slaters, 432 - - Slesser, H. H., 601, 607, 634 - - Sliding Scales, 338-42, 391, 510, 734-7 - - Slosson, P. W., 175 - - Smart, W., 511 - - Smillie, R., 513 - - Smith, Adam, 23, 49, 55, 73, 162 - - Smith, Adolphe, 379 - - Smith, Frank, 681 - - Smith, Sidney, 216, 287, 347 - - Smith, Sir H. Llewellyn, 404 - - Smith, Toulmin, 8 - - Smiths, 46, 121, 205, 207-8, 213, 323, 430-431, 487-8, 491, 744; - early clubs of, 46. - _See_ Blacksmiths and Engineers - - Snowden, Philip, 688, 699 - - Social Contract, 674, 715 - - Social Democratic Federation, 376-377, 384-5, 387-9, 400, 409-14, - 652, 685 - - Social Science Association Report, 14, 23, 227-8 - - Socialism, revival of, 374-414 - - Socialist Labour Party, 659 - - Socialist League, 388 - - Society for National Regeneration, 132 - - Society for obtaining Parliamentary Relief, 62 - - Somers, Robert, 272 - - Somerset, clothiers of, 33-5; - coal-miners of, 44; - weavers of, 49, 51, 65; - woollen-workers of, 33-4, 49, 51 - - South Metropolitan Gas Company, 403 - - South Wales, depression in, 343; - miners of, 511, 514, 640, 690, 692; - ferment among, 657, 659 - - Sparkes, Malcolm, 483, 648 - - Spitalfields, 37, 54-5, 61, 66, 98, 112 - - Spyers, T. G., 596 - - Stabilisation of Wages, 643 - - Staffordshire, ironworkers of, 256 - - Stalybridge, cotton-spinners of, 2 - - Standard of Life, the, 303, 369 - - “Standardisation” on the railways, 535-46 - - Stationers’ Company, 27 - - Stationmasters, 504-5 - - Statistics, 422-44, 741-50 - - Status, rise in, 634-6 - - Statute of Apprentices, 47-9; - repeal of, 57-61. - _See_ Apprentices - - Statute of Labourers, 250 - - Steadman, W. C., 362, 684 - - Steam-engine makers, 203, 205. - _See_ Engineers - - Steel-smelters, 430, 491-2, 552, 559, 692, 744 - - Steffen, Gustav, 86 - - Stephen, J. Fitzjames, 70, 279 - - Stephens, Rev. J. R., 302, 309 - - Stevedores, 403 - - Stockholm, 694 - - Stocking Makers’ Association, 52 - - Stockingers. - _See_ Framework-knitters - - Stockport, cotton-spinners of, 41 - - Stone, Gilbert, 511 - - Stonemasons, 125, 127, 149, 151, 166, 172, 176, 184, 191, 196, 199, - 200, 202, 213, 223, 226-32, 241, 243, 248, 274, 277, 313, 316, - 319-20, 343, 347, 348-9, 354, 383, 408, 429, 432-3, 744; - early combinations among, 8; - Friendly Society of Operative, 8; - of Scotland, 174; - of Sheffield, 80 - - _Stonemasons’ Fortnightly Circular, The_, 185, 196, 202 - - Strike, first use of the word, 46; - “in Detail,” 199-200; - origin of the term, 46; - the General, 163-4, 658, 671-3; - the right to, 664 - - Strikes of 1876-89, 347; - in 1891-99, 603; - in 1900-1910, 603-4; - of miners (1912), 513; - of police, 509; - of railwaymen, (1912) 508-530, (1919) 535-46 - - Stroud, woollen-workers of, 50 - - Sturgeon, Charles, 277 - - Summons to the first T.U. Congress, 738-40 - - Supply and Demand, 201 - - Surface workers, 513 - - Sutherland, Sir William, 541 - - Sweating, 371, 380-81 - - Swinton, Archibald, 170 - - Swinton, potters of, 133 - - Swiss Railway Management, 760 - - Symes, Inspector, 509 - - Symons, J. G., 170 - - Syndicalism, 654-9, 690 - - - Taff Vale Strike and Case, 526, 600-608 - - Tailoresses, 136 - - Tailors, 44, 77, 97, 192, 259, 319, 360, 369, 371, 478, 551, 555, 744; - early combination of, in London, 3; - First Grand Lodge of Operative, 149; - of Cambridge, 68; - of London, 67-8; - of Nottingham, 75; - of Sheffield, 80; - statistics of, 436-7; - strike of, in London, 1833, 149; - strike of, in 1867, 278 - - Tankard-bearers, 42 - - Tanners, Bermondsey, prosecution of, 143 - - Tape Sizers, 477 - - Tarleton, General, 71 - - Taunton, 35 - - Taylor, Henry, 331 - - Taylor, Sir Herbert, 138, 141 - - Taylor, W. C., 48 - - Taylor, William, 23 - - Teachers, 505-6 - - Teachers, National Union of, 691 - - Tea-workers’ and General Labourers’ Union, 403-4 - - Technical Engineers, Society of, 506 - - Telegraph clerks, 440 - - Terra-cotta, 354 - - Tester, John, 127 - - Textile Factory Workers, United Association of, 435, 478, 623 - - Textile Operatives. - _See_ Cotton-spinners, Cotton-weavers, Woollen-workers, etc. - - Textile Trades, statistics of, 428-9, 434-6, 475-80, 744-9 - - Thomas, J. H., 524, 526, 543-4, 680 - - Thompson, James, 36 - - Thompson, J. B., 181 - - Thompson, Colonel Perronet, 148 - - Thompson, William, 116, 162 - - Thorne, Will, 402, 497, 684 - - Thorneycroft, G. B., 734 - - Thornton, W. T., 272 - - Ticket-collectors, 504 - - Tildsley, John, 175 - - Tillett, B., 402-3, 406, 414, 501 - - _Times_, prosecution by the, 78-9 - - Tinplate Workers, 92, 431, 492; - Co-operative Production and, 336; - of Wolverhampton, 243; - strike of, 194-5 - - Tiverton, 33-5, 93; - woollen-workers of, 34, 35 - - Tolpuddle, 145 - - Tomlinson, 139 - - “Tommy Shops,” 89 - - Trade Boards, 647; - Acts, 475, 494-495, 686 - - Trade Disputes Act, 606-8, 686 - - Trade Disputes Commission, 605-6 - - Trade Union Act of 1913, 631-4, 687 - - Trade Union conditions, 637-43 - - Trade Union, definition of, 1; - and the wage-system, 1; - legal definition of, 617; - life, 444-71; - origin of term, 113 - - _Trades Advocate and Herald of Progress, The_, 211 - - Trades Councils, 242-9, 354-5, 453-7, 557-61, 685; - exclusion from Congress, 557; - federations of, 557; - in Labour Party, 557; - meetings in Municipal Buildings, 558 - - _Trades Journal, The_, 171, 208 - - _Trades’ Newspaper and Mechanics’ Weekly Journal, The_, 111 - - Trades Union Congress, 350, 358-375, 700, 738-40 - - Trafalgar Square, 386-8 - - Tramping, 451-2 - - Transport and General Workers’ Union, 472-3, 499, 656 - - Transport workers, 438-40; - in Ireland, 472-3 - - Trant, William, 3 - - Treasury Agreement, 637-8, 642 - - “Triple Alliance,” the, 516, 517 - - Trollope & Sons, 229, 328 - - Trow, Edward, 735 - - Truck, 50, 89, 371 - - Trusts, 675 - - Tucker, 268 - - Tuckwell, Miss Gertrude, 494 - - Tufnell, E. Carlton, 141 - - Turner, Ben, 480 - - Turner, William H., 5 - - Tyneside and National Labour Union, 439 - - Typographical Association, 181, 423, 437, 482. - _See also_ Compositors - - Typographical Society, 692. - _See also_ Compositors - - - Unemployed agitation, 385, 387-8 - - Unemployment benefit, 644, 646 - - Unemployment, failure to prevent, 644; - prevention of, 696 - - _Union Pilot and Co-operative Intelligencer, The_, 124 - - Union of Post Office Workers, 508, 551. - _See also_ Post Office Employees - - United Garment Workers’ Trade Union, 551. - _See also_ Tailors - - United Kingdom Alliance of Organised Trades, 258-9 - - United Signalmen and Pointsmen, 524, 531 - - United Textile Factory Operatives’ Association, 478 - - United Textile Factory Workers’ Association, 435, 478, 623 - - United Trades Association, 207 - - _United Trades’ Co-operative Journal, The_, 121 - - United. - _See_ Boilermakers, Brassworkers, Bricklayers, Coachmakers, - Curriers, Machine-workers, Patternmakers, Pilots, Plumbers, - Stonemasons, etc. - - Unskilled Labourers. - _See_ General Workers - - Unwin, George, vi, 5, 12, 18, 29, 30, 34 - - Upholsterers, 432-433; - Sewers’ Society (first women’s union), 336 - - - Vehicular workers, 442 - - Verinder, F., 329 - - Villiers, Rt. Hon. C. P., 186 - - Vincent, Charles Bassett, 523 - - Vincent, J. E. Matthew, 329 - - Vogel, P., 684 - - _Voice of the People, The_, 117, 122-4 - - - Wade, Rev. A. S., 147 - - Wage, a legal minimum in Gloucestershire, 50 - - Wage-System, relation of Trade Unions to the, 1 - - Wages in London in 1669, 21 - - Waiters’ Union, 684 - - Wakefield, cloth trade of, 35 - - Wakefield, E. G., 35, 61 - - Wakley, Thomas, 148, 171, 173, 186 - - Wallace, 106 - - Wallas, Professor Graham, vi, 32, 62, 89, 97, 175 - - Walton, A. A., 289 - - Wapping Society of Watermen, 11 - - War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry, 642 - - War Emergency Workers’ National Committee, 691 - - War Office and strike-breaking, 247, 332-3 - - War, Trade Unions during the, 636-649 - - Warde, Mark, 128 - - Wardle, G. T., 689, 695 - - Warehousemen, 442, 503-4 - - Warpdressers, 477 - - Waterguard Federation, 507 - - Watermen, London, 11, 14, 21 - - Watermen’s Protective Society, 11 - - Watson, Aaron, 181, 296, 511, 625 - - Watson, R. Spence, 339 - - Watts, Dr. John, 211 - - Weavers, an Act touching, 48, 50; - Paisley, 23. - _See also_ Cotton-weavers - - Webb, J. J., 37 - - Weeks, Joseph D., 338 - - Weiler, Adam, 389-90 - - Wellington, Duke of, 145 - - Wemyss, Earl of, 253 - - West Bromwich Miners, 434 - - Whewell, 617 - - Whitbread, W., 68, 69 - - White, George, 40, 57, 61, 76, 77, 81, 89, 94, 100, 105, 251 - - Whitley Councils, 490, 646-8, 718 - - Widnes election, 699 - - Wilkinson, Rev. J. Frome, 128 - - Williams, John, 146 - - Williams, J., 387, 400 - - Williams, J. E., 526 - - Williams, R., 497, 500 - - Williamson, S., 393 - - Wilson, J., 511 - - Wilson, J. Havelock, 406, 665-6, 669-70, 682 - - Wilson, John, 680 - - Wiltshire, shearmen of, 144; - weavers of, 49; - woollen-weavers of, 65; - woollen-workers of, 49 - - Winters, Thomas, 195 - - Wisbech, shoemakers of, 3 - - Witanagemot, 20 - - Wolverhampton, 248, 259; - Building Trades Joint Committee, 308; - tinplate workers of, 243; - (strike), 194-5; - Trades Council, 399 - - Women Clerks and Secretaries, Association of, 505 - - Women in Engineering, 638, 642-3 - - Women in Trade Unionism, 335-6, 424, 426-7, 474, 494-7 - - Women’s Co-operative Guild, 497 - - Women’s Labour League, 497 - - Women’s Protective and Provident League, 336 - - Women’s Wages, 424, 642 - - Wood, G. H., 86, 308 - - Woods, Samuel, 362, 684 - - Woodsawyers, 18 - - Woolcombers, 36-7, 44-5, 90, 127, 436, 480 - - Woollen Cloth Weavers, Act of 1756, 50-51 - - Woollen Cloth Weavers, Fraternity of, 66 - - Woollen Workers, 40-41, 435-6; - of Yorkshire, 123, 125; - statistics of, 480 - - Woolstaplers, 37, 45, 83, 90, 178, 203; - London Society of, 203; - Old Amicable Society of, 37 - - Woolwich, 697 - - Worcester, Gild Ordinances of, 8; - Trades Council, 558 - - Workers’ Union, 498-9, 744 - - Working Men’s Association, 255, 298, 680 - - Working Rules, 228 - - Workmen’s Compensation Act, 364-6 - - Works Committee, 490, 647, 707, 716 - - Worsted manufacture, 36-7 - - Wright, Justice R. S., 68, 279, 362 - - - Yearly bond; 44, 89, 169 - - Yeomen, 4, 5, 6 - - Yorkshire, clothiers of, 35-6, 67; - miners, 182, 301, 304-5, 349, 370, 433, 510-11, 522, 744 - - Young, Ralph, 340, 342 - - Young, Robert, 490 - - - - -THE END - - -_Printed in Great Britain by_ R. & R. Clark, Limited, _Edinburgh_. - - - - -OTHER WORKS BY - -SIDNEY AND BEATRICE WEBB. - - -Those who read the _History of Trade Unionism_ will want to know -how far the Trade Union, as an industrial device, is an economic -success--how its operations affect the National Being--whether it is a -cause of loss to the employers--what effect it has on prices. - -These questions, and many more, are explicitly answered in - - -INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY - -=12s. net= - -which _The Times_ described as - - “A permanent and invaluable contribution to the sum of human - knowledge.... We commend to the public a book which is a - monument of research and full of candour.... Indispensable - to every publicist and politician.” - -See also - - -PROBLEMS OF MODERN INDUSTRY. - -=7s. 6d. net.= - -Eleven short studies by the same Authors. - - -THE WORKS MANAGER TO-DAY. - -=5s. net.= - -A series of Addresses to Works Managers by Sidney Webb on such problems -as Reducing Costs, Systems of Payment by Results, How to Prevent “Ca’ -Canny,” Fatigue and Accidents, the Changing Status of Employers and -Wage-Earners, etc. - - -THE PUBLIC ORGANISATION OF THE LABOUR MARKET. - -By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB. - -=5s. net.= - -A description and an attempted solution of the Problem of Unemployment -and the Unemployed. - - -THE BREAK-UP OF THE POOR LAW. - -By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB. - -=7s. 6d. net.= - -The Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission. A description of the -policy now adopted by the Government in the Bill being prepared by -the Minister of Health for the Abolition of the Poor Law, and the -Supersession of the Boards of Guardians by the Local Health, Education, -Lunacy, Pension, and Unemployment Authorities. - - -THE PREVENTION OF DESTITUTION. - -By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB. - -=10s. net.= - -A comprehensive and practical programme of how it can be done. - - -ENGLISH POOR LAW POLICY. - -By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB. - -=7s. 6d. net.= - -The “Missing Link” in histories of the Poor Law--an analysis of the -successive transformations of the policy of the Government and the -Guardians since the “Principles of 1834.” - - -GRANTS IN AID: A CRITICISM AND A PROPOSAL. - -By SIDNEY WEBB. - -=6s. net.= - -The only book on this important subject, affecting every Local -Government Official and Councillor, and every Ratepayer. - - -THE PARISH AND THE COUNTY. - -By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB. - -=16s. net.= - -A new picture of English Country Life since 1689, drawn from original -records. - - -THE MANOR AND THE BOROUGH. - -By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB. - -2 vols. =25s. net.= - -How the Municipal Boroughs and London Government grew into their -present forms. - - -THE STORY OF THE KING’S HIGHWAY. - -By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB. - -=6s. net.= - -How the English Roads became as they are--from the chariot of Boadicea -to the motor omnibus. - - -THE HISTORY OF LIQUOR LICENSING IN ENGLAND. - -By SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB. - -=2s. 6d. net.= - -A record of experiments in policy with regard to the public-house, from -Henry VIII. - - -LONGMANS, GREEN & CO. - - -Published by - -GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN, LIMITED. - -THE CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN. - -=2s. 6d. net.= - -By BEATRICE POTTER (Mrs. Sidney Webb). - -“Without doubt the ablest and most philosophical analysis of the -Co-operative Movement.”--_The Speaker._ - - -SOCIALISM IN ENGLAND. - -By SIDNEY WEBB. - -=2s. 6d. net.= - -“The best general view, of the subject from the moderate Socialist -side.”--_The Athenæum._ - - * * * * * - - Published by THE FABIAN BOOKSHOP (25 Tothill Street, - Westminster), and GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN, LIMITED. - -HOW TO PAY FOR THE WAR. - -Edited by SIDNEY WEBB. - -=6s. net.= - -Containing The Development of the Post Office, A Public Service of -Railway and Canal Transport, The Nationalisation of the Coal Supply, A -State Insurance Department, and a Revolution in the Income Tax. - -FABIAN ESSAYS IN SOCIALISM. - -=2s. net= - -The New Edition (50th thousand), with Introduction by Sidney Webb. - - -TOWARD SOCIAL DEMOCRACY? - -By SIDNEY WEBB. - -=1s. net.= - -A survey of Modern Social and Industrial History since 1840, with a -description of tendencies. - - -MEN’S AND WOMEN’S WAGES: SHOULD THEY BE EQUAL? - -By Mrs. SIDNEY WEBB. - -With Portrait. =1s. net.= - -A suggested solution of a difficult problem. - - -GREAT BRITAIN AFTER THE WAR. - -By SIDNEY WEBB and ARNOLD FREEMAN. - -=1s. net.= - -A guide to study of “After-War Problems.” - -Published by NISBET & CO., LIMITED. - -THE RESTORATION OF TRADE UNION CONDITIONS. - -By SIDNEY WEBB. - -=1s. net.= - -A description of the problem and a suggestion for its lasting solution. - - -Published at THE FABIAN BOOKSHOP (25 Tothill Street, -Westminster). - -REPORT ON THE WORKING OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT. - -=1s. net.= - - - REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF STATE AND MUNICIPAL ENTERPRISE - ALL OVER THE WORLD. - -=1s. net.= - - -SOCIALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM. - -=1s. net.= - - -THE BASIS AND POLICY OF SOCIALISM. - -=1s. net.= - - -SOCIALISM AND NATIONAL MINIMUM. - -=1s. net.= - - - - -Transcriber's Notes - - -A number of typographical errors were corrected silently. - -Cover image is in the public domain. - -Table of Contents augmented with “Other Works”. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF TRADE UNIONISM *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/66887-0.zip b/old/66887-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index ceed994..0000000 --- a/old/66887-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/66887-h.zip b/old/66887-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index bf319dd..0000000 --- a/old/66887-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/66887-h/66887-h.htm b/old/66887-h/66887-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index e673823..0000000 --- a/old/66887-h/66887-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,41893 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - The History Of Trade Unionism, by Beatrice and Sidney Webb—A Project Gutenberg eBook - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - h1,h2,h3,h4 { - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; -} - -.h2sub { text-align: center;} -.h3sub { text-align: center;} - -p { - margin-top: .51em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .49em; -} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; -} - -hr.tb {width: 45%; margin-left: 27.5%; margin-right: 27.5%;} -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} -@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;} } - -hr.r65 {width: 65%; margin-top: 3em; margin-bottom: 3em; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} - -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} -h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} - -ul.index { list-style-type: none; } -li.ifrst { - margin-top: 1em; - text-indent: -2em; - padding-left: 1em; -} -li.indx { - margin-top: .5em; - text-indent: -2em; - padding-left: 1em; -} -li.isub1 { - text-indent: -2em; - padding-left: 2em; -} -li.isub2 { - text-indent: -2em; - padding-left: 3em; -} - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; -} -table.autotable { border-collapse: collapse; } -table.autotable td { padding: 2px; } - -.tdl {text-align: left;} -.tdr {text-align: right;} -.tdc {text-align: center;} -.tdb {vertical-align: bottom;} -.tdt {vertical-align: top;} - -td.hanging2 { /* hanging indent */ - text-indent: -1em; - padding-left: 1em; -} - -td.chap {text-align: right;} -td.title {text-align: left;} -td.pageno {text-align: right; - vertical-align: bottom; -} - -.pagenum { /* comment the next line for visible page numbers */ - visibility: hidden; - position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; -} /* page numbers */ - -.blockquot { - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - -.bb {border-bottom: thin solid;} -.bl {border-left: thin solid;} -.bt {border-top: thin solid;} - -.center {text-align: center;} -.right {text-align: right;} -.hanging2 {padding-left: 2em; - text-indent: -2em; - } - -.address {padding-left: 3em; - text-indent: -1.5em; - } - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - -.allsmcap {font-variant: small-caps; text-transform: lowercase;} - -.gesperrt {letter-spacing: 0.2em; - margin-right: -0.2em; - } - -/* Images */ - -img { - max-width: 100%; - height: auto; -} -img.w100 {width: 100%;} - -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - text-align: center; - page-break-inside: avoid; - max-width: 100%; -} - -/* Footnotes */ -.footnotes {border: 1px dashed;} - -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} - -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: - none; -} -.illowp100 {width: 100%;} -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; } - - </style> - </head> -<body> - -<div style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The History of Trade Unionism, by Sidney Webb</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online -at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you -are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this eBook. -</div> - -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: The History of Trade Unionism</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:0;'>Revised edition, extended to 1920</p> - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: Sidney Webb and Beatrice Potter Webb</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: December 5, 2021 [eBook #66887]</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'>Character set encoding: UTF-8</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Produced by: MWS, SF2001, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)</div> - -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF TRADE UNIONISM ***</div> - - <div class="figcenter illowp100" id="i_cover" style="max-width: 20em;"> - <img class="w100" src="images/cover.jpg" alt="Cover" /> - </div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_i">[Pg i]</span></p> - -<h1>THE HISTORY -OF TRADE UNIONISM</h1> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_iii">[Pg iii]</span></p> -</div> - -<p class="center gesperrt">THE HISTORY OF TRADE -UNIONISM:<br />BY SIDNEY -AND BEATRICE WEBB<br /> -(REVISED EDITION, EXTENDED -TO 1920).</p> -<p class="center"><span class="gesperrt">LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.</span><br /> -<small>39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON<br /> -<small>FOURTH AVENUE & 30TH STREET, NEW YORK<br /> -BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS<br /> -1920</small></small> -</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_iv">[Pg iv]</span></p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_v">[Pg v]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="INTRO">INTRODUCTION TO THE EDITION -OF 1920</h2> -</div> - -<p>The thirty years that have elapsed since 1890, down to -which date we brought the first edition of this book, have -been momentous in the history of British Trade Unionism. -The Trade Union Movement, which then included scarcely -20 per cent of the adult male manual-working wage-earners, -now includes over 60 per cent. Its legal and constitutional -status, which was then indefinite and precarious, has now -been explicitly defined and embodied in precise and absolutely -expressed statutes. Its internal organisation has -been, in many cases, officially adopted as part of the -machinery of public administration. Most important of -all, it has equipped itself with an entirely new political -organisation, extending throughout the whole of Great -Britain, inspired by large ideas embodied in a comprehensive -programme of Social Reconstruction, which has already -achieved the position of “His Majesty’s Opposition,” and -now makes a bid for that of “His Majesty’s Government.” -So great an advance within a single generation makes the -historical account of Trade Union development down to -1920 equivalent to a new book.</p> - -<p>We have taken the opportunity to revise, and at some -points to amplify, our description of the origin and early -struggles of Trade Unionism in this country. We have -naturally examined the new material that has been made -accessible during the past quarter of a century, in order to -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_vi">[Pg vi]</span> -incorporate in our work whatever has thus been added to -public knowledge. But we have not found it necessary -to make any but trifling changes in our original interpretation -of the historical development. The Home Office -papers are now available in the Public Record Office for -the troubled period at the beginning of the nineteenth -century; and these, together with the researches of Professor -George Unwin, Mr. and Mrs. Hammond, Professor -Graham Wallas, Mr. Mark Hovell, and Mr. M. Beer, have -enabled us both to verify and to amplify our statements at -certain points. For the recent history of Trade Unionism -we have found most useful the collections and knowledge -of the Labour Research Department, established in 1913; -and we gratefully acknowledge the assistance in facts, -suggestions, and criticisms that we have had from Mr. -G. D. H. Cole and Mr. R. Page Arnot. We owe thanks, -also, to Miss Ivy Schmidt for unwearied assistance in -research.</p> - -<p>The reader must not expect to find, in this historical -volume, either an analysis of Trade Union organisation, -policy, and methods, or any judgement upon the validity of -its assumptions, its economic achievements, or its limitations. -On these things we have written at great length, and very -explicitly, in our <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, and in other books -described in the pages at the end of this volume, to which -we must refer those desirous of knowing whether the Trade -Unionism of which we now write merely the story is a good -or a bad element in industry and in the State.</p> - -<p class="right">SIDNEY <span class="allsmcap">AND</span> BEATRICE WEBB.</p> - -<p class="address"><span class="smcap">41 Grosvenor Road</span>,<br /> -Westminster,<br /> -<i>January 1920</i>. -</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_vii">[Pg vii]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="PREFACE">PREFACE TO THE ORIGINAL EDITION -OF 1894</h2> -</div> - -<p>It is not our intention to delay the reader here by a conventional -preface. As every one knows, the preface is -never written until the story is finished; and this story -will not be finished in our time, or for many generations -after us. A word or two as to our method of work and -its results is all that we need say before getting to our -main business.</p> - -<p>Though we undertook the study of the Trade Union -movement, not to prove any proposition of our own, but -to discover what problems it had to present to us, our -minds were not so blank on the subject that we had no -preconception of the character of these problems. We -thought they would almost certainly be economic, pointing -a common economic moral; and that expectation still -seems to us so natural, that if it had been fulfilled we should -have accepted its fulfilment without comment. But it -was not so. Our researches were no sooner fairly in hand -than we began to discover that the effects of Trade Unionism -upon the conditions of labour, and upon industrial organisation -and progress, are so governed by the infinite technical -variety of our productive processes, that they vary from -industry to industry and even from trade to trade; and -the economic moral varies with them. Where we expected -to find an economic thread for a treatise, we found a spider’s -web; and from that moment we recognised that what -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_viii">[Pg viii]</span> -we had first to write was not a treatise, but a history. -And we saw that even a history would be impossible to -follow unless we separated the general history of the whole -movement from the particular histories of thousands of -trade societies, some of which have maintained a continuous -existence from the last century, whilst others have cropped -up, run their brief course, and disappeared. Thus, when we -had finished our labour of investigating the records of -practically every important trade society from one end of -the kingdom to the other, and accumulated piles of extracts, -classified under endless trades and subdivisions of trades, -we found that we must exclude from the first volume all -but a small selection from those documents which appeared -to us most significant with regard to the development of -the general movement. Many famous strikes and lock-outs, -many interesting trade disputes, many sensational prosecutions, -and some furious outbursts of riot and crime, together -with many drier matters relating to particular trades, have -had either to be altogether omitted from our narrative, or -else accorded a strictly subordinate reference in their relation -to the history of Trade Unionism as a whole. All -analysis of the economic effects of Trade Union action we -reserve for a subsequent volume on the Problems of Trade -Unionism, for which we shall draw more fully from the -annals of the separate unions. And in that volume the -most exacting seeker for economic morals will be more -than satisfied; for there will be almost as many economic -morals drawn as societies described.</p> - -<p>That history of the general movement, to which we -have confined ourselves here, will be found to be part of -the political history of England. In spite of all the pleas -of modern historians for less history of the actions of governments, -and more descriptions of the manners and customs -of the governed, it remains true that history, however it -may relieve and enliven itself with descriptions of the -manners and morals of the people, must, if it is to be history -at all, follow the course of continuous organisations. The -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_ix">[Pg ix]</span> -history of a perfectly democratic State would be at once -the history of a government and of a people. The history -of Trade Unionism is the history of a State within our -State, and one so jealously democratic that to know it well -is to know the English working man as no reader of middle-class -histories can know him. From the early years of the -eighteenth century down to the present day, Democracy, -Freedom of Association, <i>Laisser-faire</i>, Regulation of the -Hours and Wages of Labour, Co-operative Production, -Free Trade, Protection, and many other distinct and often -contradictory political ideals, have from time to time -seized the imagination of the organised wage-earners and -made their mark on the course of the Trade Union movement. -And, since 1867 at least, wherever the ideals have -left their mark on Trade Unionism, Trade Unionism has -left its mark on politics. We shall be able to show that -some of those overthrows of our party governments which -have caused most surprise in the middle and upper classes, -and for which the most far-fetched reasons have been given -by them and their journalists and historians after the event, -carry their explanation on the surface for any one who -knows what the Trade Unionists of the period were thinking. -Such demonstrations, however, will be purely incidental, -as we have written throughout of Trade Unionism for its -own sake, and not for that of the innumerable sidelights -which it throws on party politics.</p> - -<p>In our concluding chapter, which we should perhaps -offer as an appendix rather than as part of the regular -plan of the volume, we have attempted to give a bird’s-eye -view of the Trade Union world of to-day, with its unequal -distribution, its strong sectional organisation and defective -political machinery, its new governing class of trade officials—above -all, its present state of transition in methods, -aims, and policy, in the face of the multitude of unsettled -constitutional, economic, and political problems with which -it stands confronted.</p> - -<p>A few words upon the work of collecting materials for -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_x">[Pg x]</span> -our work may prove useful to those who may hereafter -come to reap in the same field. In the absence of any -exhaustive treatment of any period of Trade Union history -we have to rely mainly upon our own investigations. But -every student of the subject must acknowledge the value -of Dr. Brentano’s fertile researches into English working-class -history, and of Mr. George Howell’s thoroughly practical -exposition of the Trade Unionism of his own school -and his own time. Perhaps the most important published -material on the subject is the <i>Report on Trade Societies and -Strikes</i> issued by the Social Science Association in 1860, a -compact storehouse of carefully sifted facts which compares -favourably with the enormous bulk of scrappy and unverified -information collected by the five historic official inquiries into -Trade Unionism between 1824 and 1894. We have, moreover, -found a great many miscellaneous facts about Trade -Unions in periodical literature and ephemeral pamphlets -in the various public libraries all over the country. To -facilitate the work of future students we append to this -volume a complete list of such published materials as we -have been able to discover. For the early history of combinations -we have had to rely upon the public records, old -newspapers, and miscellaneous contemporary pamphlets. -Thus, our first two chapters are principally based upon the -journals of the House of Commons, the minutes of the -Privy Council, the publications of the Record Office, and -the innumerable broadsheet petitions to Parliament and -old tracts relating to Trade which have been preserved in -the British Museum, the Guildhall Library, and the invaluable -collection of economic literature made by Professor -H. S. Foxwell, St. John’s College, Cambridge.<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> Most important -of all, for the period prior to 1835, are the many -volumes of manuscript commentaries, newspaper cuttings, -rules, reports, pamphlets, etc., left by Francis Place, and -now in the British Museum. This unique collection, formed -by the busiest politician of his time, is indispensable, not -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xi">[Pg xi]</span> -only to the student of working-class movements, but also -to any historian of English political or social life during -the first forty years of the century. -<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p> - -<p>But the greater part of our material, especially that -relating to the present century, has come from the Trade -Unionists themselves. The offices of the older unions -contain interesting archives, sometimes reaching back to -the eighteenth century—minute-books in which generations -of diligent, if unlettered, secretaries, the true historians of -a great movement, have struggled to record the doings of -their committees, and files of Trade Union periodicals, -ignored even by the British Museum, through which the -plans and aspirations of ardent working-class politicians -and administrators have been expounded month by month -to the scattered branches of their organisations. We were -assured at the outset of our investigation that no outsider -would be allowed access to the inner history of some of the -old-fashioned societies. But we have found this prevalent -impression as to the jealous secrecy of the Trade Unions -without justification. The secretaries of old branches or -ancient local societies have rummaged for us their archaic -chests with three locks, dating from the eighteenth century. -The surviving leaders of a bygone Trade Unionism have -ransacked their drawers to find for our use the rules and -minutes of their long-forgotten societies. In many a -working man’s home in London and Liverpool, Newcastle -and Dublin—above all, in Glasgow and Manchester—the -descendants of the old skilled handicraftsmen have unearthed -“grandfather’s indentures,” or “father’s old card,” -or a tattered set of rules, to help forward the investigation -of a stranger whom they dimly recognised as striving to -record the annals of their class. The whole of the documents -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xii">[Pg xii]</span> -in the offices of the great National and County -Unions have been most generously placed at our disposal, -from the printed reports and sets of rules to the private -cash accounts and executive minute-books. In only one -case has a General Secretary refused us access to the old -books of his society, and then simply on the ground that -he was himself proposing to write its history, and regarded -us as rivals in the literary field.</p> - -<p>Nor has this generous confidence been confined to the -musty records of the past. In the long sojourns at the -various industrial centres which this examination of local -archives has necessitated, every facility has been afforded -to us for studying the actual working of the Trade Union -organisation of to-day. We have attended the sittings of -the Trades Councils in most of the large towns; we have -sat through numerous branch and members’ meetings all -over the country; and one of us has even enjoyed the -exceptional privilege of being present at the private deliberations -of the Executive Committees of various national -societies, as well as at the special delegate meetings summoned -by the great federal Unions of Cotton-spinners, -Cotton-weavers, and Coal-miners for the settlement of -momentous issues of trade policy, and at the six weeks’ -sessions in 1892 in which sixty chosen delegates of the -Amalgamated Society of Engineers overhauled the trade -policy and internal administration of that world-wide -organisation.</p> - -<p>We have naturally not confined ourselves to the workmen’s -side of the case. In almost every industrial centre -we have sought out representative employers in the different -industries. From them we have received many useful -hints and criticisms. But, as might have been expected, -the great captains of industry are, for the most part, absorbed -in the commercial side of their business, and are -seldom accurately acquainted with the details of the past, -or even of the present, organisation of their workmen. Of -more assistance in our task have been the secretaries of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xiii">[Pg xiii]</span> -various employers’ associations. Especially in the ship-building -ports have these gentlemen placed at our disposal -their experience in collective negotiation with the different -sections of labour, and the private statistics compiled by -their associations. But of all the employing class we have -found the working managers and foremen, who have themselves -often been workmen, the best informed and most -suggestive critics of Trade Union organisation and methods. -We have often regretted that precisely this class is the -most difficult of access to the investigator of industrial -problems, and the least often called as witnesses before -Royal Commissions.</p> - -<p>The difficulty of welding into narrative form the innumerable -details of the thousands of distinct organisations, -and of constructing out of their separate chronicles anything -like a history of the general movement, has, we need hardly -say, been very great. We are painfully aware of the -shortcomings of our work, both from a literary and from a -historical point of view. We have been encouraged in our -task by the conviction—strengthened as our investigation -proceeded—that the Trade Union records contain material -of the utmost value to the future historian of industrial -and political organisation, and that these records are fast -disappearing. Many of the older archives are in the possession -of individual workmen, who are insensible of their -historical value. Among the larger societies it is not -uncommon to find only one complete set of rules, reports, -circulars, etc., in existence. A fire, a removal to new -premises, or the death of an old secretary frequently results -in the disappearance of everything not actually in daily -office use. The keen investigator or collector will appreciate -the extremity of the vexation with which we have learnt -on arriving at an ancient Trade Union centre that the -“old rubbish” of the office had been “cleared out” six -months before. The local public libraries, and even the -British Museum, seldom contain any of the internal Trade -Union records new or old. We have therefore not only -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xiv">[Pg xiv]</span> -collected every Trade Union document that we could -acquire, but we have made lengthy extracts from, and -abstracts of, the piles of minute-books, reports, rules, -circulars, pamphlets, working-class newspapers, etc., which -have been lent to us.</p> - -<p>This collection of material, and, indeed, the wide scope -of the investigation itself, would have been impossible if -we had not had the good fortune to secure the help of a -colleague exceptionally well qualified for the work. In -Mr. F. W. Galton we have found a devoted assistant, to -whose unwearied labours we owe the extensive range of -our material and our statistics. Himself a skilled handicraftsman, -and for some time secretary to his Trade Union, -he has brought to the task not only keen intelligence and -unremitting industry, but also a personal acquaintance -with the details of Trade Union life and organisation -which has rendered his co-operation of inestimable value. -We have incorporated in our last chapter a graphic sketch -from his pen of the inner life of a Trade Union.</p> - -<p>We have, moreover, received the most cordial assistance -from all quarters. If we were to acknowledge by name all -those to whom our thanks are due, we should set forth a -list of nearly all the Trade Union officials in the kingdom. -Individual acknowledgement is in their case the less necessary, -in that many of them are our valued personal friends. -Only second to this is our indebtedness to many of the -great “captains of industry,” notably to Mr. Hugh Bell, -of Middlesboro’, and Colonel Dyer, of Elswick, and the -secretaries of employers’ associations, whose time has been -freely placed at our disposal. To Professor H. S. Foxwell, -Mr. Frederic Harrison, Professor E. S. Beesly, Mr. Robert -Applegarth, and Mr. John Burns, M.P., we are especially -indebted for the loan of many scarce pamphlets and working-class -journals, whilst Mr. John Burnett and Mr. Henry -Crompton have been good enough to go through one or -more of our chapters in proof, and to improve them by -numerous suggestions. And there are two dear comrades -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_xv">[Pg xv]</span> -and friends to whose repeated revision of every line of our -manuscript the volume owes whatever approach to literary -merit it may possess.</p> - -<p>The bibliography has been prepared from our material -by Mr. R. A. Peddie, to whom, as well as to Miss Apple-yard -for the laborious task of verifying nearly all the quotations, -our thanks are due.</p> - -<p class="right">SIDNEY <span class="allsmcap">AND</span> BEATRICE WEBB.</p> - -<p class="address"><span class="smcap">41 Grosvenor Road</span>,<br /> -Westminster,<br /> -<i>April 1894</i>. -</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">[1]</a> Now in the Goldsmiths’ Library at the University of London.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">[2]</a>Place’s <i>Letter Books</i>, together with an unpublished autobiography, -preserved by his family, are now in the custody of Mr. Graham Wallas, -who is preparing a critical biography of this great reformer, which will -throw much new light on all the social and political events of English -history between 1798 and 1840 [published, 1st edition, 1898; 2nd edition, -1918].</p> - -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_xvii">[Pg xvii]</span></p><h2 class="nobreak" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS</h2> -</div> - -<table summary="Table of Contents"> -<tr><td class="chap"><span class="allsmcap">CHAP.</span></td> - <td></td> - <td><span class="allsmcap">PAGE</span></td></tr> -<tr><td class="chap"></td> - <td class="title"><a href="#INTRO"><span class="smcap">Introduction to the Edition of 1920</span></a></td> - <td class="pageno">v</td></tr> -<tr><td class="chap"></td> - <td class="title"><a href="#PREFACE"><span class="smcap">Preface to the Original Edition of 1894</span></a></td> - <td class="pageno">vii</td></tr> -<tr><td class="chap">I.</td> - <td class="title"><a href="#CHAPTER_I"><span class="smcap">The Origins of Trade Unionism</span></a></td> - <td class="pageno">1</td></tr> -<tr><td class="chap">II.</td> - <td class="title"><a href="#CHAPTER_II"><span class="smcap">The Struggle for Existence</span>[1799-1825]</a></td> - <td class="pageno">64</td></tr> -<tr><td class="chap">III.</td> - <td class="title"><a href="#CHAPTER_III"><span class="smcap">The Revolutionary Period</span>[1829-1842]</a></td> - <td class="pageno">113</td></tr> -<tr><td class="chap">IV.</td> - <td class="title"><a href="#CHAPTER_IV"><span class="smcap">The New Spirit and the New Model</span>[1843-1860]</a></td> - <td class="pageno">180</td></tr> -<tr><td class="chap">V.</td> - <td class="title"><a href="#CHAPTER_V"><span class="smcap">The Junta and their Allies</span></a></td> - <td class="pageno">233</td></tr> -<tr><td class="chap">VI.</td> - <td class="title"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI"><span class="smcap">Sectional Developments</span>[1863-1885]</a></td> - <td class="pageno">299</td></tr> -<tr><td class="chap">VII.</td> - <td class="title"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII"><span class="smcap">The Old Unionism and the New</span>[1875-1890]</a></td> - <td class="pageno">358</td></tr> -<tr><td class="chap">VIII.</td> - <td class="title"><a href="#CHAPTER_VIII"><span class="smcap">The Trade Union World</span>[1890-1894]</a></td> - <td class="pageno">422</td></tr> -<tr><td class="chap">IX.</td> - <td class="title"><a href="#CHAPTER_IX"><span class="smcap">Thirty Years’ Growth</span>[1890-1920]</a></td> - <td class="pageno">472</td></tr> -<tr><td class="chap">X.</td> - <td class="title"><a href="#CHAPTER_X"><span class="smcap">The Place of Trade Unionism in the State</span>[1890-1920]</a></td> - <td class="pageno">594</td></tr> -<tr><td class="chap">XI.</td> - <td class="title"><a href="#CHAPTER_XI"><span class="smcap">Political Organisation</span>[1900-1920]</a></td> - <td class="pageno">677</td></tr> -<tr><td class="hanging2" colspan="2"> -<a href="#APPENDIX"> -<span class="smcap">Appendix.</span>—On the assumed connection between the Trade -Unions and the Gilds in Dublin—The Rules of the Grand -National Consolidated Trades Union—Sliding Scales—The -Summons to the First Trade Union Congress—Distribution -of Trade Unionists in the United Kingdom—The -Progress in Membership of particular Trade -Unions—Publications on Trade Unions and Combinations -of Workmen—The Relationship of Trade Unionism to the -Government of Industry</a></td> - -<td class="pageno">721</td> -</tr> -<tr><td class="chap"><a href="#INDEX">Index</a></td> - <td /> <td class="pageno">765</td></tr> -<tr><td colspan="2"><a href="#OTHER_WORKS"> - <span class="smcap">Other Works by Sidney and Beatrice Webb</span></a></td></tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</span></p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="THE_HISTORY">THE HISTORY<br /> -OF<br /> -TRADE UNIONISM</h2> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I</h2> - -<p class="h2sub">THE ORIGINS OF TRADE UNIONISM</p> -</div> - -<p>A Trade Union, as we understand the term, is a continuous -association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining -or improving the conditions of their working lives.<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> This -form of association has, as we shall see, existed in England -for over two centuries, and cannot be supposed to have -sprung at once fully developed into existence. But although -we shall briefly discuss the institutions which have sometimes -been described as the forerunners of Trade Unionism, -our narrative will commence only from the latter part of -the seventeenth century, before which date we have been -unable to discover the existence in the British Isles of -anything falling within our definition. Moreover, although -it is suggested that analogous associations may have existed -during the Middle Ages in various parts of the Continent of -Europe, we have no reason to suppose that such institutions -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</span> -exercised any influence whatever upon the rise and development -of the Trade Union Movement in this country. We -feel ourselves, therefore, warranted, as we are indeed compelled, -to limit our history exclusively to the Trade Unions -of the United Kingdom.</p> - -<p>We have, by our definition, expressly excluded from -our history any account of the innumerable instances in -which the manual workers have formed ephemeral combinations -against their social superiors. Strikes are as old as -history itself. The ingenious seeker of historical parallels -might, for instance, find in the revolt, 1490 <span class="allsmcap">B.C.</span>, of the -Hebrew brickmakers in Egypt against being required to -make bricks without straw, a curious precedent for the strike -of the Stalybridge cotton-spinners, <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 1892, against the -supply of bad material for their work. But we cannot -seriously regard, as in any way analogous to the Trade -Union Movement of to-day, the innumerable rebellions of -subject races, the slave insurrections, and the semi-servile -peasant revolts of which the annals of history are full. These -forms of the “labour war” fall outside our subject, not -only because they in no case resulted in permanent associations, -but because the “strikers” were not seeking to -improve the conditions of a contract of service into which -they voluntarily entered.</p> - -<p>When, however, we pass from the annals of slavery or -serfdom to those of the nominally free citizenship of the -mediæval town, we are on more debatable ground. We -make no pretence to a thorough knowledge of English -town-life in the Middle Ages. But it is clear that there -were at times, alongside of the independent master craftsmen, -a number of hired journeymen and labourers, who are -known to have occasionally combined against their rulers -and governors. These combinations are stated sometimes -to have lasted for months, and even for years. As early -as 1383 we find the Corporation of the City of London -prohibiting all “congregations, covins, and conspiracies of -workmen.” In 1387 the serving-men of the London cordwainers, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</span> -in rebellion against the “overseers of the trade,”<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> -are reported to be aiming at making a permanent fraternity. -Nine years later the serving-men of the saddlers, “called -yeomen,” assert that they have had a fraternity of their -own, “time out of mind,” with a livery and appointed -governors. The masters declared, however, that the -association was only thirteen years old, and that its object -was to raise wages.<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> In 1417 the tailors’ “serving men -and journeymen” in London have to be forbidden to dwell -apart from their masters as they hold assemblies and have -formed a kind of association.<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> Nor were these fraternities -confined to London. In 1538 the Bishop of Ely reports to -Cromwell that twenty-one journeymen shoemakers of -Wisbech have assembled on a hill without the town, and -sent three of their number to summon all the master shoemakers -to meet them, in order to insist upon an advance in -their wages, threatening that “there shall none come into -the town to serve for that wages within a twelve month and -a day, but we woll have an harme or a legge of hym, except -they woll take an othe as we have doon.”<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a></p> - -<p>These instances derived from the very fragmentary -materials as yet printed, suggest that a more complete -examination of the unpublished archives might possibly -disclose a whole series of journeymen fraternities, and -enable us to determine the exact constitution of these -associations. It is, for instance, by no means clear whether -the instances cited were strikes against employers, or revolts -against the authority of the gild. Our impression is that -the case of the Wisbech shoemakers, and possibly some of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</span> -the others, represent the embryo stage of a Trade Union. -Supposing, therefore, that further investigation were to -prove that such ephemeral combinations by hired journeymen -against their employers did actually pass into durable -associations of like character, we should be constrained to -begin our history with the fourteenth or fifteenth century. -But, after detailed consideration of every published instance -of a journeyman’s fraternity in England, we are fully -convinced that there is as yet no evidence of the existence -of any such durable and independent combination of wage-earners -against their employers during the Middle Ages.</p> - -<p>There are certain other cases in which associations during -the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, which are sometimes -assumed to have been composed of journeymen,<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> maintained -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</span> -a continuous existence. But in all these cases, so far as we -have been able to investigate them, the “Bachelors’ Company,” -presumed to be a journeymen’s fraternity, formed a -subordinate department of the masters’ gild, by the rulers -of which it was governed. It will be obvious that associations -in which the employers dispensed the funds and -appointed the officers can bear no analogy to modern Trade -Unions. Moreover, these “yeoman” organisations or -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</span> -“Bachelors’ Companies” do not appear to have long survived -the sixteenth century.</p> - -<p>The explanation of the tardy growth of stable independent -combination among hired journeymen is, we believe, to -be found in the prospects of economic advancement which -the skilled handicraftsman still possessed. We do not wish -to suggest the existence of any Golden Age in which each -skilled workman was his own master, and the wage system -was unknown. The earliest records of English town history -imply the presence of hired journeymen, who were not -always contented with their wages. But the apprenticed -journeyman in the skilled handicrafts belonged, until comparatively -modern times, to the same social grade as his -employer, and was indeed usually the son of a master in -the same or an analogous trade. So long as industry was -carried on mainly by small masters, each employing but one -or two journeymen, the period of any energetic man’s service -as a hired wage-earner cannot normally have exceeded a -few years, and the industrious apprentice might reasonably -hope, if not always to marry his master’s daughter, at any -rate to set up in business for himself. Any incipient organisation -would always be losing its oldest and most capable -members, and would of necessity be confined, like the -Coventry journeymen’s Gild of St. George, to “the young -people,”<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> or like the ephemeral fraternity of journeymen -tailors of 1415-17, to “a race at once youthful and unstable,”<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> -from whose inexperienced ranks it would be hard -to draw a supply of good Trade Union leaders. We are -therefore able to understand how it is that, whilst industrial -oppression belongs to all ages, it is not until the changing -conditions of industry had reduced to an infinitesimal chance -the journeyman’s prospect of becoming himself a master, -that we find the passage of ephemeral combinations into -permanent trade societies. This inference is supported by -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</span> -the experience of an analogous case in the Lancashire of -to-day. The “piecers,” who assist at the “mules,” are -employed and paid by the operative cotton-spinners under -whom they work. The “big piecer” is often an adult man, -quite as skilled as the spinner himself, from whom, however, -he receives very inferior wages. But although the -cotton operatives display a remarkable aptitude for Trade -Unionism, attempts to form an independent organisation -among the piecers have invariably failed. The energetic -and competent piecer is always looking forward to becoming -a spinner, interested rather in reducing than in raising -piecers’ wages. The leaders of any incipient movement -among the piecers have necessarily fallen away from it on -becoming themselves employers of the class from which they -have been promoted. But though the Lancashire piecers -have always failed to form an independent Trade Union, -they are not without their associations, in the constitution -of which we may find some hint of the relation between the -gild of the master craftsmen and the Bachelors’ Company -or other subordinate association in which journeymen may -possibly have been included. The spinners have, for their -own purposes, brigaded the piecers into piecers’ associations. -These associations, membership of which is usually compulsory, -form a subordinate part of the spinners’ Trade Union, -the officers of which fix and collect the contributions, draw -up the rules, dispense the funds, and in every way manage -the affairs, without in the slightest degree consulting the -piecers themselves. It is not difficult to understand that the -master craftsmen who formed the court of a mediæval gild -might, in a similar way, have found it convenient to brigade -the journeymen or other inferior members of the trade into a -subordinate fraternity, for which they fixed the quarterly dues, -appointed the “wardens” or “wardens’ substitutes,” administered -the funds, and in every way controlled the affairs, without -admitting the journeymen to any voice in the proceedings.<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</span></p> - -<p>If further proof were needed that it was the prospect of -economic advancement that hindered the formation of permanent -combinations among the hired journeymen of the -Middle Ages, we might adduce the fact that certain classes -of skilled manual workers, who had no chance of becoming -employers, do appear to have succeeded in establishing -long-lived combinations which had to be put down by law. -The masons, for instance, had long had their “yearly congregations -and confederacies made in their general chapiters -assembled,” which were expressly prohibited by Act of -Parliament in 1425.<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> And the tilers of Worcester are -ordered by the Corporation in 1467 to “sett no parliament -amonge them.”<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> It appears probable, indeed, that the -masons, wandering over the country from one job to another, -were united, not in any local gild, but in a trade fraternity -of national extent. Such an association may, if further researches -throw light upon its constitution and working, not -improbably be found to possess some points of resemblance -to the Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons of the -present day, which was established in 1832. But, unlike -the operative in the modern building trades, the mason of -the Middle Ages served, not a master <i>entrepreneur</i>, but the -customer himself, who provided the materials, supervised -the work, and engaged, at specified daily rates, both the -skilled mechanics and their labourers or apprentices.<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> In -contrast with the handicraftsmen of the towns, the masons, -tilers, etc. remained, from the completion of their apprenticeship -to the end of their working lives, in one and the same -economic position, a position which appears to have been -intermediate between those of the master craftsman and -the journeyman of the other trades. Like the jobbing -carpenter of the country village of to-day, they were independent -producers, each controlling the processes of his -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</span> -own craft, and dealing directly with the customer. But -unlike the typical master craftsman of the handicraft trades -they sold nothing but labour, and their own labour only, -at regulated customary rates, and were unconcerned, therefore, -with the making of profit, whether upon the purchase -and sale of materials or upon the hiring of subordinate -workers.<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> The stability of their combinations was accordingly -not prevented by those influences which, as we have -suggested, proved fatal in England to the corresponding -attempts of the hired journeymen of the handicrafts.</p> - -<p>But if the example of the building trades in the Middle -Ages supports our inference as to the cause of the tardy -growth of combination among the journeymen in other -trades, the “yearly congregations and confederacies” of -the masons might themselves demand our attention as -instances of early Trade Unionism. Of the constitution, -function, or ultimate development of these mediæval associations -in the building trades we know unfortunately next -to nothing.<a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> It is remarkable that there is, so far as we are -aware, no trace of their existence in Great Britain later -than the fifteenth century. During the eighteenth century -there is, as we shall see, no lack of information as to combinations -of workmen in nearly every other skilled trade. -The employers appear to have been perpetually running to -Parliament to complain of the misdeeds of their workmen. -But of combinations in the building trades we have found -scarcely a trace until the very end of that century. If, -therefore, adhering strictly to the letter of our definition, -we accepted the masons’ confederacy as a Trade Union, -we should be compelled to regard the building trades as -presenting the unique instance of an industry which had -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</span> -a period of Trade Unionism in the fifteenth century, then -passed for several centuries into a condition in which Trade -Unionism was impossible, and finally changed once more -to a state in which Trade Unions flourished. Our own -impression is however that the “congregations and confederacies” -of the masons are more justly to be considered -the embryonic stage of a gild of master craftsmen than of -a Trade Union. There appears to us to be a subtle distinction -between the economic position of workers who -hire themselves out to the individual consumer direct, -and those who, like the typical Trade Unionist of to-day, -serve an employer who stands between them and the actual -consumers, and who hires their labour in order to make -out of it such a profit as will provide him with his interest -on capital and “wages of management.” We suggest -that, with the growing elaboration of domestic architecture, -the superior craftsmen tended more and more to become -employers, and any organisations of such craftsmen to pass -insensibly into the ordinary type of masters’ gild.<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> Under -such a system of industry the journeymen would possess -the same prospects of economic advancement that hindered -the growth of stable combinations in the ordinary handicrafts, -and in this fact may lie the explanation of the striking -absence of evidence of any Trade Unionism in the building -trades right down to the eighteenth century.<a id="FNanchor_18" href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> When, however, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</span> -the capitalist builder or contractor began to supersede -the master mason, master plasterer, etc., and this class of -small <i>entrepreneurs</i> had again to give place to a hierarchy -of hired workers, Trade Unions, in the modern sense, began, -as we shall see, to arise. “Just as we found the small -master in the sixteenth century struggling to adapt and -appropriate the traditions of the superseded handicraft -organisation, so we shall find the journeyman at the close -of the seventeenth century [in some trades and at the close -of the eighteenth century in others] endeavouring to build -up a new status out of the ruins of the small master.”<a id="FNanchor_19" href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a></p> - -<p>We have dwelt at some length upon these ephemeral -associations of wage-earners and on the journeymen fraternities -of the Middle Ages, because it might plausibly be -argued that they were in some sense the predecessors of -the Trade Union. But strangely enough it is not in these -institutions that the origin of Trade Unionism has usually -been sought. For the predecessor of the modern Trade -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</span> -Union, men have turned, not to the mediæval associations -of the wage-earners, but to those of their employers—that -is to say, the Craft Gilds.<a id="FNanchor_20" href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> The outward resemblance of -the Trade Union to the Craft Gild had long attracted the -attention, both of the friends and the enemies of Trade -Unionism; but it was the publication in 1870 of Professor -Brentano’s brilliant study on the “Origin of Trades Unions” -that gave form to the popular idea.<a id="FNanchor_21" href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> Without in the least -implying that any connection could be traced between the -mediæval gild and the modern Trade Union, Dr. Brentano -suggested that the one was in so far the successor of the -other, that both institutions had arisen “under the breaking -up of an old system, and among the men suffering from -this disorganisation, in order that they might maintain -independence and order.”<a id="FNanchor_22" href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> And when George Howell -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</span> -prefixed to his history of Trade Unionism a paraphrase -of Dr. Brentano’s account of the gilds, it became commonly -accepted that the Trade Union had, in some undefined way, -really originated from the Craft Gild.<a id="FNanchor_23" href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> We are therefore -under the obligation of digressing to examine the relation -between the mediæval gild and the modern Trade Union. -If it could be shown that the Trade Unions were, in any -way, the descendants of the old gilds, it would clearly be -the origin of the latter that we should have to trace.</p> - -<p>The supposed descent in this country of the Trade -Unions from the mediæval Craft Gilds rests, as far as we -have been able to discover, upon no evidence whatsoever. -The historical proof is all the other way. In London, for -instance, more than one Trade Union has preserved an -unbroken existence from the eighteenth century. The -Craft Gilds still exist in the City Companies, and at no -point in their history do we find the slightest evidence of -the branching off from them of independent journeymen’s -societies. By the eighteenth century the London journeymen -had in nearly all cases lost whatever participation -they may possibly once have possessed in the Companies, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</span> -which had for the most part already ceased to have any -connection with the trades of which they bore the names.<a id="FNanchor_24" href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> -It is sometimes suggested that the London Companies have -had an exceptional history, and that in towns in which -the gilds underwent a more normal development they may -have given rise to the modern trade society. So far as -Great Britain is concerned we have satisfied ourselves that -this suggestion rests on no better foundation than the other. -Neither in Bristol nor in Preston, neither in Newcastle nor -in Glasgow, have we been able to trace the slightest connection -between the slowly dying gilds and the upstarting -Trade Unions. At Sheffield J. M. Ludlow, basing himself -on an account by Frank Hill, once expressly declared<a id="FNanchor_25" href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> -that direct affiliation could be proved. Diligent inquiry -into the character and history of the still flourishing Cutlers’ -Company demonstrates that this exclusively masters’ -association at no time originated or engendered any of the -numerous Trade Unions with which Sheffield abounds. -There remains the case of Dublin, where some of the older -unions themselves claim descent from the gilds. Here, -too, careful search reveals, not only the absence of any -affiliation or direct descent, but also the impossibility of -any organic connection between the exclusively Protestant -gilds which were not abolished until 1842, and the mainly -Roman Catholic Trade Unions which attained their greatest -influence many years before.<a id="FNanchor_26" href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> We assert, indeed, with -some confidence, that in no case did any Trade Union in -the United Kingdom arise, either directly or indirectly, -by descent, from a Craft Gild.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</span></p> - -<p>It is often taken for granted that the Trade Union, -whatever may have been its origin, represents the same -elements, and plays the same part in the industrial system -of the nineteenth century, as the Craft Gild did in that of -the Middle Ages. A brief analysis of what is known of -the gilds will be sufficient to show that these organisations -were even in their purest days essentially different, both -in structure and function, from the modern trade society.</p> - -<p>For the purpose of this comparison it will be unnecessary -for us to discuss the rival theories of historians as to the -nature and origin of the Craft Gilds. We may agree, -on the one hand, with Dr. Brentano<a id="FNanchor_27" href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> in maintaining that -the free craftsmen associated in order to stop the deterioration -of their condition and encroachments on their -earnings, and to protect themselves against “the abuse -of power on the part of the lords of the town, who tried -to reduce the free to the dependence of the unfree.” On -the other hand, we may believe with Dr. Cunningham<a id="FNanchor_28" href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> -that the Craft Gilds were “called into being, not out of -antagonism to existing authorities, but as new institutions, -to which special parts of their own duties were delegated -by the burgh officers or the local Gild Merchant,” as a -kind of “police system,” in fact, by which the community -controlled the local industries in the interest of the consumer. -Or again, we may accept the middle view advanced -by Sir William Ashley,<a id="FNanchor_29" href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> that the gilds were self-governing -bodies of craftsmen, initiating their own trade regulations, -the magistrates or town council having a real, if somewhat -vague, authority to sanction or veto these ordinances -for the good of the citizens. Each of these three views is -supported by numerous instances, and to determine which -theory represents the rule and which the exception would -involve a statistical knowledge of Craft Gilds for which -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</span> -the material has not yet been collected. It will be evident -that, if Dr. Cunningham’s theory of the Craft Gild is the -correct one, there can be no essential resemblance between -these semi-municipal bodies and the Trade Unions of to-day. -Dr. Brentano, however, produces ample evidence -that, in some cases at any rate, the gilds acted, not with -any view to the protection of the consumer, but, like the -Trade Unions, for the furtherance of the interests of their -own members—that is, of one class of producers. Accepting -for the moment the view that the Craft Gild, like the Trade -Union, or the Employers’ Association, belonged to the -genus of “associations of producers,” let us examine briefly -how far the gild was similar to modern combinations of -wage-earners.</p> - -<p>Now, the central figure of the gild organisation, in all -instances, and at all periods of its development, was the -master craftsman, owning the instruments of production, -and selling the product. Opinions may differ as to the -position of the journeymen in the gild or to the extent of -the prevalence of subordinate or semi-servile labour outside -it. Different views may be entertained as to the reality -of that regard for the interests of the consumer which forms -the ostensible object of many gild ordinances. But throughout -the whole range of gild history the master craftsman, -controlling the processes and selling the products of the -labour of his little industrial group, was the practical administrator -of, and the dominant influence in, the gild system.<a id="FNanchor_30" href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> -In short, the typical gild member was not wholly, or even -chiefly, a manual worker. From the first he supplied not -only whatever capital was needed in his industry, but also -that knowledge of the markets for both raw material and -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</span> -product, and that direction and control which are the special -functions of the <i>entrepreneur</i>. The economic functions -and political authority of the gild rested, not upon its -assumed inclusion of practically the whole body of manual -workers, but upon the presence within it of the real directors -of industry of the time. In the modern Trade Union, on -the contrary, we find, not an association of <i>entrepreneurs</i>, -themselves controlling the processes of their industry, and -selling its products, but a combination of hired wage-workers, -serving under the direction of industrial captains who are -outside the organisation. The separation into distinct -social classes of the capitalist and the brainworker on the -one hand, and the manual workers on the other—the substitution, -in fact, of a horizontal for a vertical cleavage of -society—vitiates any treatment of the Trade Union as the -analogue of the Craft Gild.</p> - -<p>On the other hand, to regard the typical Craft Gild as -the predecessor of the modern Employers’ Association or -capitalist syndicate would, in our opinion, be as great a -mistake as to believe, with George Howell, that it was the -“early prototype” of the Trade Union. Dr. Brentano -himself laid stress on the fact, afterwards brought into -special prominence by Dr. Cunningham, that the Craft -Gild was looked upon as the representative of the interests, -not of any one class alone, but of the three distinct and -somewhat antagonistic elements of modern society, the -capitalist <i>entrepreneur</i>, the manual worker, and the consumer -at large. We do not need to discuss the soundness -of the mediæval lack of faith in unfettered competition as -a guarantee of the genuineness and good quality of wares. -Nor are we concerned with their assumption of the identity -of interest between all classes of the community. It seemed -a matter of course to the statesman, no less than to the -public, that the leading master craftsmen of the town -should be entrusted with the power and the duty of seeing -that neither themselves nor their competitors were permitted -to lower the standard of production. “The -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</span> -Fundamental Ground,” says the petition of the Carpenters’ -Company in 1681, “of Incorporating Handicraft Trades -and Manual Occupations into distinct Companies was to -the end that all Persons using such Trades should be brought -into one Uniform Government and Corrected and Regulated -by Expert and Skilful Governors, under certain Rules and -Ordinances appointed to that purpose.”<a id="FNanchor_31" href="#Footnote_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> The leading -men of the gild became, in effect, officers of the municipality, -charged with the protection of the public from -adulteration and fraud. When, therefore, we remember -that the Craft Gild was assumed to represent, not only -all the grades of producers in a particular industry, but also -the consumers of the product, and the community at large, -the impossibility of finding, in modern society, any single -inheritor of its multifarious functions will become apparent. -The powers and duties of the mediæval gild have, in fact, -been broken up and dispersed. The friendly society and -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</span> -the Trade Union, the capitalist syndicate and the employers’ -association, the factory inspector and the Poor Law relieving -officer, the School Attendance officer, and the municipal -officers who look after adulteration and inspect our weights -and measures—all these persons and institutions might, -with equal justice, be put forward as the successors of the -Craft Gild.<a id="FNanchor_32" href="#Footnote_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a></p> - -<p>Although there is an essential difference in the composition -of the two organisations, the popular theory of -their resemblance is easily accounted for. First, there are -the picturesque likenesses which Dr. Brentano discovered—the -regulations for admission, the box with its three -locks, the common meal, the titles of the officers, and so -forth. But these are to be found in all kinds of association -in England. The Trade Union organisations share -them with the local friendly societies, or sick clubs, which -have existed all over England for the last two centuries. -Whether these features were originally derived from the -Craft Gilds or not, it is practically certain that the early -Trade Unions took them, in the vast majority of cases, -not from the traditions of any fifteenth-century organisation, -but from the existing little friendly societies around -them. In some cases the parentage of these forms and -ceremonies might be ascribed with as much justice to the -mystic rites of the Freemasons as to the ordinances of the -Craft Gilds. The fantastic ritual peculiar to the Trade -Unionism of 1829-34, which we shall describe in a subsequent -chapter, was, as we shall see, taken from the ceremonies -of the Friendly Society of Oddfellows. But we -are informed that it bears traces of being an illiterate -copy of a masonic ritual. In our own times the “Free -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</span> -Colliers of Scotland,” an early attempt at a national miners’ -union, were organised into “Lodges” under a “Grand -Master,” with much of the terminology and some of the -characteristic forms of Freemasonry. No one would, -however, assert any essential resemblance between the -village sick club and the trade society, still less between -Freemasonry and Trade Unionism. The only common -feature between all these is the spirit of association, clothing -itself in more or less similar picturesque forms.</p> - -<p>But other resemblances between the gild and the union -brought out by Dr. Brentano are more to the point. The -fundamental purpose of the Trade Union is the protection -of the Standard of Life—that is to say, the organised -resistance to any innovation likely to tend to the degradation -of the wage-earners as a class. That some social -organisation for the protection of the Standard of Life -was necessary was a leading principle of the Craft Gild, -as it was, in fact, of the whole mediæval order. “Our -forefathers,” wrote the Emperor Sigismund in 1434, “have -not been fools. The crafts have been devised for this -purpose: that everybody by them should earn his daily -bread, and nobody shall interfere with the craft of another. -By this the world gets rid of its misery, and every one may -find his livelihood.”<a id="FNanchor_33" href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> But in this respect the Trade Union -does not so much resemble the Craft Gild, as reassert what -was once the accepted principle of mediæval society, of -which the gild policy was only one manifestation. We do -not wish, in our historical survey of the Trade Union Movement, -to enter into the far-reaching controversy as to the -political validity either of the mediæval theory of the compulsory -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</span> -maintenance of the Standard of Life, or of such -analogous modern expedients as Collective Bargaining on -the one hand, or Factory Legislation on the other. Nor -do we wish to imply that the mediæval theory was at any -time so effectively and so sincerely carried out as really to -secure to every manual worker a comfortable maintenance. -We are concerned only with the historical fact that, as we -shall see, the artisans of the seventeenth and eighteenth -centuries sought to perpetuate those legal or customary -regulations of their trade which, as they believed, protected -their own interests. When these regulations fell into disuse -the workers combined to secure their enforcement. When -legal redress was denied, the operatives, in many instances, -took the matter into their own hands, and endeavoured to -maintain, by Trade Union regulations, what had once been -prescribed by law. In this respect, and practically in this respect -only, do we find any trace of the gild in the Trade Union.</p> - -<p>Let us now turn from the hypothetical origin of Trade -Unionism to the recorded facts. We have failed to discover -in the manuscript records of companies or municipal corporations, -in the innumerable trade pamphlets and broadsheets -of the time, or in the Journals of the House of -Commons, any evidence of the existence, prior to the latter -half of the seventeenth century,<a id="FNanchor_34" href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> or indeed much before -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</span> -the very close of that century, of continuous associations -of wage-earners for maintaining or improving the conditions -of their working lives. And when we remember that during -the latter decades of the seventeenth century the employers -of labour, and especially the industrial “companies” or -corporations, memorialised the House of Commons on every -conceivable grievance which affected their particular trade, -the absence of all complaints of workmen’s combinations -suggests to us that few, if any, such combinations existed.<a id="FNanchor_35" href="#Footnote_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> -We do, however, discover in the latter half of the seventeenth -century various traces of sporadic combinations and associations, -some of which appear to have maintained in obscurity -a continuous existence. In the early years of the eighteenth -century we find isolated complaints of combinations “lately -entered into” by the skilled workers in certain trades. As -the century progresses we watch the gradual multiplication -of these complaints, met by counter-accusations presented -by organised bodies of workmen. From the middle of the -century the Journals of the House of Commons abound in -petitions and counter-petitions revealing the existence of -journeymen’s associations in most of the skilled trades. -And finally, we may infer the wide extension of the movement -from the steady multiplication of the Acts against -combinations in particular industries, and their culmination -in the comprehensive statute of 1799 forbidding all combinations -whatsoever.</p> - -<p>If we examine the evidence of the rise of combinations -in particular trades, we see the Trade Union springing, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</span> -not from any particular institution, but from every opportunity -for the meeting together of wage-earners of the -same occupation. Adam Smith remarked that “people of -the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment -and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy -against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”<a id="FNanchor_36" href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> -And there is actual evidence of the rise of one of the oldest -of the existing Trade Unions out of a gathering of the -journeymen “to take a social pint of porter together.”<a id="FNanchor_37" href="#Footnote_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> -More often it is a tumultuous strike, out of which grows -a permanent organisation. Elsewhere, as we shall see, -the workers meet to petition the House of Commons, and -reassemble from time to time to carry on their agitation -for the enactment of some new regulation, or the enforcement -of an existing law. In other instances we shall find -the journeymen of a particular trade frequenting certain -public-houses, at which they hear of situations vacant, and -the “house of call” becomes thus the nucleus of an organisation. -Or we watch the journeymen in a particular trade -declaring that “it has been an ancient custom in the kingdom -of Great Britain for divers Artists to meet together and -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</span> -unite themselves in societies to promote Amity and true -Christian Charity,” and establishing a sick and funeral -club, which invariably proceeds to discuss the rates of -wages offered by the employers, and insensibly passes into -a Trade Union with friendly benefits.<a id="FNanchor_38" href="#Footnote_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> And if the trade -is one in which the journeymen frequently travel in search -of work, we note the slow elaboration of systematic arrangements -for the relief of these “tramps” by their fellow-workers -in each town through which they pass, and the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</span> -inevitable passage of this far-extending tramping society -into a national Trade Union.<a id="FNanchor_39" href="#Footnote_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a></p> - -<p>All these, however, are but opportunities for the meeting -of journeymen of the same trade. They do not explain -the establishment of continuous organisations of the wage-earners -in the seventeenth and eighteenth rather than in -the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries. The essential cause -of the growth of durable associations of wage-earners must -lie in something peculiar to the later centuries. This -fundamental condition of Trade Unionism we discover in -the economic revolution through which certain industries -were passing. In all cases in which Trade Unions arose, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</span> -the great bulk of the workers had ceased to be independent -producers, themselves controlling the processes, and owning -the materials and the product of their labour, and had -passed into the condition of lifelong wage-earners, possessing -neither the instruments of production nor the commodity -in its finished state. “From the moment that to establish -a given business more capital is required than a journeyman -can easily accumulate within a few years, gild mastership—the -mastership of the masterpiece—becomes little more -than a name.... Skill alone is valueless, and is soon -compelled to hire itself out to capital.... Now begins the -opposition of interest between employers and employed, -now the latter begin to group themselves together; now -rises the trade society.”<a id="FNanchor_40" href="#Footnote_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> Or, to express this Industrial -Revolution in more abstract terms, we may say, in the -words of Dr. Ingram, that “the whole modern organisation -of labour in its advanced forms rests on a fundamental fact -which has spontaneously and increasingly developed itself—namely, -the definite separation between the functions of -the capitalist and the workman, or, in other words, between -the direction of industrial operations and their execution -in detail.”<a id="FNanchor_41" href="#Footnote_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a></p> - -<p>It is often assumed that the divorce of the manual -worker from the ownership of the means of production -resulted from the introduction of machinery, the use of -power, and the factory system. Had this been the case we -should not, upon our hypothesis, have expected to find -Trade Unions at an earlier date than factories, or in industries -untransformed by machinery. The fact that the -earliest durable combinations of wage-earners in England -precede the factory system by a whole century, and occur -in trades carried on exclusively by hand labour, reminds us -that the creation of a class of lifelong wage-servants came -about in more than one way.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</span></p> - -<p>We may note, to begin with, the very old institution of -the printers’ “chapel,” with its “father” and “clerk,” -an informal association among the compositors of a particular -establishment for the discussion and regulation, not -only of their own workshop conditions, but also of their -relations with the employer, who must, in early days, have -been a man of superior education, with an outlook much -wider than that of his journeymen.</p> - -<p>The “chapel” may possibly be nearly as old as the -introduction of printing into this country.<a id="FNanchor_42" href="#Footnote_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> We have no -evidence as to the date at which the “chapels” of different -printing offices entered into communication with each other -in London, so as to form a Trade Union. But already in -1666 we have <i>The Case and Proposals of the Free Journeymen -Printers in and about London</i>, in which they complain of the -multiplication of apprentices and the prevalence of “turnovers”—grievances -which vexed every compositors’ Trade -Union throughout the nineteenth century.<a id="FNanchor_43" href="#Footnote_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> Whether the -“Free Journeymen Printers” managed to continue in -existence as a Trade Union is uncertain. We have found -no actual evidence of any other combination among compositors -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</span> -than the “chapel” earlier than the eighteenth -century.</p> - -<p>One of the earliest proven cases of continuous association -among journeymen is that of the hatters (or feltmakers), -whose combination—now the Journeymen Hatters’ Trade -Union of Great Britain and Ireland—may perhaps claim to -trace its ancestry from 1667, the very year in which the -Feltmakers’ Company, consisting of their employers, obtained -a charter from Charles II. Within a few months the journeymen -in the various London workshops—each of which -had apparently a workshop organisation somewhat resembling -the printers’ “chapel”—had combined to present a -petition to the Court of Aldermen against the Master, -Wardens and Assistants of the Company. The Court of -Aldermen decided that, in order “that the journeymen -may not by combination or otherwise excessively at their -pleasure raise their wages,” a piecework list is to be annually -settled and presented for enactment by the Court of Aldermen. -The journeymen seem to have co-operated with the -employers in presenting this list, and in preventing the -employment of non-freemen. The rates fixed did not, however, -always satisfy the journeymen, especially when the -employers were successful in getting them lowered; and in -1696 we read of a deputation appearing before the Court to -declare that they had resolved among themselves not to -accept any less wages than they had formerly received, and -to ask for a revision of the order. They had, according to -the masters’ statement, not confined themselves to peaceful -resolutions, but had made an example of a journeyman -who had remained at work at the reduced rates. “They -stirred up the apprentices to seize upon him as he was -working, to tie him in a wheelbarrow, and in a tumultuous -and riotous manner to drive him through all the considerable -places in London and Southwark.” It was alleged -that the men were organised in “clubs,” which “raised -several sums of money for the abetting and supporting such -of them who should desert their masters’ service.” In 1697 -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</span> -the employers introduced the “character note” or “leaving -certificate,” the Company enacting that no master should -employ a journeyman who did not bring with him a certificate -from his previous employer. Successive prosecutions -of journeymen took place for refusing to work at the lawful -rates, but the workmen seem to have had good legal advice, -and to have defended themselves with skill. On one occasion -they pleaded guilty, and promised amendment and the -abandonment of their combination, whereupon the prosecution -was withdrawn. On another occasion they got the -case removed by writ of <i>certiorari</i> from the Lord Mayor’s -session to the Assizes, where Lord Chief Justice Holt referred -the dispute to arbitration. The award of June 1699 -was a virtual victory for the journeymen, after a three -years’ struggle, as it gave them an increase of rates, with a -stoppage of all legal proceedings.<a id="FNanchor_44" href="#Footnote_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> That the London Trade -Clubs of the journeymen hatters, or at any rate their several -workshop organisations, maintained a continuous existence -we need not doubt; though we do not hear of them again -until 1771, when they seem to have established a national -federation of the local trade clubs existing in more than a -dozen provincial towns with those of Southwark and the -West End of London, very largely for the purpose of maintaining -and enforcing the statutory limitation of apprentices. -In 1775 this federation appears to have been strong enough, -not only to obtain increased rates of wages, but also the -exclusive employment of “clubmen.” There were “congresses” -of the hatters in 1772, 1775, and 1777, held in -London for the adoption of “bye-laws” for the whole trade; -but we believe that these “congresses” were attended by -delegates from the workshops in and near London only. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</span> -It is clear that similar organisations existed in the other towns -in which the trade was carried on. The members who were -unemployed “tramped” from town to town, and regulations -for their relief were framed. A weekly contribution -of 2d. appears to have been paid by each member. The -employers successfully petitioned Parliament in 1777 for a -repeal of the old limitation of apprentices and a renewed -prohibition of combination.<a id="FNanchor_45" href="#Footnote_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a></p> - -<p>More definite evidence is afforded by the development of -the tailoring trade. In tailoring for rich customers the master -craftsmen appear at the very beginning of the eighteenth -century to have been recruited from the comparatively -small number of journeymen who acquired the specially -skilled part of the business—namely, the cutting-out.<a id="FNanchor_46" href="#Footnote_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> -“The tailor,” says an eighteenth-century manual for the -young tradesman, “ought to have a quick eye to steal the -cut of a sleeve, the pattern of a flap, or the shape of a good -trimming at a glance, ... in the passing of a chariot, or -in the space between the door and a coach.” There grew -up accordingly a class of mere sewers, “not one in ten” -knowing “how to cut out a pair of breeches: they are -employed only to sew the seam, to cast the buttonholes, -and prepare the work for the finisher.... Generally as -poor as rats, the House of Call runs away with all their -earnings, and keeps them constantly in debt and want.”<a id="FNanchor_47" href="#Footnote_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</span></p> - -<p>This differentiation was promoted by the increasing need -of capital for successfully beginning business in the better -quarters of the metropolis. Already in 1681 the “shop-keeping -tailor” was deplored as a new and objectionable -feature, “for many remember when there were no new -garments sold in London (in shops) as now there are.”<a id="FNanchor_48" href="#Footnote_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> -The “accustomed tailor,” or working craftsman, making up -the customer’s own cloth, objected to “taylers being sales-men,” -paying high rents for shops in fashionable neighbourhoods, -giving long credit to their aristocratic clients, -and each employing, in his own workshops, dozens or even -scores of journeymen, who were recruited from the houses -of call in times of pressure, and ruthlessly turned adrift -when the season was over. And although it remained possible -in the reign of King William the Third, as it still is in -that of King George the Fifth, to start business in a back -street as an independent master tailor with no more capital -or skill than the average journeyman could command, yet -the making of the fine clothes worn by the Court and the -gentry demanded, then as now, a capital and a skill which -put this extensive and lucrative trade altogether out of the -reach of the thousands of journeymen whom it employed. -Thus we find that at the very beginning of the eighteenth -century the typical journeyman tailor in London and Westminster -had become a lifelong wage-earner. It is not surprising, -therefore, that one of the earliest instances of -permanent Trade Unionism that we have been able to discover -occurs in this trade. The master tailors in 1720 -complain to Parliament that “the Journeymen Taylors in -and about the Cities of London and Westminster, to the -number of seven thousand and upwards, have lately entered -into a combination to raise their wages and leave off working -an hour sooner than they used to do; and for the better -carrying on their design have subscribed their respective -names in books prepared for that purpose, at the several -houses of call or resort (being publick-houses in and about -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</span> -London and Westminster) which they use; and collect -several considerable sums of money to defend any prosecutions -against them.”<a id="FNanchor_49" href="#Footnote_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> Parliament listened to the masters’ -complaint, and passed the Act 7, Geo. I. st. 1, c. 13, -restraining both the giving and the taking of wages in excess -of a stated maximum, all combinations being prohibited. -From that time forth the journeymen tailors of London and -Westminster have remained in effective though sometimes -informal combination, the organisation centring round the -fifteen or twenty “houses of call,” being the public-houses -to which it was customary for the workmen to resort, and -at which the employers sought any additional men whom -they wished to engage. In 1744 the Privy Council was -set in motion against their refusal to obey the Act of -1720.<a id="FNanchor_50" href="#Footnote_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> In 1750-51 they invoked the assistance of the -Middlesex Justices, and obtained an order requiring the -masters to pay certain rates. In 1767 further legislation -was, in spite of their eloquent protests, obtained against -them.<a id="FNanchor_51" href="#Footnote_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> In 1810 a master declared before a Select Committee -that their combination had existed for over a -century.<a id="FNanchor_52" href="#Footnote_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a></p> - -<p>An equally early instance of permanent trade combination -is the woollen manufacture of the West of England. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</span> -Here the rise of a class of lifelong wage-earners took a form -altogether different from that in the London tailoring trade, -but it produced the same result of combinations among the -workers. The “wealthy clothiers” of Somerset, Gloucestershire, -and Devon, who during the sixteenth century had -“mightily increased in fame and riches, their houses frequented -like kings’ courts,”<a id="FNanchor_53" href="#Footnote_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> provided and owned the -material of the industry throughout the whole manufacturing -process, but employed a separate class of operatives at each -stage. Buying the wool at one of the market towns, the -capitalist clothier gave this to one set of hand-workers to -be carded and spun into yarn in the village households. -The yarn was passed on to another set—the handloom -weavers—to be made into cloth in their cottages. The -cloth was then “fulled” at the capitalist’s own mill (usually -a water-mill) and again given out to be “dressed” by a -new set of hand-workers, after which it was ready to be -packed in the warehouse, and dispatched to Bristol or -London for shipment or sale. In this case, as in that of -the tailors, the operatives still retained the ownership of -the tools of their particular processes, but it was practically -impossible for them to acquire either the capital or the -commercial knowledge necessary for the success of so highly -organised an industry, and we accordingly find them entering -into extensive combinations from the closing years -of the seventeenth century. Already in 1675 the journeymen -clothworkers of London combined to petition the Court -of the Clothworkers’ Company against the engagement of -workmen from the country. In 1682 we hear of them -taking advantage of an extensive shipping order to refuse, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</span> -in concert, to work under 12s. per week. But it is not -clear whether any lasting association then resulted.<a id="FNanchor_54" href="#Footnote_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> In the -West of England the ephemeral revolts of the early part of -the seventeenth century seem to have developed into lasting -combinations by the end of that century. We hear of -them at Tiverton as early as 1700.<a id="FNanchor_55" href="#Footnote_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> In 1717 the Journals -of the House of Commons contain evidence of the existence -of a widespread combination of the woollen-workers in -Devonshire and Somerset. The Mayor and Corporation of -Bradninch complain “that for some years past the woolcombers -and weavers in those parts have been confederating -how to incorporate themselves into a club: and have -to the number of some thousands in this county, in a very -riotous and tumultuous manner, exacted tribute from -many.”<a id="FNanchor_56" href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> The House of Commons apparently thought the -evil could be met by Royal Authority and requested the -King to issue a Proclamation. Accordingly on February 4, -1718, a Royal Proclamation was issued against these “lawless -clubs and societies which had illegally presumed to use -a common seal, and to act as Bodies Corporate, by making -and unlawfully conspiring to execute certain By-laws or -Orders, whereby they pretend to determine who had a right -to the Trade, what and how many Apprentices and Journeymen -each man should keep at once, together with the prices -of all their manufactures, and the manner and materials of -which they should be wrought.”<a id="FNanchor_57" href="#Footnote_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> This kingly fulmination, -which was read at the Royal Exchange, failed to effect its -purpose, for the Journals of the House of Commons for -1723 and 1725 contain frequent complaints of the continuance -of the combinations,<a id="FNanchor_58" href="#Footnote_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> which are constantly heard -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</span> -of throughout the whole of the eighteenth century, dying -away only on the supersession of the male by the female -weaver at the beginning of the nineteenth century, not to -be effectively revived until the beginning of the twentieth.</p> - -<p>This early development of trade combinations in the -West of England stands in striking contrast with their -absence in the same industry where pursued, as in Yorkshire, -on the so-called “Domestic System.” The Yorkshire -weaver was a small master craftsman of the old type, himself -buying and owning the raw material, and once or twice -a week selling his cloth in the markets of Leeds or Wakefield, -to which, we are told by Defoe in 1724, “few clothiers -bring more than one piece.” “Almost at every house,” -he writes of the country near Halifax, “there was a Tenter, -and almost on every Tenter a piece of cloth, or kersey, -or shalloon, ... at every considerable house was a manufactory; -... then, as every clothier must keep a horse, -perhaps two, to fetch and carry for the use of his manufacture, -viz., to fetch home his wool and his provisions from -the market, to carry his yarn to the spinners, his manufacture -to the fulling mill, and when finished, to the -market to be sold, and the like; so every manufacturer -generally keeps a cow or two or more, for his family, and -this employs the two or three or four pieces of enclosed -land about his house, for they scarce sow corn enough for -their cocks and hens.”<a id="FNanchor_59" href="#Footnote_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> Not until the Yorkshire cloth -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</span> -dealers began, about 1794, to establish factories on a large -scale do we find any Trade Unions, and then journeymen -and small masters struggled with one accord to resist the -new form of capitalist industry which was beginning to -deprive them of their control over the product of their -labour.</p> - -<p>The worsted industry appears everywhere to have been -carried on rather like the woollen manufactures of the -West of England than the same industry in Yorkshire. -The woolcomber frequently owned the inexpensive hand-combs -and pots with which he worked. But the woolcombers, -like the weavers of the West of England, formed -but one of several classes of workers for whose employment -both capital and commercial knowledge was indispensable. -We hear, already in 1674, of an attempt by the -Leicester woolcombers to “form a company,”<a id="FNanchor_60" href="#Footnote_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> though -with what success we know not. In 1741 it was remarked -that the woolcombers had “for a number of years past -erected themselves into a sort of corporation (though -without a charter); their first pretence was to take care -of their poor brethren that should fall sick, or be out of -work; and this was done by meeting once or twice a week, -and each of them contributing 2d. or 3d. towards the box -to make a bank, and when they became a little formidable -they gave laws to their masters, as also to themselves—viz., -That no man should comb wool under 2s. per dozen; -that no master should employ any comber that was not of -their club: if he did they agreed one and all not to work -for him; and if he had employed twenty they all of them -turned out, and oftentimes were not satisfied with that, -but would abuse the honest man that would labour, and in -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</span> -a riotous manner beat him, break his comb-pots, and -destroy his working tools; they further support one another -in so much that they are become one society throughout -the kingdom. And that they may keep up their price to -encourage idleness rather than labour, if any one of their -club is out of work, they give him a ticket and money to -seek for work at the next town where a box club is, where -he is also subsisted, suffered to live a certain time with them, -and then used as before; by which means he can travel -the kingdom round, be caressed at each club, and not spend -a farthing of his own or strike one stroke of work. This -hath been imitated by the weavers also, though not carried -through the kingdom, but confined to the places where -they work.”<a id="FNanchor_61" href="#Footnote_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> The surviving members of the Old Amicable -Society of Woolstaplers retain a tradition of local trade -clubs dating from the very beginning of the eighteenth -century, and of their forming a federal union in 1785. Old -members of the United Journeymen Curriers’ Society have -seen circulars and tramping cards, showing that a similar -tramping federation existed in their trade from the middle -of the century.<a id="FNanchor_62" href="#Footnote_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a></p> - -<p>In other cases the expensive nature of the raw material -or the tools aided the creation of a separate class. The -Spitalfields silk-weavers, whom we find forming a permanent -organisation in 1773, could never have owned the costly -silks they wove.<a id="FNanchor_63" href="#Footnote_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> The gold-beaters, whose union dates -at any rate from 1777, were similarly debarred from owning -the material.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</span></p> - -<p>Another remarkable instance of combination prior to -the introduction of mechanical power and the factory -system is that of the “stockingers,” the hosiery workers, -or framework knitters, described by Dr. Brentano. From -the very beginning of the use of the stocking-frame, in the -early part of the seventeenth century, servants appear to -have been set to work upon frames owned by capitalists, -though the bulk of the trade was in the hands of men who -worked upon their own frames as independent producers. -The competition of these embryo factories was severely -felt by the domestic framework knitter, and on the final -breakdown, in 1753, of the legal limitation of apprentices, -it became disastrous. There grew up a “ruinous practice -of parishes giving premiums to manufacturers for employing -their poor,” and this flooding of the labour market with -subsidised child labour reduced the typical framework -knitter to a state of destitution. Though he continued to -work in his cottage, he rapidly lost the ownership of his -frame, and a system arose under which the frames were -hired at a rent, either from a small capitalist frame-owner, -or from the manufacturer by whom the work was given -out. The operative was thus deprived, not only of the -ownership of the product, but also of the instruments of his -labour. Hence, although from the very beginning of the -eighteenth century there were ephemeral combinations -among the framework knitters, in which masters and men -often joined, it was not until 1780, when the renting of -frames had become general, that a durable Trade Union -of wage-earners arose.<a id="FNanchor_64" href="#Footnote_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a></p> - -<p>The development of the industrial organisation of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</span> -cutlery trades affords another example of this evolution. -At the date of the establishment in Sheffield of the Cutlers’ -Company (1624) the typical craftsman was himself the owner -of his “wheel” and other instruments, and a strict limitation -of apprentices was maintained. By 1791, when the masters -obtained from Parliament a formal ratification of the prevalent -relaxation in the customary restrictions as to apprentices, -we find this system largely replaced by something -very like the present order of things, in which the typical -Sheffield operative works with material given out by the -manufacturer, upon wheels rented either from the latter or -from a landlord supplying power. It is no mere coincidence -that in the year 1790 the Sheffield employers found themselves -obliged to take concerted action against the “scissor-grinders -and other workmen who have entered into unlawful -combinations to raise the price of labour.”<a id="FNanchor_65" href="#Footnote_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a></p> - -<p>The shipwrights of Liverpool, and probably those of -other shipbuilding ports, were combined in trade benefit -clubs early in the eighteenth century. At Liverpool, -where this society had very successfully maintained the -customary limitation of apprentices, the members were -all freemen of the municipal corporation, and as such -entitled to the Parliamentary franchise. As a result the -shipwrights’ organisation became intensely political, by -which was meant chiefly the negotiation of the sale of its -members’ votes. At the election of 1790, when Whigs -and Tories compromised in order to avoid the expense of -a contest, it was the Shipwrights’ Society, then at the zenith -of its power, which insisted on forcing a contest by nominating -its own candidate, and, in the end, actually put him -at the head of the poll. The society, which had a contribution -in 1824 of fifteen pence per month, and had built almshouses -for its old members, is reputed to have been at one -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</span> -time so powerful that any employer who refused to obey -its rules found his business absolutely brought to a standstill. -<a id="FNanchor_66" href="#Footnote_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a></p> - -<p>But the cardinal example of the conception of Trade -Unionism with the divorce of the worker from the instruments -of production is seen in the rapid rise of trade combinations -on the introduction of the factory system. We -have already noticed that Trade Unions in Yorkshire began -with the erection of factories and the use of power. When, -in 1794, the clothiers of the West Riding failed to prevent -the Leeds merchants from establishing large factories, -“wherein it is intended to employ a great number of persons -now working at their own homes,” the journeymen took -the matter into their own hands, and founded “the Clothiers’ -Community,” or “Brief Institution,” professedly to gather -“briefs” or levies for the relief of the sick, and to carry on -a Parliamentary agitation for hampering the factory owners -by a legal limitation of apprentices. “It appears,” reports -the Parliamentary Committee of 1806, “that there has -existed for some time an institution or society among the -woollen manufacturers, consisting chiefly of clothworkers. -In each of the principal manufacturing towns there appears -to be a society, composed of deputies chosen from the -several shops of workmen, from each of which town societies -one or more deputies are chosen to form what is called the -central committee, which meets, as occasion requires, at -some place suitable to the local convenience of all parties. -The powers of the central committee appear to pervade -the whole institution; and any determination or measure -which it may adopt may be communicated with ease throughout -the whole body of manufacturers. Every workman, -on his becoming a member of the society, receives a certain -card or ticket, on which is an emblematical engraving—the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</span> -same, the Committee are assured, both in the North and -the West of England—that by producing his ticket he may -at once show he belongs to the society. The same rules -and regulations appear to be in force throughout the whole -district, and there is the utmost reason to believe that no -clothworker would be suffered to carry on his trade, otherwise -than in solitude, who should refuse to submit to the -obligations and rules of the society.”<a id="FNanchor_67" href="#Footnote_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> The transformation -of cotton-spinning into a factory industry, which may be -said to have taken place round about the year 1780, was -equally accompanied by the growth of Trade Unionism. -The so-called benefit clubs of the Oldham operatives, which -we know to have existed from 1792, and those of Stockport, -of which we hear in 1796, were the forerunners of that -network of spinners’ societies throughout the northern -counties and Scotland which rose into notoriety in the -great strikes of the next thirty years.<a id="FNanchor_68" href="#Footnote_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a></p> - -<p>It is easy to understand how the massing together in -factories of regiments of men all engaged in the same trade -facilitated and promoted the formation of journeymen’s -trade societies. But with the cotton-spinners, as with the -tailors, the rise of permanent trade combinations is to be -ascribed, in a final analysis, to the definite separation -between the functions of the capitalist <i>entrepreneur</i> and the -manual worker—between, that is to say, the direction of -industrial operations and their execution. It has, indeed, -become a commonplace of modern Trade Unionism that -only in those industries in which the worker has ceased to -be concerned in the profits of buying and selling—that -inseparable characteristic of the ownership and management -of the means of production—can effective and stable trade -organisations be established.</p> - -<p>The positive proofs of this historical dependence of -Trade Unionism upon the divorce of the worker from the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</span> -ownership of the means of production are complemented -by the absence of any permanent trade combinations in -industries in which the divorce had not taken place. The -degradation of the Standard of Life of the skilled manual -worker on the break-up of the mediæval system occurred -in all sorts of trades, whether the operative retained his -ownership of the means of production or not, but Trade -Unionism followed only where the change took the form -of a divorce between capital and labour. The Corporation -of Pinmakers of London are found petitioning Parliament -towards the end of the seventeenth century or beginning of -the eighteenth, as follows:</p> - -<p>“This company consists for the most part of poor and -indigent people, who have neither credit nor mony to purchase -wyre of the merchant at the best hand, but are forced -for want thereof to buy only small parcels of the second -or third buyer as they have occasion to use it, and to sell -off the pins they make of the same from week to week, -as soon as they are made, for ready money to feed themselves, -their wives and children, whom they are constrained -to imploy to go up and down every Saturday night from -shop to shop to offer their pins to sale, otherwise cannot -have money to buy bread. And these are daily so exceedingly -multiplyed and encreased by reason of the unlimited -number of apprentices that some few covetous-minded -members of the company (who have considerable stocks) -do constantly imploy and keep.... The persons that -buy the pins from the maker to sell again to other retailing -shopkeepers, taking advantage of this necessity of the -poor workmen (who are always forced to sell for ready -mony, or otherwise cannot subsist), have by degrees so -beaten down the price of pins that the workman is not able -to live of his work, ... and betake themselves to be -porters, tankard bearers, and other day labourers, ... and -many of their children do daily become parish charges.” -<a id="FNanchor_69" href="#Footnote_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</span> -And the glovers complain at the same period that “they -are generally so poor that they are supplied with leather -upon credit, not being able to pay for that or their work-folk’s -wages till they have sold the gloves.” -<a id="FNanchor_70" href="#Footnote_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a></p> - -<p>Now, although these pinmakers and glovers, and other -trades in like condition, fully recognised the need for some -protection of their Standard of Life, we do not find any -trace of Trade Unionism among them. Selling as they -did, not their labour alone, but also its product, their only -resource was legislative protection of the price of their -wares.<a id="FNanchor_71" href="#Footnote_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> In short, in those industries in which the cleavage -between capitalist and artisan, manager and manual -labourer, was not yet complete, the old gild policy of commercial -monopoly was resorted to as the only expedient for -protecting the Standard of Life of the producer.</p> - -<p>We do not contend that the divorce supplies, in itself, -a complete explanation of the origin of Trade Unions. -At all times in the history of English industry there -have existed large classes of workers as much debarred -from becoming the directors of their own industry as the -eighteenth-century tailor or woolcomber, or as the modern -cotton-spinner or miner. Besides the semi-servile workers -on the land or in the mines, it is certain that there were in -the towns a considerable class of unskilled labourers, -excluded, through lack of apprenticeship, from any participation -in the gild.<a id="FNanchor_72" href="#Footnote_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> By the eighteenth century, at any rate, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</span> -the numbers of this class must have been largely swollen, -by the increased demand for common labour involved in -the growth of the transport trade, the extensive building -operations, etc. But it is not among the farm servants, -miners, or general labourers, ill-paid and ill-treated as -these often were, that the early Trade Unions arose. We -do not even hear of ephemeral combinations among them, -and only very occasionally of transient strikes.<a id="FNanchor_73" href="#Footnote_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> The -formation of independent associations to resist the will of -employers requires the possession of a certain degree of -personal independence and strength of character. Thus -we find the earliest Trade Unions arising among journeymen -whose skill and Standard of Life had been for centuries -encouraged and protected by legal or customary regulations -as to apprenticeship, and by the limitation of their numbers -which the high premiums and other conditions must have -involved. It is often assumed that Trade Unionism arose -as a protest against intolerable industrial oppression. This -was not so. The first half of the eighteenth century was -certainly not a period of exceptional distress. For fifty -years from 1710 there was an almost constant succession -of good harvests, the price of wheat remaining unusually -low. The tailors of London and Westminster united, at -the very beginning of the eighteenth century, not to resist -any reduction of their customary earnings, but to wring -from their employers better wages and shorter hours of -labour. The few survivors of the hand woolcombers still -cherish the tradition of the eighteenth century, when they -styled themselves “gentlemen woolcombers,” refused to -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</span> -drink with other operatives, and were strong enough, as -we have seen, to give “laws to their masters.”<a id="FNanchor_74" href="#Footnote_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> The very -superior millwrights, whose exclusive trade clubs preceded -any general organisation of the engineering trade, had for -“their everyday garb” a “long frock coat and tall hat.”<a id="FNanchor_75" href="#Footnote_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> -And the curriers, hatters, woolstaplers, shipwrights, brush-makers, -basketmakers, and calico-printers, who furnish -prominent instances of eighteenth-century Trade Unionism, -all earned relatively high wages, and long maintained a very -effectual resistance to the encroachments of their employers.</p> - -<p>It appears to us from these facts that Trade Unionism -would have been a feature of English industry, even without -the steam-engine and the factory system. Whether -the association of superior workmen which arose in the -early part of the century would, in such an event, ever -have developed into a Trade Union Movement is another -matter. The typical “trade club” of the town artisan of -this time was an isolated “ring” of highly skilled journeymen, -who were even more decisively marked off from the -mass of the manual workers than from the small class of -capitalist employers. The customary enforcement of the -apprenticeship prescribed by the Elizabethan statutes, and -the high premiums often exacted from parents not belonging -to the trade, long maintained a virtual monopoly of the -better-paid handicrafts in the hands of an almost hereditary -caste of “tradesmen” in whose ranks the employers themselves -had for the most part served their apprenticeship. -Enjoying, as they did, this legal or customary protection, -they found their trade clubs of use mainly for the provision -of friendly benefits, and for “higgling” with their masters -for better terms. We find little trace among such trade -clubs of that sense of solidarity between the manual workers -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</span> -of different trades which afterwards became so marked a -feature of the Trade Union Movement. Their occasional -disputes with their employers resembled rather family -differences than conflicts between distinct social classes. -They exhibit more tendency to “stand in” with their -masters against the community, or to back them against -rivals or interlopers, than to join their fellow-workers of -other trades in an attack upon the capitalist class. In short, -we have industrial society still divided vertically trade by -trade, instead of horizontally between employers and wage-earners. -This latter cleavage it is which has transformed -the Trade Unionism of petty groups of skilled workmen -into the modern Trade Union Movement. -<a id="FNanchor_76" href="#Footnote_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a></p> - -<p>The pioneers of the Trade Union Movement were not -the trade clubs of the town artisans, but the extensive -combinations of the West of England woollen-workers -and the Midland framework knitters. It was these associations -that initiated what afterwards became the common -purpose of nearly all eighteenth-century combinations—the -appeal to the Government and the House of Commons to -save the wage-earners from the new policy of buying labour, -like the raw material of manufacture, in the cheapest -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</span> -market. The rapidly changing processes and widening -markets of English industry seemed to demand the sweeping -away of all restrictions on the supply and employment of -labour, a process which involved the levelling of all classes -of wage-earners to their “natural wages.” The first to -feel the encroachment on their customary earnings were -the woollen-workers employed by the capitalist clothiers -of the Western counties. As the century advances we find -trade after trade taking up the agitation against the new -conditions, and such old-established clubs as the hatters and -the woolcombers joining the general movement as soon as -their own industries are menaced. To the skilled craftsman -in the towns the new policy was brought home by the -repeal of the regulations which protected his trade against -an influx of pauper labour. His defence was to ask for the -enforcement of the law relating to apprenticeship.<a id="FNanchor_77" href="#Footnote_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> This -would not have helped the operative in the staple textile -industries. To him the new order took the form of -constantly declining piecework rates. What he demanded, -therefore, was the fixing of the “convenient proportion of -wages” contemplated by Elizabethan legislation. But, -whether craftsmen or factory operatives, the wage-earners -turned, for the maintenance of their Standard of Life, to -that protection by the law upon which they had been -taught to rely. So long as each section of workers believed -in the intention of the governing class to protect their trade -from the results of unrestricted competition no community -of interest arose. It was a change of industrial policy on -the part of the Government that brought all trades into -line, and for the first time produced what can properly be -called a Trade Union Movement. In order, therefore, to -make this movement fully intelligible, we must now retrace -our steps, and follow the political history of industry in -the eighteenth century.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</span></p> -<p>The dominant industrial policy of the sixteenth century -was the establishment of some regulating authority to -perform, for the trade of the time, the services formerly -rendered by the Craft Gilds. When, for instance, in the -middle of the century the weavers found their customary -earnings dwindling, they managed so far to combine as to -make their voice heard at Westminster. In 1555 we find -them complaining “that the rich and wealthy clothiers -do many ways oppress them” by putting unapprenticed -men to work on the capitalists’ own looms, by letting out -looms at rents, and “some also by giving much less wages -and hire for the weaving and workmanship of clothes than -in times past they did.”<a id="FNanchor_78" href="#Footnote_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> To the Parliament of these days -it seemed right and natural that the oppressed wage-earners -should turn to the legislature to protect them against the -cutting down of their earnings by the competing capitalists. -The statutes of 1552 and 1555 forbid the use of the gig-mill, -restrict the number of looms that one person may own to -two in towns and one in the country, and absolutely prohibit -the letting-out of looms for hire or rent. In 1563, -indeed, Parliament expressly charged itself with securing -to all wage-earners a “convenient” livelihood. The old -laws fixing a maximum wage could not, in face of the -enormous rise of prices, be put in force “without the great -grief and burden of the poor labourer and hired man.” -Circumstances were changing too fast for any rigid rule. -But by the celebrated “Statute of Apprentices” the -statesmen of the time contrived arrangements which would, -as they hoped, “yield unto the hired person, both in the -time of scarcity and in the time of plenty, a convenient -proportion of wages.” Every year the justices of each -locality were to meet, “and calling unto them such discreet -and grave persons ... as they shall think meet, and -conferring together respecting the plenty or scarcity of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</span> -time,” were to fix the wages of practically every kind of -labour,<a id="FNanchor_79" href="#Footnote_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> their decisions being enforceable by heavy penalties. -Stringent regulations as to the necessity of apprenticeship, -the length of its term, and the number of apprentices to be -taken by each employer, received the confirmation of law. -The typical ordinances of the mediæval gild were, in fact, -enacted in minute detail in a comprehensive general statute -applying to the greater part of the industry of the period.</p> - -<p>We need not discuss the very debatable question whether -this celebrated law was or was not advantageous to the -labouring folk of the time, or whether and to what extent -its provisions were actually put in force.<a id="FNanchor_80" href="#Footnote_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> But codifying -and enacting as it did the fundamental principles of the -mediæval social order, we can scarcely be surprised that its -adoption by Parliament confirmed the working man in the -once universal belief in the essential justice and good policy -securing by appropriate legislation “the getting of a competent -livelihood” by all those concerned in industry.<a id="FNanchor_81" href="#Footnote_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> -Exactly the same view prevailed at the beginning of the -eighteenth century. We again find the newly established -associations of the operatives appealing to the King, to the -House of Commons, or to Quarter Sessions against the -beating down of their wages by their employers. For the -first half of the century the governing classes continued to -act on the assumption that the industrious mechanic had a -right to the customary earnings of his trade. Thus in -1726 the weavers of Wilts and Somerset combine to petition -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</span> -the King against the harshness and fraud of their employers -the clothiers, with the result that a Committee of the Privy -Council investigates their grievances, and draws up “Articles -of Agreement” for the settlement of the matters in dispute,<a id="FNanchor_82" href="#Footnote_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> -admonishing the weavers “for the future” not to attempt -to help themselves by unlawful combinations, but always -“to lay their grievances in a regular way before His Majesty, -who would be always ready to grant them relief suitable to -the justice of their case.”<a id="FNanchor_83" href="#Footnote_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> More often the operatives -appealed to the House of Commons. In 1719 the “broad -and narrow weavers” of Stroud and places round, petitioned -Parliament to put down the tyrannical capitalist clothiers -by enforcing the “Act touching Weavers” of 1555.<a id="FNanchor_84" href="#Footnote_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> In -1728 the Gloucestershire operatives appealed to the local -justices of the peace, and induced them, in spite of protests -from the master clothiers, and apparently for the first time, -to fix a liberal scale of wages for the weavers of the country.<a id="FNanchor_85" href="#Footnote_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> -Twenty years later the operatives obtained from Parliament -a special prohibition of truck.<a id="FNanchor_86" href="#Footnote_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> Finally, in 1756 they -persuaded the House of Commons to pass an Act<a id="FNanchor_87" href="#Footnote_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> providing -for the fixing of piecework prices by the justices, -in order that the practice of cutting down rates and underselling -might be stopped. “A Table or Scheme for Rates -of Wages” was accordingly settled at Quarter Sessions, -November 6, 1756, with which the operatives were fairly -contented.<a id="FNanchor_88" href="#Footnote_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a></p> - -<p>The next few years saw a revolutionary change in the -industrial policy of the legislature which must have utterly -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</span> -bewildered the operatives. Within a generation the House -of Commons exchanged its policy of mediæval protection -for one of “Administrative Nihilism.” The Woollen Cloth -Weavers’ Act of 1756 had not been one year in force when -Parliament was assailed by numerous petitions and counter -petitions. The employers declared that the rates fixed by -the justices were, in face of the growing competition of -Yorkshire, absolutely impracticable. The operatives, on the -other hand, asked that the Act might be strengthened in -their favour. The clothiers asserted the advantages of freedom -of contract and unrestrained competition. The weavers -received the support of the landowners and gentry in claiming -the maintenance by law of their customary earnings. -The perplexed House of Commons wavered between the -two. At first a Bill was ordered to be drawn strengthening -the existing law; but ultimately the clothiers were held to -have proved their case.<a id="FNanchor_89" href="#Footnote_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> The Act of 1756 was, in 1757, -unconditionally repealed; and Parliament was now heading -straight for <i>laisser-faire</i>.</p> - -<p>The struggle over this Woollen Cloth Weavers’ Act of -1756 marks the passage from the old ideas to the new. -When, in 1776, the weavers, spinners, scribblers, and other -woollen operatives of Somerset petitioned against the evil -that was being done to their accustomed livelihood by the -introduction of the spinning-jenny into Shepton Mallet, the -House of Commons, which had two centuries before absolutely -prohibited the gig-mill, refused even to allow the -petition to be received.<a id="FNanchor_90" href="#Footnote_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a></p> - -<p>The change of policy had already affected another trade. -The London Framework Knitters’ Company, which had -been incorporated in 1663 for the express purpose of regulating -the trade, found itself during the first half of the -eighteenth century in continual conflict with recalcitrant -masters who set its bye-laws at defiance. This long struggle, -in which the journeymen took vigorous action in support of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</span> -the Company, was brought to an end in 1753 by an exhaustive -Parliamentary inquiry. The bye-laws of the Company, -upon the enforcement of which the journeymen had -rested all their hopes, were solemnly declared to be “injurious -and vexatious to the manufacturers,” whilst the -Company’s authority was pronounced to be “hurtful to the -trade.”<a id="FNanchor_91" href="#Footnote_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> The total abandonment of all legal regulation of -the trade led, after numerous transitory revolts, to the -establishment in 1778 of “The Stocking Makers’ Association -for the Mutual Protection in the Midland Counties of -England,” having for its objects the limitation of apprentices, -and the enactment of a fixed rate of wages. Dr. Brentano -has summarised the various attempts made by the operatives -during the next two years to secure the protection of the -legislature.<a id="FNanchor_92" href="#Footnote_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> Through the influence of their Union a sympathetic -member was returned for the borough of Nottingham. -Investigation by a committee brought to light a -degree of “sweating” scarcely paralleled even by the worst -modern instances. A Bill for the fixing of wages had actually -passed its second reading when the employers, whipping -up all their friends in the House, defeated it on the third -reading—a rebuff to the workmen which led to serious riots -at Nottingham, and thrust the unfortunate framework -knitters back into despairing poverty.<a id="FNanchor_93" href="#Footnote_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a></p> - -<p>By this time the town craftsmen were also beginning to -be menaced by the revolutionary proposals of their employers. -The hatters, for example, whose early combination -we have already mentioned, had hitherto been protected -by the strict limitation of the number of apprentices -prescribed by the Acts of 1566 and 1603, and enforced by -the Feltmakers’ Company. We gather from the employers’ -complaints that the journeymen’s organisation, which by -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</span> -this time extended to most of the provincial towns in which -hats were made, was aiming at a strict enforcement of the -law limiting the number of apprentices which each master -might take. This caused the leading master hatters to -promote, in 1777, a Bill to remove the limitation. Against -them was marshalled the whole strength of the journeymen’s -organisation. Petitions poured in from London, Burton, -Bristol, Chester, Liverpool, Hexham, Derby, and other -places, the “piecemaster hat or feltmakers and finishers” -usually joining with the journeymen against the demand of -the capitalist employers. The men asserted that, even with -the limitation, “except at brisk times many hundreds are -obliged to go travelling up and down the kingdom in search -of employ.” But the House was impressed with the evidence -and arguments of the large employers, and their Bill passed -into law.<a id="FNanchor_94" href="#Footnote_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a></p> - -<p>The action of the House of Commons on occasions like -these was not as yet influenced by any conscious theory of -freedom of contract. What happened was that, as each -trade in turn felt the effect of the new capitalist competition, -the journeymen, and often also the smaller employers, -would petition for redress, usually demanding the prohibition -of the new machines, the enforcement of a seven years’ -apprenticeship, or the maintenance of the old limitation of -the number of boys to be taught by each employer. The -House would as a rule appoint a Committee to investigate -the complaint, with the full intention of redressing the -alleged grievance. But the large employers would produce -before that Committee an overwhelming array of evidence -proving that without the new machinery the growing export -trade must be arrested; that the new processes could be -learnt in a few months instead of seven years; and that -the restriction of the old master craftsmen to two or three -apprentices apiece was out of the question with the new -buyers of labour on a large scale. Confronted with such a -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</span> -case as this for the masters even the most sympathetic -committee seldom found it possible to endorse the proposals -of the artisans. In fact, these proposals were impossible. -The artisans had a grievance—perhaps the worst that any -class can have—the degradation of their standard of livelihood -by circumstances which enormously increased the productivity -of their labour. But they mistook the remedy; -and Parliament, though it saw the mistake, could devise -nothing better. Common sense forced the Government to -take the easy and obvious step of abolishing the mediæval -regulations which industry had outgrown. But the problem -of protecting the workers’ Standard of Life under the new -conditions was neither easy nor obvious, and it remained -unsolved until the nineteenth century discovered the expedients -of Collective Bargaining and Factory Legislation, -developing, in the twentieth century, into the fixing by law -of a Minimum Wage. In the meantime the workers were -left to shift for themselves, the attitude of Parliament towards -them being for the first years one of pure perplexity, -quite untouched by the doctrine of freedom of contract.</p> - -<p>That the House of Commons remained innocent of any -general theory against legislative interference long after it -had begun the work of sweeping away the mediæval regulations -is proved by the famous case of the Spitalfields silk-weavers, -in which the old policy of industrial regulation was -reverted to. In 1765 the Spitalfields weavers protested -that they were without employment, owing to the importation -of foreign silk. Assembling in crowds, they marched -in processions to Westminster, headed by bands and banners, -and demanded the prohibition of the import of the foreign -product. Riots occurred sufficiently serious to induce Parliament -to pass an Act in the terms desired;<a id="FNanchor_95" href="#Footnote_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> but this -experiment in Protection failed to maintain wages, and the -riots were renewed in 1769. Finally Sir John Fielding, the -well-known London police magistrate, suggested to the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</span> -London silkweavers that they should secure their earnings -by an Act.<a id="FNanchor_96" href="#Footnote_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> Under the pressure of another outbreak of -rioting in 1773, Parliament adopted this proposal, and empowered -the justices to fix the rates of wages and to enforce -their maintenance. The effect of this enactment upon the -men’s combination is significant. “A great man” had told -the weavers, as one of them relates, that the governing class -“made laws, and we, the people, must make legs to them.”<a id="FNanchor_97" href="#Footnote_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> -The ephemeral combination to obtain the Act became -accordingly a permanent union to enforce it. From this -time forth we hear no more of strikes or riots among the -Spitalfields weavers. Instead, we see arising a permanent -machinery, designated the “Union,” for the representation, -before the justices, of both masters and men, upon whose -evidence the complicated lists of piecework rates are periodically -settled. Clearly the Parliaments which passed the -Spitalfields Acts of 1765 and 1773 had no conception of the -political philosophy of Adam Smith, whose <i>Wealth of -Nations</i>, afterwards to be accepted as the English gospel -of freedom of contract and “natural liberty,” was published -in 1776. At the same time, so exceptional had such -acts become, that when Adam Smith’s masterpiece came -into the hands of the statesmen of the time, it must have -seemed not so much a novel view of industrial economics as -the explicit generalisation of practical conclusions to which -experience had already repeatedly driven them.</p> - -<p>Towards the end of the century the governing classes, -who had found in the new industrial policy a source of -enormous pecuniary profit, eagerly seized on the new -economic theory as an intellectual and moral justification -of that policy. The abandonment of the operatives by the -law, previously resorted to under pressure of circumstances, -and, as we gather, not without some remorse, was now -carried out on principle, with unflinching determination. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</span> -When the handloom-weavers, earning little more than a -third of the livelihood they had gained ten years before, -and unable to realise that the factory system would be -deliberately allowed to ruin them, made themselves heard -in the House of Commons in 1808, a Committee reported -against their proposal to fix a minimum rate of wages on -the ground that it was “wholly inadmissible in principle, -incapable of being reduced to practice by any means which -can possibly be devised, and, if practicable, would be productive -of the most fatal consequences”; and “that the -proposition relative to the limiting the number of apprentices -is also entirely inadmissible, and would, if adopted by the -House, be attended with the greatest injustice to the manufacturer -as well as to the labourer.”<a id="FNanchor_98" href="#Footnote_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> Here we have <i>laisser-faire</i> -fully established in Parliament as an authoritative -industrial doctrine of political economy, able to overcome -the great bulk of the evidence given before this Committee, -which was decidedly in favour of the minimum wage. The -House of Commons had no lack of opportunities for educating -itself on the question. The special misery caused by -bad harvests and the prolonged war between 1793 and -1815<a id="FNanchor_99" href="#Footnote_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> brought a rush of appeals, especially from the newly -established associations of cotton operatives. In the early -years of the present century petition after petition poured -in from Lancashire and Glasgow, showing that the rates for -weaving had steadily declined, and reiterating the old -demands for a legally fixed scale of piecework rates and the -limitation of apprentices. In 1795, and again in 1800, and -once more in 1808, Bills fixing a minimum rate were introduced -into the House of Commons, sometimes meeting with -considerable favour. The report of the Committee of 1808, -which took voluminous evidence on the subject, has already -been quoted. Petitions from the calico-printers for a legal -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</span> -limitation of the number of apprentices, although warmly -supported by the Select Committee to which they were referred, -met with the same fate. Sheridan, indeed, was not -convinced, and brought in a Bill proposing, among other -things, to limit the number of apprentices. But Sir Robert -Peel (the elder), whose own factories swarmed with boys, -opposed it in the name of industrial freedom, and carried -the House of Commons with him.<a id="FNanchor_100" href="#Footnote_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a></p> - -<p>Meanwhile the despairing operatives, baffled in their -attempts to procure fresh legislation, turned for aid to the -existing law. Unrepealed statutes still enabled the justices -in some trades to fix the rate of wages, limited in others -the number of apprentices; in others, again, prohibited -certain kinds of machinery, and forbade any but apprenticed -men to exercise the trade. So completely had these statutes -fallen into disuse that their very existence was in many -instances unknown to the artisans. The West of England -weavers, however, combined with those of Yorkshire in -1802 to employ an attorney, who took proceedings against -employers for infringing the old laws. The result was that -Parliament hastily passed an Act suspending these statutes, -in order to put a stop to the prosecutions.<a id="FNanchor_101" href="#Footnote_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a>“At a numerous -meeting of the cordwainers of the City of New Sarum in -1784,” says an old circular that we have seen, “it was -unanimously resolved ... that a subscription be entered -into for putting the law in force against infringements on -the Trade,” but apparently without result.<a id="FNanchor_102" href="#Footnote_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> The Edinburgh -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</span> -compositors were more successful; on being refused an -advance of wages, to correspond with the rise in the cost of -living, they presented, February 28, 1804, a memorial to -the Court of Session, and obtained the celebrated “Interlocutor” -of 1805, which fixed a scale of piecework prices -for the Edinburgh printing trade.<a id="FNanchor_103" href="#Footnote_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> But the chief event of -this campaign for the enforcement of the old laws began in -Glasgow. The cotton-weavers of that city, after four or -five years of Parliamentary agitation for additional legislation, -resorted to the law empowering the justices to fix the -rates of wages. After an unsuccessful attempt to fix a -standard rate by agreement with a committee of employers, -the men’s association which now extended throughout the -whole of the cotton-weaving districts in the United Kingdom -commenced legal proceedings at the Lanarkshire -Quarter Sessions. The employers in 1812 disputed the -competence of the magistrates, and appealed to the Court -of Sessions at Edinburgh. The Court held that the magistrates -were competent to fix a scale of wages, and a table -of piecework rates was accordingly drawn up. The employers -immediately withdrew from the proceedings; but -the operatives were nevertheless compelled, at great expense, -to produce witnesses to testify to every one of the -numerous rates proposed. After one hundred and thirty -witnesses had been heard, the magistrates at length declared -the rates to be reasonable, but made no actual order enforcing -them. The employers, with few exceptions, refused -to accept the table, which it had cost the operatives £3000 -to obtain. The result was the most extensive strike the -trade has ever known. From Carlisle to Aberdeen every -loom stopped, forty thousand weavers ceasing work almost -simultaneously. After three weeks’ strike the employers -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</span> -were preparing to meet the operatives, when the whole -Strike Committee was suddenly arrested by the police, and -held to bail under the common law for the crime of combination, -of which the authorities, in that revolutionary -period, were very jealous on purely political grounds. The -five leaders were sentenced to terms of imprisonment varying -from four to eighteen months; and this blow broke up -the combination, defeated the strike, and put an end to -the struggles of the operatives against the progressive -degradation of their wages.<a id="FNanchor_104" href="#Footnote_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a></p> - -<p>The London artisans, though they were not put down -by prosecution and imprisonment, met with no greater -success than their Glasgow brethren. Between 1810 and -1812 a number of trade societies combined to engage the -services of a solicitor, who prosecuted masters for employing -“illegal men,” that is to say, men who had not by apprenticeship -gained a right to follow the trade. The original “case” -which the journeymen curriers submitted to counsel in -1810 (fee two guineas), with a view to putting in force the -Statute of Apprentices, was in our possession, together -with the somewhat hesitating opinion of the legal adviser.<a id="FNanchor_105" href="#Footnote_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a> -In a few cases proceedings were even taken against employers -for having set up in trades to which they had not themselves -served their time. Convictions were obtained in some -instances; but no costs were allowed to the prosecutors, -who were, on the other hand, condemned to pay heavy -costs when they failed. Lord Ellenborough, moreover, held -on appeal that new trades, such as those of engineer and -lockmaker, were not included within the Elizabethan Act. -In 1811 certain journeymen millers of Kent petitioned the -justices to fix a rate of wages under the Elizabethan Act. -When the justices refused to hear the petition a writ of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</span> -mandamus was applied for. Lord Ellenborough granted -the writ to compel them to hear the petition, but said they -were to exercise their own discretion as to whether they -would fix any rate. The justices, on this hint, declined to -fix the wages.<a id="FNanchor_106" href="#Footnote_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> It soon became apparent that legal proceedings -under these obsolete statutes were, in face of the -adverse bias of the courts, as futile as they were costly. -There was nothing for it then but either to abandon the -line of attack or to petition Parliament to make effective -the still unrepealed laws. This they accordingly did, with -the unexpected result that the “pernicious” law empowering -justices to fix wages was in 1813 peremptorily repealed. -<a id="FNanchor_107" href="#Footnote_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a></p> - -<p>The law thus swept away was but one section of the -great Elizabethan statute, and its repeal left the other -clauses untouched. A Select Committee had already, -in 1811, reported that “no interference of the legislature -with the freedom of trade, or with the perfect liberty of -every individual to dispose of his time and of his labour -in the way and on the terms which he may judge most -conducive to his own interest, can take place without -violating general principles of the first importance to the -prosperity and happiness of the community; without -establishing the most pernicious precedent, or even without -aggravating, after a very short time, the pressure of the -general distress, and imposing obstacles against that distress -being ever removed.” The repeal of the wages clauses -of the statute made this emphatic declaration of the new -doctrine law as far as the fixing of wages was concerned; -but there remained the apprenticeship clauses. Petitions -for the enforcement of these, and their extension to the new -trades, kept pouring in. They were finally referred to a -large and influential committee which included Canning, -Huskisson, Sir Robert Peel, and Sir James Graham among -its members. The witnesses examined were strongly in -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</span> -favour of the retention of the laws, with amendments -bringing them up to date. The chairman (George Rose) -was apparently converted to the view of the operatives -by the evidence. The committee, which had undoubtedly -been appointed to formulate the complete abolition of the -apprenticeship clauses, found itself unable to fulfil its virtual -mandate. Not venturing, in the teeth of the manufacturers -and economists, to recommend the House to comply with -the operatives’ demands, it got out of the difficulty by -making no recommendation at all. Hundreds of petitions -in favour of the laws continued to pour in from all parts of -the country, 300,000 signatures being for retention against -2000 for repeal, masters often joining in the journeymen’s -prayer. A public meeting of the “Master Manufacturers and -Tradesmen of the Cities of London and Westminster,” -at the Freemasons’ Tavern, passed resolutions strongly -supporting the amendment and enforcement of the existing -law. On the other hand, a committee on which the master -engineers Maudsley and Galloway were prominent members, -argued forcibly in favour of freedom and against “the -monstrous and alarming but misguided association.” In -1814 Mr. Serjeant Onslow, who had not served on the committee -of the previous session, introduced a Bill to repeal -the whole apprenticeship law. The “Masters and Journeymen -of Westminster” were heard by counsel against this -measure, but the House had made up its mind in favour of -the manufacturers, and by the Act of 54 Geo. III. c. 96 swept -away the apprenticeship clauses of the statute, and with -them practically the last remnant of that legislative protection -of the Standard of Life which survived from the -Middle Ages.<a id="FNanchor_108" href="#Footnote_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> The triumphant manufacturers presented -Serjeant Onslow with several pieces of plate for his championship -of commercial liberty. -<a id="FNanchor_109" href="#Footnote_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</span></p> - -<p>So thoroughly had the new doctrine by this time driven -out the very recollection of the old ideals from the mind -of the governing class that it was now the operatives who -were regarded as innovators, and we are hardly surprised -to find another committee gravely declaring that “the -right of every man to employ the capital he inherits, or has -acquired, according to his own discretion, without molestation -or obstruction, so long as he does not infringe on the -rights or property of others, is one of those privileges which -the free and happy constitution of this country has long -accustomed every Briton to consider as his birthright.”<a id="FNanchor_110" href="#Footnote_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> -But it must be added that the governing class was by no -means impartial in the application of its new doctrine. -Mediæval regulation acted not only in restriction of free -competition in the labour market to the pecuniary loss of -the employers, but also in restriction of free contract to -the loss of the employees, who could only obtain the best -terms for their labour by collective instead of individual -bargaining. Consequently the operatives, if they had -clearly understood the situation, would have been as anxious -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</span> -to abolish the laws against combination as to maintain -those fixing wages and limiting apprenticeship; just as -the capitalists, better informed, were no less resolute in -maintaining the anti-combination laws than in repealing -the others. We shall presently see how slow the workers -were to realise this, in spite of the fact that the laws against -combinations of workmen were maintained in force, and -even increased in severity. Strikes, and any organised -resistance to the employers’ demands, were put down with -a high hand. The first twenty years of the nineteenth -century witnessed a legal persecution of Trade Unionists as -rebels and revolutionists. This persecution, thwarting the -healthy growth of the Unions, and driving their members -into violence and sedition, but finally leading to the repeal -of the Combination Laws and the birth of the modern Trade -Union Movement, will be the subject of the next chapter.</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">[3]</a> In the first edition we said “of their employment.” This has been -objected to as implying that Trade Unions have always contemplated a -perpetual continuance of the capitalist or wage-system. No such implication -was intended. Trade Unions have, at various dates during the past -century at any rate, frequently had aspirations towards a revolutionary -change in social and economic relations.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="label">[4]</a> Riley’s <i>Memorials of London and London Life in the Thirteenth, -Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Centuries</i> (1888), p. 495 (partly cited in <i>Trade -Unions</i>, by William Trant, 1884).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="label">[5]</a><i>Ibid.</i> pp. 542-3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="label">[6]</a><i>Ibid.</i> p. 609; Clode’s <i>Early History of the Merchant Taylors’ Company</i>, -vol. i. p. 63.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="label">[7]</a><i>Calendars of State Papers: Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, -Henry VIII.</i> vol. xiii. part i., 1538, No. 1454, p. 537. Compare the -ephemeral combinations cited by Fagniez, <i>Études sur l’industrie et la classe -industrielle à Paris</i> (Paris, 1877), pp. 76, 82, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="label">[8]</a>It has been assumed that, in the company of “Bachelors” or -“Yeomen Tailors” connected with the Merchant Taylors’ Company of -London between 1446 and 1661, we have “for the first time revealed to -us the existence, and something of the constitution, of a journeyman’s -society which succeeded in maintaining itself for a prolonged period.” -More careful examination of the materials from which this vivid picture -of this supposed journeyman’s society has been drawn leads us to believe -that it was not composed of journeymen at all, but of masters. This -might, in the first place, have been inferred from the fact that in the -ranks of the supposed journeymen were to be found opulent leaders like -Richard Hilles, the friend of Cranmer and Bullinger, who “became a -Bachelor in Budge of the Yeoman Company” in 1535 (Clode, <i>Early -History of the Merchant Taylors’ Company</i>, vol. ii. p. 64), and Sir Leonard -Halliday, afterwards Lord Mayor, who was in the Bachelors’ Company -from 1572 to 1594, when “he was elected a member of the higher hierarchy -of the Corporation” (<i>ibid.</i> p. 237). The Bachelors’ Company, indeed, far -from being composed of needy wage-earners, bore the greater part of the -expense of the pageant in connection with the mayoralty, and managed -the whole proceedings. The Bachelors “in Foynes” and those “in -Budge” are all named as marching in the procession in “gownes to be -welted with velvet, and there jackyttes, cassockes, and doublettes to be -either of satten damaske, taffataye” (<i>ibid.</i> pp. 262-6). And when, in -1609, the Company was assessed to contribute to the Plantation of Ulster, -the Bachelors contributed nearly as much as the merchants (£155, 10s. -from ten members as compared with £187, 10s. from nine members -(<i>ibid.</i> vol. i. pp. 327-9)). Whether the Bachelors’ Company ever included -any large proportion of hired journeymen appears extremely doubtful, -though its object was clearly the regulation of the trade. The members, -according to the Ordinance of 1613, paid a contribution of 2s. 2d. a -quarter “for the poor of the fraternity.” This may be contrasted with -the quarterage of 8d. a year or 2d. per quarter, levied, according to order -of August 1578, on every servant or journeyman free of the City. The -funds of the two companies were kept distinct, but frequent donations -were made from one to the other, and not only from the inferior to the -superior (<i>ibid.</i> vol. i. pp. 67-9). That the Bachelors’ Company was by -no means confined to journeymen is clear. Sir Leonard Halliday, for -instance, became a freeman in April 1564 on completing his apprenticeship, -and at once set up in business for himself, obtaining a charitable -loan for the purpose. Yet, although he prospered in business, “in 1572 -we find him assessed as in the Bachelors’ Company,” and he was not -elected to the superior company until 1594 (<i>ibid.</i> vol. ii. p. 237). And in -the Ordinance of 1507, “for all those persons that shall be abled by the -maister and Wardeins to holde hous or shop open,” it is provided that -the person desiring to set up shop shall not only pay a licence fee, but -also “for his incomyng to the bachelers’ Company and to be broder with -theym iij<sup>s</sup> iii<sup>d</sup>” (Clode, <i>Memorials of the Merchant Taylors’ Company</i>, -p. 209). Nor do the instances of its action imply that it had at heart -the interest of the wage-earners, as distinguished from that of the employers. -The hostility to foreigners, the desire to secure government -clothing contracts, and the preference for a limitation of apprentices to -two for each employer are all consistent with the theory that the Bachelors’ -Company was, like its superior, composed of masters, probably less opulent -than the governing clique, and perhaps occupied in tailoring rather than -in the business of a clothier or merchant. It is not until 1675 and 1682 -that can be traced in the MS. records of the Clothworkers’ Company the -existence of distinctively journeymen’s combinations (<i>Industrial Organisation -in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries</i>, by George Unwin, 1904, -p. 199). The other instances of identification of “Bachelors’ Companies” -or “Yeomen” organisation with journeymen’s societies are no more -convincing than that of the Merchant Taylors. That the “valets,” -serving-men, or journeymen in many trades possessed some kind of -“almsbox,” or charitable funds of their own is indeed clear, but that -this was ever used in trade disputes, or was independent of the masters’ -control, must at present be regarded as highly improbable. The strongest -instance of independence is that of the Oxford cordwainers (<i>Selections -from the Records of the City of Oxford</i>, by William H. Turner, Oxford, -1880). See, on the whole subject, the chapter on “Mediæval Journeymen’s -Clubs,” in Sir William Ashley’s <i>Surveys: Historic and Economic</i>, 1900; -<i>Industrial Organisation in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries</i>, by -Professor George Unwin, 1904; and an article on “The Origin of Trade -Unionism,” by Mr. W. A. S. Hewins, in the <i>Economic Review</i>, April 1895 -(vol. v.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="label">[9]</a>Dugdale’s <i>Antiquities of Warwickshire</i> (1656), p. 125.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="label">[10]</a>Riley’s <i>Memorials</i>, p. 653; Clode, <i>Early History of Merchant Taylors’ -Company</i>, vol. i. p. 63.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="label">[11]</a>Compare Fagniez, <i>Études sur l’industrie et la classe industrielle à -Paris</i> (Paris, 1877), p. 123.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="label">[12]</a>3 Henry VI. c. 1; see also 34 Edward III. c. 9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="label">[13]</a>“Ordinances of Worcester,” Art. lvii. in Toulmin Smith’s <i>English -Gilds</i>, p. 399.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="label">[14]</a>Compare the analogous instances given by Fagniez, <i>Études sur -l’industrie et la classe industrielle à Paris</i>, p. 203 (Paris, 1877).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="label">[15]</a>Dr. Brentano has noticed (p. 81) that the great majority of the -legal regulations of wages in the Middle Ages relate (if not to agriculture) -to the building trades; and it may be that these were, like modern cab-fare -regulations, intended more for the protection of the customer than -for that of the capitalist.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="label">[16]</a>See “Notes on the Organisation of the Mason’s Craft in England,” -by Dr. William Cunningham (<i>British Academy Proceedings</i>).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="label">[17]</a>Such a master craftsmen’s society we see in the Masons’ “Lodge of -Atchison’s Haven,” which, on December 27, 1735, passed the following -resolution: “The Company of Atchison’s Haven being mett together, -have found Andrew Kinghorn guilty of a most atrocious crime against -the whole Trade of Masonry, and he not submitting himself to the Company -for taking his work so cheap that no man could have his bread of -it. Therefore in not submitting himself he has excluded himself from the -said Company; and therefore the Company doth hereby enact that no -man, neither fellow craft nor enter’d prentice after this shall work as -journeyman under the said Andrew Kinghorn, under the penalty of being -cut off as well as he. Likewise if any man shall follow the example of the -said Andrew Kinghorn in taking work at eight pounds Scots per rood -the walls being twenty feet high, and rebates at eighteen pennies Scots -per foot, that they shall be cut off in the same manner” (<i>Sketch of the Incorporation -of Masons</i>, by James Cruikshank, Glasgow, 1879, pp. 131, 132).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_18" href="#FNanchor_18" class="label">[18]</a>Thorold Rogers points out that the Merton College bell-tower was -built in 1448-50 by direct employment at wages. The new quadrangle, -early in the seventeenth century, was put out to contract with a master -mason and a master carpenter respectively, but the college still supplied -all the material (<i>History of Agriculture and Prices</i>, vol. i. pp. 258-60; -iii. pp. 720-37; v. pp. 478, 503, 629).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_19" href="#FNanchor_19" class="label">[19]</a><i>Industrial Organisation in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries</i>, by -George Unwin, 1904, p. 201. In this connection may be mentioned the -London watermen, who have always dealt directly with their customers, -and who possess a tradition of having been continuously organised since -1350. Power to regulate the trade of watermen was, in 1555, conferred -by Act of Parliament upon the then incorporated Thames Watermen and -Lightermen’s Company, the administration of which appears to have -been, from the first, entirely in the hands of the master lightermen. The -watermen, who had no masters, were compelled to take out the freedom -of this Company, and the existing Trade Union, the Amalgamated Society -of Watermen and Lightermen, was established in 1872 for the express -purpose of obtaining some representation of the working watermen and -the journeymen lightermen on the Court of the Company. Previous -associations of working watermen for trade purposes seem to have been -in existence in 1789 (a Rotherhithe Society of Watermen) and in 1799 -(Friendly Society of Watermen usually plying at the Hermitage Stairs, -in the parish of St. John, Wapping); and Mayhew describes, in 1850, -local “turnway societies,” regulating the sharing of custom, and a Watermen’s -Protective Society, to resist non-freemen (<i>London Labour and the -London Poor</i>, 1851).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_20" href="#FNanchor_20" class="label">[20]</a>Schanz, however, in his <i>Zur Geschichte der deutschen Gesellenverbände</i> -(Leipzig, 1877), suggests that the associations of journeymen which -flourished in Germany side by side with the Craft Gilds prior to the -Thirty Years’ War (1618) were, in fact, virtually Trade Unions. Compare -Schmoller’s <i>Strassburger Tucher-und Weberzunft</i> (Strassburg, 1879). Professor -G. Des Marez, the learned archivist of Brussels, supplies evidence -of the persistence of journeymen’s organisations in Belgium, resembling -those of Germany, down to the beginning of the sixteenth century; and -of the rise of new ones towards the end of the seventeenth century, without -trace of continuity (in <i>Le Compagnonnage des chapeliers bruxellois</i>, Brussels, -1909.) See Professor Unwin’s article in <i>English Historical Review</i> (October -1910); and compare <i>Les Compagnonnages des arts et métiers à Dijon aux -xvii<sup>e</sup> et xviii<sup>e</sup> siècles</i>, by H. House, 1909, and <i>Enquêtes sur les associations -professionnelles d’artisans et ouvriers en Belgique</i>, by E. Vandervelde, -1891.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_21" href="#FNanchor_21" class="label">[21]</a>Dr. Brentano’s essay was originally prefixed to Toulmin Smith’s -<i>English Gilds</i>, published by the Early English Text Society in 1870. It -was republished separately as <i>The History and Development of Gilds and -the Origin of Trades Unions</i> (135 pp., 1870), and it is to this edition that -we refer. Dr. Brentano’s larger work, <i>Die Arbeitergilden der Gegenwart</i> -(Leipzig, 2 vols., 1871-72), includes this essay, and also his article in the -<i>North British Review</i> for October 1870 on “The Growth of a Trades -Union.” It is only fair to say that in this, the ablest study of English -Trade Union history down to that time, Dr. Brentano lent no support to -the popular idea of any actual descent of the Trade Unions from the gilds. -The <i>Cobden Club Essays</i> (1872) contain a good article on Trade Unions, -by Joseph Gostick, in which it is argued that these associations were, in -England, unknown before the eighteenth century, and had no connection -with the gilds.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_22" href="#FNanchor_22" class="label">[22]</a>Page 102.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_23" href="#FNanchor_23" class="label">[23]</a>The first hundred pages of George Howell’s <i>Conflicts of Capital and -Labour</i> (first edition, 1877; second edition, 1890) are a close paraphrase -of Dr. Brentano’s essay, practically the whole of which appears, often in -the same words, as Howell’s own. But already in 1871 Dr. Brentano, -in his <i>Arbeitergilden der Gegenwart</i> (vol. i. ch. iii. p. 83), expressly connected -the Trade Unions, like Schanz, not with the gilds, but with the Journeymen -Fraternities, which he suggests may have “awaked under changed -circumstances to new strength and life, and to a new policy.” We gather -that Sir William Ashley inclines to this view. “My own impression,” -he says, “is that we shall by and by find that, like the usages -of the German journeymen in the eighteenth century that centred -into Herbergen, the trade clubs of eighteenth century England were -broken-down survivals from an earlier period, undergoing, with the advent -of the married journeyman and other causes, the slow transformation -from which they emerged in the nineteenth century as the nuclei of the -modern Trade Union.” Sir William Ashley does not assert that any continuity -of organisation can be proved. “What is suggested is only that -the habit of acting together in certain ways, which we find to characterise -the journeymen of the eighteenth century, had been formed in a much -earlier period” (<i>Surveys: Historic and Economic</i>, by Sir William Ashley, -1900).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_24" href="#FNanchor_24" class="label">[24]</a>So long as the Companies continued to exercise any jurisdiction -over their trades, we find them (as in the cases of the London Framework-knitters -and the Dublin Silkweavers) supported by any workmen’s -combinations that existed. In exceptional instances, such as the London -Brushmakers, Basketmakers, and Watermen, we find this alliance for the -exclusion of “illegal men” continuing into the nineteenth century, and -(as regards the Watermen) down to the present time.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_25" href="#FNanchor_25" class="label">[25]</a><i>Macmillan’s Magazine</i> (February 1861), relying on the Social Science -<i>Report on Trade Societies and Strikes</i> (1860), p. 521.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_26" href="#FNanchor_26" class="label">[26]</a>See Appendix <i>On the Assumed Connection between the Trade Unions -and the Gilds in Dublin</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_27" href="#FNanchor_27" class="label">[27]</a><i>Gilds and Trade Unions</i> (1870), p. 54.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_28" href="#FNanchor_28" class="label">[28]</a><i>History of Industry and Commerce</i>, vol. i. p. 310. Dr. Gross, in his -<i>Gild Merchant</i>, apparently takes a similar view.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_29" href="#FNanchor_29" class="label">[29]</a>See his <i>Introduction to Economic History and Theory</i>, vol. i. (1891); -vol. ii. (1893); see also his <i>Surveys: Historic and Economic</i> (1900).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_30" href="#FNanchor_30" class="label">[30]</a>Dr. Brentano himself makes this clear. “We must not forget that -these gilds were not unions of labourers in the present sense of the word, -but of persons who, with the help of some stock, carried on their craft -on their own account. The gild contests were, consequently, not contests -for acquiring political equality for labour and property, but for the recognition -of political equality of trade stock and real property in the -towns” (<i>Gilds and Trade Unions</i>, p. 73).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_31" href="#FNanchor_31" class="label">[31]</a>Jupp’s <i>History of the Carpenters’ Company</i>, p. 313, second edition, -1848. In certain cases we see the workmen seeking incorporation as a -gild or company, in order that they might themselves lawfully regulate -their trades. Thus, in 1670 the wage-earning woodsawyers of the City -of London, who were employed by the members of the Carpenters’, Joiners’ -and Shipwrights’ Companies, formally applied to the Corporation to be -made a Company. Their employers strongly objected, alleging that they -had already by combination raised their wages during the past quarter -of a century from 5s. to nearly 10s. per load; that they were only day -labourers who worked on material provided by their employers, and -consequently not entitled to rank as masters; and that if their combination -were recognised by incorporation they would be able to bring -the whole building trade to a standstill, as experience had already demonstrated -even without incorporation. Moreover, their main object, it -was alleged, was to exclude from employment “all that sort of labourers -who daily resort to the City of London and parts adjacent, and by that -means keep the wages and prices of these sorts of labourers at an equal -and indifferent rate; and then success would be an evil precedent, all -other labourers, the masons, bricklayers, plasterers, etc., having the same -reason to allege for incorporation” (<i>Ibid.</i> p. 307). The London coal-porters -in 1699 unsuccessfully petitioned the House of Commons that a -Bill might be passed to establish them as “a Fellowship in such government -and rules as shall be thought meet” (House of Commons Journals, -vol. xiii. p. 69). Professor Unwin suggests that it was “by its failure along -these traditional lines” that “the wage-earning class was driven into -secret combinations, from the obscurity of which the Trade Union did -not emerge till the 19th century” (<i>Industrial Organisation in the 16th -and 17th Centuries</i>, 1904).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_32" href="#FNanchor_32" class="label">[32]</a>“The Trade Union of to-day is often spoken of as the lineal descendant -of the ancient Craft Gilds. There is, however, no direct or -indirect connection between the ancient and modern forms of trade -combination. Beyond the fact that they each had for their objects the -establishment of certain trade regulations, and the provision of certain -similar benefits, they had nothing in common.” “Trade Unions as a -Means of Improving the Conditions of Labour,” by John Burnett; published -in <i>The Claims of Labour</i> (Edinburgh, 1886).</p> - -<p>“To attempt to find an immediate connection between the Gild and -the Trade Union is like attempting to derive the English House of Commons -from the Saxon Witanagemot. In the one case as in the other the two -institutions were separated by centuries of development, and the earlier -one was dead before the later one was born” (<i>Industrial Organisation -in the 16th and 17th Centuries</i>, by Professor George Unwin, 1904, p. 8).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_33" href="#FNanchor_33" class="label">[33]</a>Goldasti’s <i>Constitutiones Imperiales</i>, tom. iv. p. 189, quoted by -Dr. Brentano, p. 60.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_34" href="#FNanchor_34" class="label">[34]</a>A pamphlet of 1669 contains what appears at first sight to be a -mention of Trade Unionism. “The general conspiracy amongst artificers -and labourers is so apparent that within these twenty-five years the wages -of joiners, bricklayers, carpenters, etc., are increased, I mean within 40 -miles of London (against all reason and good government), from eighteen -and twenty pence a day, to 2/6 and 3/-, and mere labourers from 10 -and 12 pence a day unto 16 and 20 pence, and this not since the dreadful -fire of London only, but some time before. A journeyman shoemaker -has now in London (and proportionately in the country) 14 pence for -making that pair of shoes, which within these 12 years he made for 10 -pence.... Nor has the increase of wages amongst us been occasioned -by quickness of trade and want of hands (as some do suppose) which are -indeed justifiable reasons, but through an exacting humour and evil -disposition in our people (like our Gravesend watermen, who by some -temporary and mean pretences of the late Dutch war, have raised their -ferry double to what it was, and finding the sweet thereof, keep it up -still), that so they may live the better above their station, and work so -much the fewer days by how much the more they exact in their wages” -(<i>Usury at Six Per Cent. Examined</i>, by Thomas Manley, London, 1669). -But we cannot infer from this unique and ambiguous passage anything -more than the possibility of ephemeral combinations. It is significant -that Defoe, with all his detailed description of English industry in 1724, -does not mention any combinations of workmen.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_35" href="#FNanchor_35" class="label">[35]</a>In an able pamphlet dated 1681, entitled <i>The Trade of England -Revived</i>, it is stated that “we cannot make our English cloth so cheap as -they do in other countries, because of the strange idleness and stubbornness -of our poor,” who insist on excessive wages. But the author attributes -this state of things, not to the existence of combinations, of which -he seems never to have heard, but to the Poor Law and the prevalence -of almsgiving.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_36" href="#FNanchor_36" class="label">[36]</a><i>Wealth of Nations</i>, bk. i. ch. x. p. 59 of McCulloch’s edition, 1863. -In an operative’s description, dated 1809, of the gatherings of the Paisley -weavers, we see the Trade Union in the making. “The Paisley operatives -are of a free, communicative disposition. They are fond to inform one -another in anything respecting trade, and in order to receive information -in a collective capacity they have, for a long course of years, associated in -a friendly manner in societies denominated clubs.... When met the -first hour is devoted to reading the daily newspapers out aloud.... At -nine o’clock the chairman calls silence; then the report of trade is heard. -The chairman reports first what he knows or what he has heard of such -a manufacturing house or houses, as wishing to engage operatives for -such fabric or fabrics; likewise the price, the number of the yarn, etc. -Then each reports as he is seated; so in the period of an hour not only -the state of the trade is known, but any difference that has taken place -between manufacturers and operatives” (<i>An Answer to Mr. Carlile’s -Sketches of Paisley</i>, by William Taylor, Paisley, 1809, pp. 15-17).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_37" href="#FNanchor_37" class="label">[37]</a>See Dunning’s account of the origin of the Consolidated Society of -Bookbinders in 1779-80, in the Social Science Association’s <i>Report on -Trade Societies</i>, 1860, p. 93; also <i>Workers on their Industries</i>, edited by -F. W. Galton, 1895; <i>Women in the Printing Trades</i>, edited by J. R. -MacDonald, 1904, p. 30.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_38" href="#FNanchor_38" class="label">[38]</a><i>Articles of Agreement made and confirmed by a Society of Taylors, -begun March 25, 1760</i> (London, 1812). In 1790 Francis Place joined the -Breeches Makers’ Benefit Society “for the support of the members when -sick and their burial when dead”—its real object being to support the -members “in a strike for wages” (<i>Life of Francis Place</i>, by Professor -Graham Wallas, new edition, 1918). Local friendly societies giving sick -pay and providing for funeral expenses had sprung up all over England -during the eighteenth century. Towards its close their number seems to -have rapidly increased until, in some parts at any rate, every village -ale-house became a centre for one or more of these humble and spontaneous -organisations. The rules of upwards of a hundred of these societies, -dating between 1750 and 1820, and all centred round Newcastle-on-Tyne, -are preserved in the British Museum. At Nottingham, in 1794, fifty-six -of these clubs joined in the annual procession (<i>Nottingham Journal</i>, -June 14, 1794). So long as they were composed indiscriminately of men -of all trades, it is probable that no distinctively Trade Union action could -arise from their meetings. But in some cases, for various reasons, such -as high contributions, migratory habits, or the danger of the calling, the -sick and burial club was confined to men of a particular trade. This -kind of friendly society frequently became a Trade Union. Some societies -of this type can trace their existence for nearly a century and a half. -The Glasgow coopers, for instance, have had a local trade friendly society, -confined to journeymen coopers, ever since 1752. The London Sailmakers -Burial Society dates from 1740. The Newcastle shoemakers established -a similar society as early as 1719 (<i>Observations upon the Report from the -Select Committee of the House of Commons on the laws respecting Friendly -Societies</i>, by the Rev. J. T. Becher, Prebendary of Southwell, 1826). On -the occurrence of any dispute with the employers their funds, as this -contemporary observer in another pamphlet deplores, “have also too -frequently been converted into engines of abuse by paying weekly sums -to artisans out of work, and have thereby encouraged combinations among -workmen not less injurious to the misguided members than to the Public -Weal” (<i>Observations on the Rise and Progress of Friendly Societies</i>, 1824, -p. 55). Similar friendly societies among workmen of particular trades -appear to have existed in the Netherlands in the seventeenth and eighteenth -centuries, where they perhaps bridged the gap between the mediæval -fraternities and the modern Trade Unions (see review in the <i>English Historical -Review</i>, October 1918, of P. J. Blok’s <i>Geschiedenes einer Hollandischen -Stad</i>).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_39" href="#FNanchor_39" class="label">[39]</a>Schanz (<i>Gesellenverbände</i>, p. 25) follows Brentano (p. 94) in attributing -the formation of journeymen’s fraternities in the Middle Ages mainly -to a desire to provide for the wandering craftsmen. The connection -between the “Herbergen” or “Schenken,” designed to find lodging and -employment, with the journeymen’s associations was certainly close. -(See Dr. Bruno Schoenlank’s article in 1894, quoted in Sir William Ashley’s -<i>Surveys: Historic and Economic</i>, 1900.) It may be suggested that the -contrast between the absence or scanty existence of such fraternities in -England and their spread in Germany is, perhaps, to be ascribed in some -measure to the fact that English journeymen seem never to have adopted -the German custom of “Wanderjahre,” or regular habit of spending, on -completing their apprenticeship, a few years in travelling about the -country to complete their training. When the local privileges of the old -gilds had fallen somewhat into abeyance, the restrictions of the successive -Settlement Acts must in England, to some extent, have checked the mobility -of labour. But, from the beginning of the eighteenth century at any -rate, we find it customary for journeymen of certain trades—it is to be -noticed that these are relatively new trades in England—to “tramp” -from town to town in search of work, and the description, subsequently -quoted, of the organisations of the woolcombers and worsted weavers in -1741, shows that the relief of these travelling journeymen was a prominent -object of the early unions. The hatters in the middle of the eighteenth -century had a regular arrangement for such relief. The compositors at -the very beginning of the nineteenth century had already covered the -country with a network of local clubs, the chief function of which appears -to have been the facilitation of this wandering in search of work. And -the calico-printers had a systematic way of issuing a ticket which entitled -the tramp to collect from each journeyman, in any “print-field” that he -visited, at first a voluntary contribution, and latterly a fixed relief of a -halfpenny per head in England, and a penny per head in Scotland -(<i>Minutes of evidence taken before the Committee to whom the petition of the -several journeymen Calico-printers and others working in that trade, etc., -was referred</i>, July 4, 1804, and the <i>Report</i> from that Committee, July 17, -1806).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_40" href="#FNanchor_40" class="label">[40]</a>J. M. Ludlow, in article in <i>Macmillan’s Magazine</i>, February 1861.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_41" href="#FNanchor_41" class="label">[41]</a><i>Work and the Workman</i>, by Dr. J. K. Ingram (Address to the Trades -Union Congress at Dublin, 1880).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_42" href="#FNanchor_42" class="label">[42]</a>Benjamin Franklin mentions the “chapel” and its regulations in -1725. A copy, dated 1734, of the <i>Rules and Orders to be observed by the -Members of this Chapel: by Compositors, by Pressmen, by Both</i>, is preserved -in the Place MSS. 27799—88.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_43" href="#FNanchor_43" class="label">[43]</a>This petition (in the British Museum) is printed in Brentano’s <i>Gilds -and Trade Unions</i>, p. 97. Benjamin Franklin, who worked in London -printing offices in 1725, makes no mention of Trade Unionism. The -Stationers’ Company continued, so far as the City of London was concerned, -to regulate apprenticeship; and we see it, in 1775, taking steps -to prevent employers having an undue number. Regulations agreed to -by the employers and the compositors, as to the rates of pay for different -kinds of work, can be traced back to 1785, at least. A copy of the rules -of “The Phœnix, or Society of Compositors” meeting at “The Hole in -the Wall” tavern, Fleet Street, shows that this organisation was “instituted -March 12th, 1792.” In 1798 five members of the “Pressmen’s -Friendly Society” were indicted for conspiracy in meeting for the purpose -of restricting the number of apprentices (they sought to limit them to -three for seven presses). Although the secretary to the “Society of -Master Printers” had requested these men to attend the meeting, in -order to get settled the pending dispute, they were convicted and sentenced -to two years’ imprisonment (<i>Conflicts of Capital and Labour</i>, by -George Howell, 1890, p. 92).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_44" href="#FNanchor_44" class="label">[44]</a>For this interesting case we are indebted to Professor George Unwin’s -researches in the records of the Feltmakers’ Company, whose “Court -Book” contains the record. See <i>Industrial Organisation in the 16th and -17th Centuries</i>, by George Unwin, 1904; “A Seventeenth-Century Trade -Union,” by the same, in <i>Economic Journal</i>, 1910, pp. 394-403; the -chapter “Mediæval Journeymen’s Clubs” in Sir William Ashley’s <i>Surveys, -Historic and Economic</i>, 1900.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_45" href="#FNanchor_45" class="label">[45]</a>House of Commons Journals, vol. xxxvi.; 8 Eliz. c. 11; 1 James I. -c. 14; and 17 George III. c. 55; Place MSS. 27799—68; Committee on -Artisans and Machinery, 1824; <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, p. 11; “A Seventeenth -Century Trade Union,” by Professor George Unwin, in <i>Economic -Journal</i>, 1910, pp. 394-403; <i>Conflicts of Capital and Labour</i>, by G. Howell, -1890, p. 83. The organisation evidently continued in existence, at least -in its local form; but the existing national “Journeymen Hatters’ Trade -Union of Great Britain and Ireland” claims to date only from 1798. In -1806 the Macclesfield hatters were indicted for conspiracy in striking -for higher wages, and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. -Particulars of this organisation will be found in <i>The Trial of W. Davenport -... Hatters of Macclesfield for a Conspiracy against their Masters</i> ... -by Thomas Mulineaux, 1806.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_46" href="#FNanchor_46" class="label">[46]</a>For the whole history of this industry, see <i>The Tailoring Trade</i>, by -F. W. Galton, 1896.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_47" href="#FNanchor_47" class="label">[47]</a><i>The London Tradesman</i>, by Campbell, 1747, p. 192.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_48" href="#FNanchor_48" class="label">[48]</a><i>The Trade of England Revived</i>, 1681, p. 36.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_49" href="#FNanchor_49" class="label">[49]</a>House of Commons Journals, vol. xix. pp. 416, 424, 481; <i>The Case -of the Master Taylors residing within the Cities of London and Westminster, -in relation to the great abuses committed by their journeymen</i>; <i>An Abstract of -the Master Taylors’ Bill before the Honourable House of Commons, with the -Journeymen’s Observation on each clause of the said Bill</i>; <i>The Case of the -Journeymen Taylors residing in the Cities of London and Westminster</i> (all -1720). These and other documents relating to combinations in this trade -have now been published in a useful volume (<i>The Tailoring Trade</i>, by F. W. -Galton, 1896), with an elaborate bibliography.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_50" href="#FNanchor_50" class="label">[50]</a><i>London</i>, by David Hughson (1821), pp. 392-3; House of Commons -Journals, vol. xxiv. Place MSS. 27799, pp. 4, 5. <i>The Case of the Journeymen -Taylors in and about the Cities of London and Westminster</i> (January 7, 1745).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_51" href="#FNanchor_51" class="label">[51]</a><i>Gentlemen’s Magazine</i>, 1750, 1768.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_52" href="#FNanchor_52" class="label">[52]</a>Place MSS. 27799—10; see <i>The Life of Francis Place, 1771-1854</i>, by -Professor Graham Wallas, 1898; second edition, 1918. There is evidence -of very similar organisation in other towns. At Birmingham, for instance, -there was a systematically organised strike in 1777 against a reduction of -wages, which lasted for some months (Langford’s <i>Century of Birmingham -Life</i>, pp. 225, etc.; <i>The Tailoring Trade</i>, by F. W. Galton, 1896).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_53" href="#FNanchor_53" class="label">[53]</a><i>A Declaration of the Estate of Clothing now used within this Realme of -England</i>, by John May, Deputy Alnager (1613, 51 pp., in B.M. 712, g. 16), a -volume which contains many interesting pamphlets on the woollen manufacture -between 1613 and 1753. Already in 1622, a year of depression of -trade, we hear of numerous riots and tumults among the weavers of the -West of England, notably those of certain Devonshire towns, who paraded -the streets demanding work or food (<i>Quarter Sessions from Elizabeth to -Anne</i>, by A. H. A. Hamilton, 1878, pp. 95-6). But there is as yet no -evidence of durable combinations at so early a date.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_54" href="#FNanchor_54" class="label">[54]</a>MS. Minutes, Court Book of the Clothworkers’ Company, December 10, -1675; August 16, 1682; <i>Industrial Organisation of the Sixteenth and -Seventeenth Centuries</i>, by George Unwin, 1904, p. 199.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_55" href="#FNanchor_55" class="label">[55]</a><i>History of Tiverton</i>, by Martin Dunsford (Exeter, 1790).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_56" href="#FNanchor_56" class="label">[56]</a>House of Commons Journals, vol. xviii. p. 715, February 5, 1717. -Tiverton and Exeter petition to the same effect.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_57" href="#FNanchor_57" class="label">[57]</a>Hughson’s <i>London</i>, p. 337. The proclamation was reprinted in <i>Notes -and Queries</i>, September 21, 1867, from a copy preserved by the Sun Fire Office.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_58" href="#FNanchor_58" class="label">[58]</a>See the petitions from Exeter and Dartmouth, February 24, 1723, -vol. xx. pp. 268-9; and those from Taunton, Tiverton, Exeter, and Bristol, -March 3 and 7, 1725, vol. xx. pp. 598, 602, 648. In 1729 the Bristol -weavers, “while the corporation was at church,” riotously attacked the -house of an obnoxious employer, and had to be repulsed by the troops -(<i>History of Bristol</i>, p. 261, by J. Evans; Bristol, 1824). In 1738 they forced -the clothiers to sign a bond that they would “for ever forward” give -fifteen pence a yard for weaving, under penalty of £1000 (<i>Gentlemen’s -Magazine</i>, 1738, p. 658; see also “An Essay on Riots, their Causes and -Cure,” published in the <i>Gloucester Journal</i>, and reprinted in the <i>Gentlemen’s -Magazine</i>, 1739, pp. 7-10). In 1756 there was an extensive and serious -uprising (see <i>A State of the Case and Narrative of Facts relating to the late -Commotion and Rising of the Weavers in the County of Gloucester</i>, in the -Gough Collection, Bodleian Library).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_59" href="#FNanchor_59" class="label">[59]</a>Defoe’s <i>Tour</i>, vol. iii. pp. 97-101, 116 (1724). John Bright mentions -his father’s apprenticeship, about 1789, to “a most worthy man who had -a few acres of ground, a very small farm, and three or four looms in his -house” (speech reported in <i>Beehive</i>, February 2, 1867). For a less -optimistic account of the Yorkshire clothiers, who were, even in the seventeenth -century, often mere wage-earners, see Cartwright’s <i>Chapters of -Yorkshire History</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_60" href="#FNanchor_60" class="label">[60]</a><i>History of Leicester</i>, by James Thompson, 1849, pp. 431-2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_61" href="#FNanchor_61" class="label">[61]</a><i>A Short Essay upon Trade in General</i>, by “A Lover of his Country,” -1741, quoted in James’ <i>History of the Worsted Manufacture in England</i>, -p. 232.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_62" href="#FNanchor_62" class="label">[62]</a>See, in corroboration, <i>Leicester Herald</i>, August 24, 1793; <i>Morning -Chronicle</i>, October 13, 1824; Place MSS., 27801—246, 247.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_63" href="#FNanchor_63" class="label">[63]</a> -The Dublin silk-weavers, owing perhaps to their having been largely -Huguenot refugees in a Roman Catholic town, appear to have been associated -from the early part of the eighteenth century; see, for instance, <i>The -Case of the Silk and Worsted Weavers in a Letter to a Member of Parliament</i> -(Dublin, 1749, 8 pp.). Compare <i>A Short Historical Account of the Silk -Manufacture in England</i>, by Samuel Sholl, 1811, and <i>Industrial Dublin -since 1698 and the Silk Industry in Dublin</i>, by J. J. Webb, 1913.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_64" href="#FNanchor_64" class="label">[64]</a> -The condition of the framework knitters may be gathered from the -elaborate Parliamentary Inquiry, the proceedings of which fill fifteen -pages of the Journals of the House of Commons, vol. xxvi., April 19, 1753. -See also vols. xxxvi. and xxxvii., and the Report from the Committee on -Framework Knitters’ Petitions, 1812; and <i>Conflicts of Capital and Labour</i>, -by G. Howell, 1890. Felkin’s <i>History of the Machine-wrought Hosiery and -Lace Manufactures</i>, 1867, contains an exhaustive account of the trade, -founded on Gravener Henson’s <i>History of the Framework Knitters</i>, 1831, -now a scarce work, of which only one volume was published.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_65" href="#FNanchor_65" class="label">[65]</a><i>Sheffield Iris</i>, August 7 and September 9, 1790. The Scissorsmiths’ -Friendly Society, cited by Dr. Brentano, was established in April 1791. -Other trade friendly societies in Sheffield appear to date from a much -earlier period.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_66" href="#FNanchor_66" class="label">[66]</a>Sir J. A. Picton’s <i>Memorials of Liverpool</i>, 1875; <i>A Digest of the -Evidence before the Committee on Artizans and Machinery</i>, by George -White, 1824, p. 233; <i>Conflicts of Labour and Capital</i>, by G. Howell, -1890, pp. 82-3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_67" href="#FNanchor_67" class="label">[67]</a><i>Report of Committee on the Woollen Manufacture</i>, 1806, p. 16; see also -<i>Conflicts of Labour and Capital</i>, by G. Howell, 1890.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_68" href="#FNanchor_68" class="label">[68]</a>See Chapter III.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_69" href="#FNanchor_69" class="label">[69]</a>In volume entitled <i>Tracts Relating to Trade</i>, in British Museum, 816, -m. 13. Tankard-bearers were water carriers.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_70" href="#FNanchor_70" class="label">[70]</a><i>Reasons against the designed leather impositions on gloves</i>, B.M. 816, -m. 13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_71" href="#FNanchor_71" class="label">[71]</a>We shall have occasion later to refer to the absence of effective -Trade Unionism in those trades which are still carried on by small working -masters.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_72" href="#FNanchor_72" class="label">[72]</a>The assumption frequently made that the Craft Gilds, at their best -period, included practically the whole working population, appears to us -unfounded. The gild system at no time extended to any but the skilled -handicraftsmen, alongside of whom must always have worked a large -number of unapprenticed labourers, who received less than half the wages -of the craftsmen. We venture to suggest that it is doubtful whether the -Craft Gilds at any time numbered as large a proportion of the working -population as the Trade Unions of the present day. See <i>Industrial -Democracy</i>, p. 480.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_73" href="#FNanchor_73" class="label">[73]</a>“Tumults,” or strikes, among the coal-miners are occasionally mentioned -during the eighteenth century, but no lasting combinations. See, -for those in Somerset, Carmarthenshire, etc., in 1757, <i>Gentlemen’s Magazine</i>, -1757, pp. 90, 185, 285, etc. In 1765 there was a prolonged strike against -the “yearly bond” by the Durham miners (<i>Calendar of Home Office Papers</i>, -1765; Sykes’ <i>Local Records</i>, vol. i, p. 254). The Keelmen, who loaded -coals on the Tyne, “mutinied” in 1654 and 1671 “for the increase of -wages”; and there were fierce strikes in 1710, 1744, 1750, 1771, and 1794. -We have, however, no particulars as to their associations, which were -probably ephemeral (Sykes’ <i>Local Records</i>; Richardson’s <i>Local Historian’s -Table Book</i>; <i>Gentlemen’s Magazine</i>, 1750).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_74" href="#FNanchor_74" class="label">[74]</a>Many instances of insolence and aggression by the woolcombers are -on record; the employers’ advertisements in the <i>Nottingham Journal</i>, -August 31, 1795, and the <i>Leicester Herald</i> of June 1792, are only two out -of many similar recitals.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_75" href="#FNanchor_75" class="label">[75]</a><i>Jubilee Souvenir History of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers</i>, -1901, p. 12.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_76" href="#FNanchor_76" class="label">[76]</a>That such clubs were common in the handicraft trades in London as -early as 1720 appears from the following extract from <i>The Case of the Master -Taylors residing within the Cities of London and Westminster</i>, a petition -which led to the Act of 1720: “This combination of the Journeymen -Taylors ... is of very ill example to Journeymen in all other trades; as -is sufficiently seen in the Journeymen Curriers, Smiths, Farriers, Sailmakers, -Coachmakers, and artificers of divers other arts and mysteries, -who have actually entered into Confederacies of the like nature; and the -Journeymen Carpenters, Bricklayers, and Joyners have taken some steps -for that purpose, and only wait to see the event of others.” And the -Journeymen Tailors in their petition of 1745 allude to the large number of -“Monthly Clubs” among the London handicraftsmen. With regard to -the curriers at this date, see Place MSS, 27801—246, 247.</p> - -<p>It may be conveniently noticed here that, although strikes are, as we -have seen, as old as the fourteenth century at least, the word “strike” was -not commonly used in this sense until the latter part of the eighteenth -century. The Oxford Dictionary gives the first instance of its use as in -1768, when the <i>Annual Register</i> refers to the hatters having “struck” for -a rise in wages. The derivation appears to be from the sailors’ term of -“striking” the mast, thus bringing the movement to a stop.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_77" href="#FNanchor_77" class="label">[77]</a>So much is this the case that Dr. Brentano asserts that “Trade -Unions originated with the non-observance of” the Elizabethan Statute -of Apprentices (p. 104), and that their primary object was, in all cases, the -enforcement of the law on the subject.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_78" href="#FNanchor_78" class="label">[78]</a>Preamble to “An Act touching Weavers” (2 and 3 Philip and Mary, -c. xi.); see Froude’s <i>History of England</i>, vol. i. pp. 57-9; and W. C. -Taylor’s <i>Modern Factory System</i>, pp. 53-5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_79" href="#FNanchor_79" class="label">[79]</a>As expanded by 1 James I. c. 6 and 16 Car. I. c. 4; see R. <i>v.</i> Justices -of Kent, 14 East, 395.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_80" href="#FNanchor_80" class="label">[80]</a>See on these points, Dr. Cunningham’s <i>History of English Industry -and Commerce</i>, Mr. Hewins’ <i>English Trade and Finance chiefly in the 17th -Century</i>, and Thorold Rogers’ <i>History of Agriculture and Prices</i>, vol. v. -pp. 625-6, etc. Adam Smith observes that the fixing of wages had, in -1776, “gone entirely into disuse” (<i>Wealth of Nations</i>, bk. i. ch. x. p. 65), -a statement broadly true, although formal determinations of wages are -found in the MS. Minutes of Quarter Sessions for another half century.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_81" href="#FNanchor_81" class="label">[81]</a>This forms the constant refrain of the numerous broadsheets or -<i>Tracts relating to Trade</i> of 1688-1750, which are preserved in the British -Museum, the Guildhall Library, and in the Goldsmith Company’s Library -at the University of London.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_82" href="#FNanchor_82" class="label">[82]</a>Privy Council Minutes of 1726, p. 310 (unpublished); see also -House of Commons Journals, vol. xx. p. 745 (February 20, 1726).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_83" href="#FNanchor_83" class="label">[83]</a>Privy Council Minutes, February 4, 1726.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_84" href="#FNanchor_84" class="label">[84]</a>House of Commons Journals, vol. xix. p. 181 (December 5, 1719).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_85" href="#FNanchor_85" class="label">[85]</a>Petition of “Several weavers of Woollen Broadcloth on behalf of -themselves and several thousands of the Fraternity of Woollen Broadcloth -Weavers” (House of Commons Journals, vol. xxvii. p. 503; see also pp. -730-2).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_86" href="#FNanchor_86" class="label">[86]</a>22 Geo. II. c. 27.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_87" href="#FNanchor_87" class="label">[87]</a>29 Geo. II. c. 33.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_88" href="#FNanchor_88" class="label">[88]</a><i>Report of Committee on Petitions of West of England Clothiers</i>, House -of Commons Journals, vol. xxvii. pp. 730-2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_89" href="#FNanchor_89" class="label">[89]</a>For all these proceedings, see House of Commons Journals, vol. xxvii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_90" href="#FNanchor_90" class="label">[90]</a>House of Commons Journals, vol. xxxvi. p. 7 (November 1, 1776).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_91" href="#FNanchor_91" class="label">[91]</a>House of Commons Journals, April 13 and 19, 1753, vol. xxvi. pp. 764, -779; Felkin’s <i>History of the Machine-wrought Hosiery and Lace Manufacture</i>, -p. 80; Cunningham, <i>Growth of English Industry and Commerce in -Modern Times</i>, 1903, vol. i. p. 663.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_92" href="#FNanchor_92" class="label">[92]</a><i>Gilds and Trade Unions</i>, pp. 115-21.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_93" href="#FNanchor_93" class="label">[93]</a>House of Commons Journals, vols. xxxvi. and xxxvii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_94" href="#FNanchor_94" class="label">[94]</a>House of Commons Journals, vol. xxxvi. pp. 192, 240, 268, 287, 1777; -Act 17 Geo. III. c. 55, repealing 8 Eliz. c. 11, and 1 Jac. 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_95" href="#FNanchor_95" class="label">[95]</a>5 Geo. III. c. 48; see <i>Annual Register</i>, 1765, p. 41; Cunningham, <i>Growth -of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times</i>, 1903, pp. 519, 796.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_96" href="#FNanchor_96" class="label">[96]</a>Act 13 Geo. III. c. 68; see <i>A Short Historical Account of the Silk -Manufacture in England</i>, by Samuel Sholl, 1811.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_97" href="#FNanchor_97" class="label">[97]</a><i>Ibid.</i> p. 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_98" href="#FNanchor_98" class="label">[98]</a><i>Reports on Petitions of Cotton Weavers, 1809 and 1811.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_99" href="#FNanchor_99" class="label">[99]</a>“The period between 1795 and 1815 was characterised by dearths -which on several occasions became well-nigh famines” (Thorold Rogers, -<i>History of Agriculture and Prices</i>, vol. i. p. 692).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_100" href="#FNanchor_100" class="label">[100]</a><i>Minutes of Evidence and Report of the Committee on the Petition of the -Journeymen Calico-printers</i>, July 4, 1804, July 17, 1806. See also Sheridan’s -speech reported in Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, vol. ix. pp. 534-8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_101" href="#FNanchor_101" class="label">[101]</a>43 Geo. III. c. 136, continued in successive years until the definite -repeal, in 1809, of most of the laws regulating the woollen manufacture by -49 Geo. III. c. 109; see Cunningham, 1903, vol. ii. p. 659.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_102" href="#FNanchor_102" class="label">[102]</a>It was reprinted in the 121st Quarterly Report of the Amalgamated -Society of Boot and Shoemakers. The proceedings were taken by the -Friendly Society of Cordwainers of England, “instituted the 15th of -November 1784.” Particulars of the London Bootmakers’ Society, which -was in correspondence with seventy or eighty provincial societies, are -given in <i>A Digest of the Evidence before the Committee on Artizans and -Machinery</i>, by George White, 1824, p. 97.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_103" href="#FNanchor_103" class="label">[103]</a>Professor Foxwell kindly placed at our disposal a unique series of -pamphlets relating to these proceedings, which are now in the Goldsmiths -Company’s Library at the University of London, including the <i>Memorials</i> -of the journeymen and the employers, the <i>Report in the Process</i> by Robert -Bell, and the <i>Scale of Prices</i> as settled by the Court. A full account of the -proceedings is given in the <i>Scottish Typographical Circular</i>, June 1858.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_104" href="#FNanchor_104" class="label">[104]</a>See, for these proceedings, the two <i>Reports of the Committee on the -Petitions of the Cotton Weavers</i>, April 12, 1808, and March 29, 1809; and -Richmond’s evidence before the Committee on Artisans and Machinery, -1824, Second Report, pp. 59-64.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_105" href="#FNanchor_105" class="label">[105]</a>It is now in the British Library of Political Science at the London -School of Economics.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_106" href="#FNanchor_106" class="label">[106]</a>R. <i>v.</i> Justices of Kent, 14 East, 395; see F. D. Longe’s <i>Inquiry into -the Law of Strikes</i>, 1860, pp. 10, 11.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_107" href="#FNanchor_107" class="label">[107]</a>53 Geo. III. c. 40 (1813).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_108" href="#FNanchor_108" class="label">[108]</a>The Spitalfields Acts, relating to the silkweavers, were, however, not -repealed until 1824; and the last sections of 5 Eliz. c. 4 were not formally -repealed until 1875.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_109" href="#FNanchor_109" class="label">[109]</a>White’s <i>Digest of all the laws at present in existence respecting Masters -and Workpeople</i>, 1824, p. 59. Place wrote to Wakefield, January 2, 1814: -“The affair of Serjeant Onslow partly originated with me, but I had no -suspicion it would be taken up and pushed as vigorously as it has been and -is likely to be” (<i>Life of Francis Place</i>, by Prof. Graham Wallas, p. 159).</p> - -<p>The proceedings in this matter can be best traced in the House of -Commons Journals for 1813 and 1814, vols. lxviii. and lxix.; and in -Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, vols. xxv. and xxvii. The master’s -case is given in a pamphlet, <i>The Origin, Object, and Operation of the Apprentice -Laws</i>, 1814, 26 pp., preserved in the <i>Pamphleteer</i>, vol. iii. <i>The Resolutions -of the Master Manufacturers and Tradesmen of the Cities of London and -Westminster on the Statute 5 Eliz. c. 4</i>, 1814, 4 pp., gives the contrary view -(B.M. 1882, d. 2). The contemporary argument for freedom is expressed -in <i>An Estimate of the Comparative Strength of Great Britain</i>, by G. Chalmers, -1810; see <i>Cunningham</i>, 1903, vol. ii. p. 660. The Nottingham Library -possesses a unique copy of the <i>Articles and General Regulations of a Society -for obtaining Parliamentary Relief, and the Encouragement of Mechanics in -the Improvement of Mechanism</i>, printed at Nottingham in 1813. This -appears to have been a federation of framework knitters’ societies, and -possibly others, for Parliamentary action, as well as trade protection; and -its establishment in 1813 was perhaps connected with the movement for -the revival of the Apprenticeship Laws.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_110" href="#FNanchor_110" class="label">[110]</a><i>Report of the Committee on the State of the Woollen Manufacture in -England</i>, July 4, 1806, p. 12.</p> - -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II</h2> -</div> - -<p class="h2sub">THE STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE<br /> -[1799-1825]</p> - -<p>The traditional history of the Trade Union Movement -represents the period prior to 1824 as one of unmitigated -persecution and continuous repression. Every Union that -can nowadays claim an existence of over a century possesses -a romantic legend of its early years. The midnight -meeting of patriots in the corner of a field, the buried box -of records, the secret oath, the terms of imprisonment of -the leading officials—all these are in the sagas of the older -Unions, and form material out of which, in an age untroubled -by historical criticism, a semi-mythical origin might easily -have been created. That the legend is not without a basis -of fact, we shall see in tracing the actual effect upon the Trade -Union Movement of the legal prohibitions of combinations -of wage-earners which prevailed throughout the United -Kingdom up to 1824. But we shall find that some combinations -of journeymen were at all times recognised by the -law, that many others were only spasmodically interfered -with, and that the utmost rigour of the Combination Laws -was not felt until the far-reaching change of policy marked -by the severe Acts of 1799-1800, which applied to all industries -whatsoever. This will lead us naturally to the story -of the repeal of the whole series of Combination Laws in -1824-5, the most impressive event in the early history of -the movement.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</span></p> - -<p>There is a clear distinction—at any rate, as regards -England—between the various statutes which forbade combination -prior to the end of the eighteenth century, and the -general Combination Acts of 1799-1800. In the numerous -earlier Acts recited and repealed in 1824 the prohibition of -combination was in all cases incidental to the regulation of -the industry. It was assumed to be the business of Parliament -and the law courts to regulate the conditions of labour; -and combinations could, no more than individuals, be permitted -to interfere in disputes for which a legal remedy was -provided. The object primarily aimed at by the statutes -was not the prohibition of combinations, but the fixing of -wages, the prevention of embezzlement or damage, the -enforcement of the contract of service or the proper arrangements -for apprenticeship. And although combinations to -interfere with these statutory aims were obviously illegal, -and were usually expressly prohibited, it was an incidental -result that combinations formed to promote the objects of -the legislation, however objectionable they might be to -employers, were apparently not regarded as unlawful. -<a id="FNanchor_111" href="#Footnote_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a></p> - -<p>Thus one of the earliest types of combination among -journeymen—the society to enforce the law—seems always -to have been tacitly accepted as permissible. Although it -is probable that such associations came technically within -the definitions of combination and conspiracy, whether -under the common law or the early statutes, we know of -no case in which they were indicted as illegal. We have -already described, for instance, how, in 1726, the woollen -weavers of Wiltshire and Somersetshire openly combined -to present a petition to the King in Council against their -masters, the broad clothiers. The Privy Council, far from -deeming the action of the weavers illegal, considered and -dealt with their complaint. And when the employers persisted -in disobeying the law, we have seen how, in 1756, the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</span> -Fraternity of Woollen Clothweavers petitioned the House -of Commons to make more effectual the power of the justices -to fix wages, and obtained a new Act of Parliament in accordance -with their desires. The almost perpetual combinations -of the framework knitters between 1710 and 1800 were -never made the subject of legal proceedings. The combinations -of the London silkweavers obtained a virtual -sanction by the Spitalfields Acts, under which the delegates -of the workmen’s organisations regularly appeared before -the justices, who fixed and revised the piecework prices. -Even in 1808, after the stringency of the law against combinations -had been greatly increased, the Glasgow and Lancashire -cotton-weavers were permitted openly to combine for -the purpose of seeking a legal fixing of wages, with the -results already described. Nor was it only the combination -to obtain a legally fixed rate of wages that was left -unmolested by the law. Combinations to put in force the -sections of the Statute of Apprentices (5 Eliz. c. 4), or -other prohibitions of the employment of “illegal workmen,” -occurred at intervals down to 1813. In 1749 a club of -journeymen painters of the City of London proceeded against -a master painter for employing a non-freeman; and the -proceedings led, in 1750, to a conference of thirty journeymen -and thirty masters with the City Corporation, at which -the regulations were altered.<a id="FNanchor_112" href="#Footnote_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a> No one seems to have questioned -the legality of the 1811-13 outburst of combinations -to prosecute masters who had not served an apprenticeship, -or who were employing unapprenticed workmen. One -reason, doubtless, for the immunity of combinations to -enforce the law was that they included employers and -sympathisers of all ranks. For instance, the combinations -in 1811-13 to enforce the apprenticeship laws comprised -both masters and journeymen, who were equally aggrieved -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</span> -by the competition of the new capitalist and his “hirelings.”<a id="FNanchor_113" href="#Footnote_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a> -The Yorkshire Clothiers’ Community, or “Brief -Institution,” to which reference has already been made, -included, in some of its ramifications, the “domestic” -master manufacturers, who fought side by side with the -journeymen against the new factory system.</p> - -<p>On the other hand, combinations of journeymen to -regulate for themselves their wages and conditions of -employment stood, from the first, on a different footing. -The common law doctrine of the illegality of proceedings -“in restraint of trade,” as subsequently interpreted by the -judges, of itself made illegal all combinations whatsoever -of journeymen to regulate the conditions of their work. -Moreover, with the regulation by law of wages and the -conditions of employment, any combination to resist the -order of the justices on these matters was obviously of the -nature of rebellion, and was, in fact, put down like any -individual disobedience of the law. Nor was express statute -law against combinations wanting. The statute of 1305, -entitled, “Who be Conspirators and who be Champertors” -(33 Edw. I. st. 2), was in 1818 held to apply to a combination -to raise wages among cotton-spinners, whose leaders -were sentenced to two years’ imprisonment under this -Act. The “Bill of Conspiracies of Victuallers and Craftsmen” -of 1549 (2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 15), though aimed -primarily at combinations to keep up the prices charged to -consumers, clearly includes within its prohibitions any combinations -of journeymen craftsmen to keep up wages or -reduce hours.</p> - -<p>It is some proof of the novelty of the workmen’s combinations -in the early part of the eighteenth century, that -neither the employers nor the authorities thought at first -of resorting to the very sufficient powers of the existing law -against them. When, in 1720, the master tailors of London -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</span> -found themselves confronted with an organised body of -journeymen claiming to make a collective bargain, seriously -“in restraint of trade,” they turned, not to the law courts, -but to Parliament for protection, and obtained, as we have -seen, the Act “for regulating the Journeymen Tailors within -the bills of mortality” (7 Geo. I. st. 1, c. 13, amended by -8 Geo. III. c. 17).<a id="FNanchor_114" href="#Footnote_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> Similarly, when the clothiers of the -West of England began between 1717 and 1725 to be inconvenienced -by the “riotous and tumultuous clubs and -societies” of woolcombers and weavers, who made bye-laws -and maintained a Standard Rate,<a id="FNanchor_115" href="#Footnote_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a> they did not put in force -the existing law, but successfully petitioned Parliament for -the Act “to prevent unlawful combinations of workmen -employed in the Woollen Manufactures” (12 Geo. I. c. 34). -Indeed, prior to the general Acts of 1799 and 1800 against -all combinations of journeymen, Parliament was, from the -beginning of the eighteenth century, perpetually enacting -statutes forbidding combinations in particular trades.<a id="FNanchor_116" href="#Footnote_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a></p> - -<p>In the English statutes this prohibition of combination -was, as we have seen, only a secondary feature, incidental -to the main purpose of the law. The case is different with -regard to the early Irish Acts, the terms of which point to -a much sharper cleavage between masters and men, due, -perhaps, to difference of religion and race. The very first -statute against combinations which was passed by the Irish -Parliament, the Act of 1729 (3 Geo. II. c. 14), contained no -provisions protecting the wage-earner, and prohibited combinations -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</span> -in all trades whatsoever. The Act of 1743 (17 -Geo. II. c. 8), called forth by the failure of the previous -prohibition, equally confined itself to drastic penal measures, -including the punishment of the keepers of the public-houses -which were used for meetings. But in later years the -English practice seems to have been followed; for the laws -of 1758 (31 Geo. II. c. 17), 1763 (3 Geo. III. 34, sec. 23), -1771 (11 and 12 Geo. III. c. 18, sec. 40, and c. 33), and -1779 (19 and 20 Geo. III. c. 19, c. 24, and c. 36) provide for -the fixing of wages, and contain other regulations of industry, -amongst which the prohibition of combinations comes as a -matter of course.</p> - -<p>By the end of the century, at any rate, the common law, -both in England and in Ireland, had been brought to the -aid of the special statutes, and the judges were ruling that -any conspiracy to do an act which they considered unlawful -in a combination, even if not criminal in an individual, -was against the common law. Soon the legislature followed -suit. In 1799 the Act 39 Geo. III. c. 81 expressly penalised -all combinations whatsoever.</p> - -<p>The grounds for this drastic measure appear to have -been found in the marked increase of Trade Unionism among -workers of various kinds. The operatives’ combinations -were regarded as being in the nature of mutiny against their -employers and masters; destructive of the “discipline” necessary -to the expansion of trade; and interfering with the -right of the employer to “do what he liked with his own.” -The immediate occasion was a petition from London -engineering employers, complaining of an alarming strike -of the millwrights. This led to a Bill suppressing combination -in the engineering trade, which was passed by the House -of Commons, in spite of the protests of Sir Francis Burdett -and Benjamin Hobhouse. The measure was, however, -dropped in the House of Lords in favour of a more comprehensive -Bill, applicable to all trades, which Whitbread had -suggested. This was introduced on June 17, 1799, by William -Pitt himself, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who referred -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</span> -to the alarming growth of combination, not merely in the -Metropolis but also in the north of England. Subsequent -stages of the Bill were moved by George Rose, another -member of the Administration; and the measure was -hurried through all its stages in both Houses with great -rapidity, receiving the Royal Assent only twenty-four days -after its introduction into the House of Commons. There -was therefore little opportunity for any effective demonstration -against its provisions, but the Journeymen Calico-printers’ -Society of London petitioned against the measure, -and instructed counsel to put forward their objections. -They represented that, although the Bill professed merely -“to prevent unlawful combinations,” it created “new crimes -of so indefinite a nature that no one journeyman or workman -will be safe in holding any conversation with another on -the subject of his trade or employment.” Only a few other -petitions were presented, and, though Benjamin Hobhouse -opposed it in the Commons and Lord Holland in the Lords, -the Bill passed unaltered into law. -<a id="FNanchor_117" href="#Footnote_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a></p> - -<p>But the struggle was not yet over. The employers were -not satisfied with the 1799 Act; and <i>The Times</i> announced -in January 1800 that “one of the first Acts of the Imperial -Parliament [of the United Kingdom] will be for the prevention -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</span> -of conspiracies among journeymen tradesmen to raise -their wages. All benefit clubs and societies are to be immediately -suppressed.”<a id="FNanchor_118" href="#Footnote_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> On the other hand, the trade -clubs in all parts of the country poured in petitions of -protest; and the Whig and Tory members for Liverpool, -General Tarleton and Colonel Gascoyne, among whose -constituents were the strongly combined shipwrights, who -were freemen and Parliamentary electors, united to bring -in an amending Bill. This was supported in a series of -brilliant speeches by Sheridan, whose attempts to reduce -to a minimum the mischief of the 1799 Act were strenuously -resisted by Pitt and the Law Officers of the Crown. The -petitions were considered by a Committee, which recommended -certain amendments. Two justices were substituted -for one as the tribunal; no justice engaged in the -same trade as the defendant could act; the qualifying -words “wilfully and maliciously” were introduced in the -description of the offences. A clause protecting trade -friendly societies was proposed but eventually rejected. -A particularly odious feature of the 1799 Act, under which -defendants were required to give evidence against themselves -under severe penalties for refusal, was left unaltered. -A series of interesting clauses providing for the reference of -wage disputes to arbitration—copied from the contemporary -Act relating to the cotton trade<a id="FNanchor_119" href="#Footnote_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a>—aroused great opposition, -as tending “to fix wages” and as involving the recognition -of the Trade Union representative, but they were finally -adopted; without, so far as we are aware, ever being put -in force. -<a id="FNanchor_120" href="#Footnote_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a></p> - -<p>The general Combination Act of 1800 was not merely -the codification of existing laws, or their extension from -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</span> -particular trades to the whole field of industry. It represented -a new and momentous departure. Hitherto the -central or local authority had acted as a court of appeal -on all questions affecting the work and wages of the citizen. -If the master and journeyman failed to agree as to what -constituted a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work, the -higgling of the market was peremptorily superseded by the -authoritative determination, presumably on grounds of -social expediency, of the standard of remuneration. Probably -the actual fixing of wages by justices of the peace fell -very rapidly into disuse as regards the majority of industries, -although formal orders are found in the minutes of Quarter -Sessions during the first quarter of the nineteenth century, -and deep traces of the practice long survived in the customary -rates of hiring. Towards the end of the eighteenth -century, at any rate, free bargaining between the capitalist -and his workmen became practically the sole method of -fixing wages. Then it was that the gross injustice of prohibiting -combinations of journeymen became apparent. -“A single master,” said Lord Jeffrey, “was at liberty at -any time to turn off the whole of his workmen at once—100 -or 1000 in number—if they would not accept of the -wages he chose to offer. But it was made an offence for -the whole of the workmen to leave that master at once if -he refused to give the wages they chose to require.”<a id="FNanchor_121" href="#Footnote_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> What -was even more oppressive in practice was the employers’ -use of the threat of prosecution to prevent even the beginnings -of resistance among the workmen to any reduction -of wages or worsening of conditions.</p> - -<p>It is true that the law forbade combinations of employers -as well as combinations of journeymen. Even if it had -been impartially carried out, there would still have remained -the inequality due to the fact that, in the new system of -industry, a single employer was himself equivalent to a -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</span> -very numerous combination. But the hand of justice was -not impartial. The “tacit, but constant” combination -of employers to depress wages, to which Adam Smith refers, -could not be reached by the law. Nor was there any -disposition on the part of the magistrates or the judges -to find the masters guilty, even in cases of flagrant or -avowed combination. No one prosecuted the master -cutlers who, in 1814, openly formed the Sheffield Mercantile -and Manufacturing Union, having for its main rule that no -merchant or manufacturer should pay higher prices for -any article of Sheffield make than were current in the preceding -year, with a penalty of £100 for each contravention -of this illegal agreement.<a id="FNanchor_122" href="#Footnote_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> During the whole epoch of -repression, whilst thousands of journeymen suffered for -the crime of combination, there is no case on record in which -an employer was punished for the same offence.</p> - -<p>To the ordinary politician a combination of employers -and a combination of workmen seemed in no way comparable. -The former was, at most, an industrial misdemeanour: -the latter was in all cases a political crime. -Under the shadow of the French Revolution, the English -governing classes regarded all associations of the common -people with the utmost alarm. In this general terror lest -insubordination should develop into rebellion were merged -both the capitalist’s objection to high wages and the politician’s -dislike of Democratic institutions. The Combination -Laws, as Francis Place tells us, “were considered as absolutely -necessary to prevent ruinous extortions of workmen, -which, if not thus restrained, would destroy the whole of -the Trade, Manufactures, Commerce, and Agriculture of -the nation.... This led to the conclusion that the workmen -were the most unprincipled of mankind. Hence the -continued ill-will, suspicion, and in almost every possible -way the bad conduct of workmen and their employers -towards one another. So thoroughly was this false notion -entertained that whenever men were prosecuted to conviction -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</span> -for having combined to regulate their wages or the -hours of working, however heavy the sentence passed on -them was, and however rigorously it was inflicted, not the -slightest feeling of compassion was manifested by anybody -for the unfortunate sufferers. Justice was entirely out of -the question: they could seldom obtain a hearing before -a magistrate, never without impatience or insult; and -never could they calculate on even an approximation to a -rational conclusion.... Could an accurate account be -given of proceedings, of hearings before magistrates, trials -at sessions and in the Court of King’s Bench, the gross -injustice, the foul invective, and terrible punishments -inflicted would not, after a few years have passed away, be -credited on any but the best evidence.” -<a id="FNanchor_123" href="#Footnote_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a></p> - -<p>It must not, however, be supposed that every combination -was made the subject of prosecution, or that the Trade -Union leader of the period passed his whole life in gaol. -Owing to the extremely inefficient organisation of the -English police, and the absence of any public prosecutor, -a combination was usually let alone until some employer -was sufficiently inconvenienced by its operations to be willing -himself to set the law in motion. In many cases we find -employers apparently accepting or conniving at their men’s -combinations.<a id="FNanchor_124" href="#Footnote_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> The master printers in London not only -recognised the very ancient institution of the “chapel,” -but evidently found it convenient, at any rate from 1785 -onwards, to receive and consider proposals from the journeymen -as an organised body. In 1804 we even hear of a joint -committee consisting of an equal number of masters and -journeymen, authorised by their respective bodies to frame -regulations for the future payment of labour, and resulting -in the elaborate “scale” of 1805, signed by both masters -and men.<a id="FNanchor_125" href="#Footnote_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> The London coopers had a recognised organisation -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</span> -in 1813, in which year a list of prices was agreed upon -by representatives of the masters and men. This list was -revised in 1816 and 1819, without any one thinking of a -prosecution.<a id="FNanchor_126" href="#Footnote_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> The Trade Union was openly reformed in -1821 as the Philanthropic Society of Coopers. The London -brushmakers in 1805 had “A List of Prices agreed upon -between the Masters and Journeymen,” which is still extant. -The framework knitters, and also the tailors of the various -villages in Nottinghamshire, were, from 1794 to 1810, in -the habit of freely meeting together, both masters and men, -“to consider of matters relative to the trade,” the conferences -being convened by public advertisement.<a id="FNanchor_127" href="#Footnote_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> The minute -books of the local Trade Union of the carpenters of Preston -for the years 1807 to 1824 chronicle an apparently unconcealed -and unmolested existence, in correspondence with -other carpenters’ societies throughout Lancashire. The -accounts contain no items for the expense of defending their -officers against prosecutions, whereas there are several -payments for advertisements and public meetings, and, be -it added, a very large expenditure in beer. And there is a -lively tradition among the aged block printers of Glasgow -that, in their fathers’ time, when their very active Trade -Union exacted a fee of seven guineas from each new apprentice, -this money was always straightway drunk by the men -of the print-field, the employer taking his seat at the head -of the table, and no work being done by any one until -the fund was exhausted. The calico-printers’ organisation -appears, at the early part of the nineteenth century, to -have been one of the strongest and most complete of the -Unions. In an impressive pamphlet of 1815 the men are -thus appealed to by the employers: “We have by turns -conceded what we ought all manfully to have resisted, -and you, elated with success, have been led on from one -extravagant demand to another, till the burden is become -too intolerable to be borne. You fix the number of our -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</span> -apprentices, and oftentimes even the number of our journeymen. -You dismiss certain proportions of our hands, and -will not allow others to come in their stead. You stop all -Surface Machines, and go the length even to destroy the -rollers before our face. You restrict the Cylinder Machine, -and even dictate the kind of pattern it is to print. You -refuse, on urgent occasions, to work by candlelight, and -even compel our apprentices to do the same. You dismiss -our overlookers when they don’t suit you; and force -obnoxious servants into our employ. Lastly, you set all -subordination and good order at defiance, and instead of -showing deference and respect to your employers, treat -them with personal insult and contempt.”<a id="FNanchor_128" href="#Footnote_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> Notwithstanding -all this, no systematic attempt appears to have -been made to put down the calico-printers’ combination, -and only one or two isolated prosecutions can be traced. -In Dublin, too, the cabinetmakers in the early part of the -present century were combined in a strong union called -the Samaritan Society, exclusively for trade purposes; -“but though illegal, the employers do not seem to have -looked upon it with any great aversion; and when on one -occasion the chief constable had the men attending a meeting -arrested, the employers came forward to bail them. Indeed, -they professed that their object, though primarily to defend -their own interests against the masters, was also to defend -the interests of the masters against unprincipled journeymen. -Many of the masters on receiving the bill of a -journeyman were in the habit of sending it to the trades’ -society committee to be taxed, after which the word Committee -was stamped upon it. One case was mentioned, -when between two and three pounds were knocked off -a bill of about eight pounds by the trade committee.” -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</span><a id="FNanchor_129" href="#Footnote_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> -And both in London and Edinburgh the journeymen openly -published, without fear of prosecution, elaborate printed -lists of piecework prices, compiled sometimes by a committee -of the men’s Trade Union, sometimes by a joint committee -of employers and employed.<a id="FNanchor_130" href="#Footnote_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a>“The London Cabinetmakers’ -Union Book of Prices,” of which editions were -published in 1811 and 1824, was a costly and elaborate -work, with many plates, published “by a Committee of -Masters and Journeymen ... to prevent those litigations -which have too frequently existed in the trade.” Various -supplements and “index keys” to this work were published; -and other similar lists exist. So lax was the administration -of the law that George White, the energetic clerk to Hume’s -Committee, asserted that the Act of 1800 had “been in -general a dead letter upon those artisans upon whom it -was intended to have an effect—namely, the shoemakers, -printers, papermakers, shipbuilders, tailors, etc., who have -had their regular societies and houses of call, as though no -such Act was in existence; and in fact it would be almost -impossible for many of those trades to be carried on without -such societies, who are in general sick and travelling relief -societies; and the roads and parishes would be much pestered -with these travelling trades, who travel from want of employment, -were it not for their societies who relieve what they -call tramps.” -<a id="FNanchor_131" href="#Footnote_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a></p> - -<p>But although clubs of journeymen might be allowed to -take, like the London bookbinders, “a social pint of -porter together,” and even, in times of industrial peace, to -provide for their tramps and perform all the functions of a -Trade Union, the employers had always the power of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</span> -meeting any demands by a prosecution. Even those trades -in which we have discovered evidence of the unmolested -existence of combinations furnish examples of the rigorous -application of the law. In 1819 we read of numerous -prosecutions of cabinetmakers, hatters, ironfounders, and -other journeymen, nominally for leaving their work unfinished, -but really for the crime of combination.<a id="FNanchor_132" href="#Footnote_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> In -1798 five journeymen printers were indicted at the Old -Bailey for conspiracy. The employers had sent for the -men’s leaders to discuss their proposals, when, as it was -complained, “the five defendants came, clothed as delegates, -representing themselves as the head of a Parliament as we -may call it.” The men were in fact members of a trade -friendly society of pressmen “held at the Crown, near St. -Dunstan’s Church, Fleet Street,” which, as the prosecuting -counsel declared, “from its appearance certainly bore no -reproachable mark upon it. It was called a friendly society, -but by means of some wicked men among them this society -degenerated into a most abominable meeting for the purpose -of a conspiracy; those of the trade who did not join their -society were summoned, and even the apprentices, and were -told unless they conformed to the practices of these journeymen, -when they came out of their times they should not -be employed.” Notwithstanding the fact that the employers -had themselves recognised and negotiated with the society, -the Recorder sentenced all the defendants to two years’ -imprisonment. -<a id="FNanchor_133" href="#Footnote_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a></p> - -<p>Twelve years later it was the brutality of another prosecution -of the compositors that impressed Francis Place with -the necessity of an alteration in the law. “The cruel -persecutions,” he writes, “of the Journeymen Printers -employed in <i>The Times</i> newspaper in 1810 were carried to -an almost incredible extent. The judge who tried and -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</span> -sentenced some of them was the Common Sergeant of -London, Sir John Sylvester, commonly known by the cognomen -of ‘Bloody Black Jack.’... No judge took more -pains than did this judge on the unfortunate printers, to -make it appear that their offence was one of great enormity, -to beat down and alarm the really respectable men who -had fallen into his clutches, and on whom he inflicted -scandalously severe sentences.”<a id="FNanchor_134" href="#Footnote_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a> Nor did prosecution -always depend on the caprice of an employer. In December -1817 the Bolton constables, accidentally getting to -know that ten delegates of the calico-printers from the -various districts of the kingdom were to meet on New -Year’s Day, arranged to arrest the whole body and seize -all their papers. The ten delegates suffered three months’ -imprisonment, although no dispute with their employers -was in progress.<a id="FNanchor_135" href="#Footnote_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> But the main use of the law to the -employers was to checkmate strikes, and ward off demands -for better conditions of labour. Already, in 1786, the law -of conspiracy had been strained to convict, and punish with -two years’ imprisonment, the five London bookbinders -who were leading a strike to reduce hours from twelve to -eleven.<a id="FNanchor_136" href="#Footnote_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> When, at the Aberdeen Master Tailors’ Gild, in -1797, “it was represented to the trade that their journeymen -had entered into an illegal combination for the purpose of -raising their wages,” the masters unanimously “agreed -not to give any additional wages to their servants,” and -backed up this resolution of their own combination by -getting twelve journeymen prosecuted and fined for the -crime of combining.<a id="FNanchor_137" href="#Footnote_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a> In 1799 the success of the London -shoemakers in picketing obnoxious employers led to the -prosecution of two of them, which was made the means of -inducing the men to consent to dissolve their society, then -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</span> -seven years old, and return to work at once.<a id="FNanchor_138" href="#Footnote_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a> Two other -shoemakers of York were convicted in the same year for -the crime of “combining to raise the price of their labour in -making shoes, and refusing to make shoes under a certain -price,” and counsel said that “in every great town in the -North combinations of this sort existed.”<a id="FNanchor_139" href="#Footnote_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a> The coach-makers’ -strike of 1819 was similarly stopped, and the -“Benevolent Society of Coachmakers” broken up by the -conviction of the general secretary and twenty other -members, who were, upon this condition, released on their -own recognisances.<a id="FNanchor_140" href="#Footnote_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> In 1819 some calico-engravers in the -service of a Manchester firm protested against the undue -multiplication of apprentices by their employers, and -enforced their protest by declining to work. For this -“conspiracy” they were fined and imprisoned.<a id="FNanchor_141" href="#Footnote_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a> And -though the master cutlers were allowed, with impunity, to -subscribe to the Sheffield Mercantile and Manufacturing -Union, which fixed the rates of wages, and brought pressure -to bear on recalcitrant employers, the numerous trade clubs -of the operatives were not left unmolested. In 1816 seven -scissor-grinders were sentenced to three months’ imprisonment -for belonging to what they called the “Misfortune -Club,” which paid out-of-work benefit, and sought to maintain -the customary rates. -<a id="FNanchor_142" href="#Footnote_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</span></p> - -<p>But it was in the new textile industries that the weight -of the Combination Laws was chiefly felt. White and -Henson describe the Act of 1800 as being in these trades -“a tremendous millstone round the neck of the local -artisan, which has depressed and debased him to the earth: -every act which he has attempted, every measure that he -has devised to keep up or raise his wages, he has been -told was illegal: the whole force of the civil power and -influence of the district has been exerted against him because -he was acting illegally: the magistrates, acting, as they -believed, in unison with the views of the legislature, to -check and keep down wages and combination, regarded, in -almost every instance, every attempt on the part of the -artisan to ameliorate his situation or support his station in -society as a species of sedition and resistance of the Government: -every committee or active man among them was -regarded as a turbulent, dangerous instigator, whom it was -necessary to watch and crush if possible.”<a id="FNanchor_143" href="#Footnote_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> To cite one -only of the instances, it was given in evidence before Hume’s -Committee that in 1818 certain Bolton millowners suggested -to the operative weavers that they should concert together -to leave the employment of those who paid below the current -rate. Acting on this hint a meeting of forty delegates took -place, at which it was resolved to ask for the advance agreed -to by the good employers. A fortnight later the president -and the two secretaries were arrested, convicted of conspiracy, -and imprisoned for one and two years respectively, although -their employers gave evidence on the prisoners’ behalf to -the effect that they had themselves requested the men to -attend the meeting, and had approved the resolutions -passed.<a id="FNanchor_144" href="#Footnote_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a> In the following year fifteen cotton-spinners of -Manchester, who had met “to receive contributions to -bury their dead,” under “Articles” sanctioned by Quarter -Sessions in 1795, were seized in the committee-room by the -police, and committed to trial for conspiracy, bail being -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</span> -refused. After three or four months’ imprisonment they -were brought to trial, the whole local bar—seven in number—being -briefed against them. Collections were made in -London and elsewhere (including the town of Lynn in -Norfolk) for their defence. The enrolment of their club as -a friendly society availed little. It was urged in court that -“all societies, whether benefit societies or otherwise, were -only cloaks for the people of England to conspire against -the State,” and most of the defendants were sentenced to -varying terms of imprisonment. -<a id="FNanchor_145" href="#Footnote_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a></p> - -<p>But the Scottish Weavers’ Strike of 1812, described in -the preceding chapter, is the most striking case of all. In -the previous year certain cotton-spinners had been convicted -of combination and imprisoned, the judge observing -that there was a clear remedy in law, as the magistrates had -full power and authority to fix rates of wages or settle -disputes. In 1812 many of the employers refused to -accept the rates which the justices had declared as fair for -weaving; and all the weavers at the forty thousand looms -between Aberdeen and Carlisle struck to enforce the justices’ -rates. The employers had already made overtures through -the sheriff of the county for a satisfactory settlement when -the Government arrested the central committee of five, who -were directing the proceedings. These men were sentenced -to periods of imprisonment varying from four to eighteen -months; the strike failed, and the association broke up.<a id="FNanchor_146" href="#Footnote_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a> -The student of the newspapers between 1800 and 1824 will -find abundant record of judicial barbarities, of which the -cases cited above may be taken as samples. No statistics -exist as to the frequency of the prosecutions or the severity -of the sentences; but it is easy to understand, from such -reports as are available, the sullen resentment which the -working class suffered under these laws. Their repeal was -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</span> -a necessary preliminary to the growth among the most -oppressed sections of the workers of any real power of protecting -themselves, by Trade Union effort, against the -degradation of their Standard of Life.</p> - -<p>The failure of the Combination Laws to suppress the -somewhat dictatorial Trade Unionism of the skilled handicraftsmen, -and their efficacy in preventing the growth of -permanent Unions among other sections of the workers, is -explained by class distinctions, now passed away or greatly -modified, which prevailed at the beginning of the present -century. To-day, when we speak of “the aristocracy of -labour” we include under that heading the organised -miners and factory operatives of the North on the same -superior footing as the skilled handicraftsman. In 1800 -they were at opposite extremes of the social scale in the -wage-earning class, the weaver and the miner being then -further removed from the handicraftsman than the docker -or general labourer is from the Lancashire cotton-spinner -or Northumberland hewer of to-day. The skilled artisans -formed, at any rate in London, an intermediate class -between the shopkeeper and the great mass of unorganised -labourers or operatives in the new machine industries. -The substantial fees demanded all through the eighteenth -century for apprenticeship to the “crafts” had secured to -the members and their eldest sons a virtual monopoly.<a id="FNanchor_147" href="#Footnote_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a> -Even after the repeal of the laws requiring a formal apprenticeship -some time had to elapse before the supply of this -class of handicraftsmen overtook the growing demand. -Thus we gather from the surviving records that these trades -have never been more completely organised in London than -between 1800 and 1820.<a id="FNanchor_148" href="#Footnote_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> We find the London hatters, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</span> -coopers, curriers, compositors, millwrights, and shipwrights -maintaining earnings which, upon their own showing, -amounted to the comparatively large sum of thirty to fifty -shillings per week. At the same period the Lancashire -weaver or the Leicester hosier, in full competition with -steam-power and its accompaniment of female and child -labour, could, even when fully employed, earn barely ten -shillings. We see this difference in the Standard of Life -reflected in the characters of the combinations formed by -the two classes.</p> - -<p>In the skilled handicrafts, long accustomed to corporate -government, we find, even under repressive laws, no unlawful -oaths, seditious emblems, or other common paraphernalia -of secret societies. The London Brushmakers, whose -Union apparently dates from the early part of the eighteenth -century, expressly insisted “that no person shall be admitted -a member who is not well affected to his present Majesty -and the Protestant Succession, and in good health and of -a respectable character.” But this loyalty was not inconsistent -with their subscribing to the funds of the 1831 -agitation for the Reform Bill.<a id="FNanchor_149" href="#Footnote_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> The prevailing tone of the -superior workmen down to 1848 was, in fact, strongly -Radical; and their leaders took a prominent part in all the -working-class politics of the time. From their ranks came -such organisers as Place, Lovett, and Gast.<a id="FNanchor_150" href="#Footnote_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a> But wherever -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</span> -we have been able to gain any idea of their proceedings, -their trade clubs were free from anything that could now -be conceived as political sedition. It was these clubs of -handicraftsmen that formed the backbone of the various -“central committees” which dealt with the main topics of -Trade Unionism during the next thirty years. They it -was who furnished such assistance as was given by working -men to the movement for the repeal of the Combination -Laws. And their influence gave a certain dignity and -stability to the Trade Union Movement, without which, -under hostile governments, it could never have emerged -from the petulant rebellions of hunger-strikes and machine-breaking.</p> - -<p>The principal effect of the Combination Laws on these -well-organised handicrafts in London, Liverpool, Dublin, -and perhaps other towns, was to make the internal discipline -more rigid and the treatment of non-unionists more -arbitrary. Place describes how “in these societies there -are some few individuals who possess the confidence of their -fellows, and when any matter relating to the trade has -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</span> -been talked over, either at the club or in a separate room, -or in a workshop or a yard, and the matter has become -notorious, these men are expected to direct what shall be -done, and they do direct—simply by a hint. On this the -men act; and one and all support those who may be -thrown out of work or otherwise inconvenienced. If -matters were to be discussed as gentlemen seem to suppose -they must be, no resolution would ever be come to. The -influence of the men alluded to would soon cease if the law -were repealed. It is the law and the law alone which causes -the confidence of the men to be given to their leaders. -Those who direct are not known to the body, and not one -man in twenty, perhaps, knows the person of any one who -directs. It is a rule among them to ask no questions, and -another rule among them who know most, either to give -no answer if questioned, or an answer to mislead.” -<a id="FNanchor_151" href="#Footnote_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a></p> - -<p>In the new machine industries, on the other hand, the -repeated reductions of wages, the rapid alterations of processes, -and the substitution of women and children for -adult male workers, had gradually reduced the workers to -a condition of miserable poverty. The reports of Parliamentary -committees, from 1800 onward, contain a dreary -record of the steady degradation of the Standard of Life in -the textile industries. “The sufferings of persons employed -in the cotton manufacture,” Place writes of this period, -“were beyond credibility: they were drawn into combinations, -betrayed, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced, and -monstrously severe punishments inflicted on them: they -were reduced to and kept in the most wretched state of -existence.”<a id="FNanchor_152" href="#Footnote_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a> Their employers, instead of being, as in the -older handicrafts, little more than master workmen, recognising -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</span> -the customary Standard of Life of their journeymen, -were often capitalist <i>entrepreneurs</i>, devoting their whole -energies to the commercial side of the business, and leaving -their managers to buy labour in the market at the cheapest -possible rate. This labour was recruited from all localities -and many different occupations. It was brigaded and -controlled by despotic laws, enforced by numerous fines -and disciplinary deductions. Cases of gross tyranny and -heartless cruelty are not wanting. Without a common -standard, a common tradition, or mutual confidence, the -workers in the new mills were helpless against their masters. -Their ephemeral combinations and frequent strikes were, as -a rule, only passionate struggles to maintain a bare subsistence -wage. In place of the steady organised resistance to -encroachments maintained by the handicraftsmen, we -watch, in the machine industries, the alternation of outbursts -of machine-breaking and outrages, with intervals of -abject submission and reckless competition with each other -for employment. In the conduct of such organisation as -there was, repressive laws had, with the operatives as with -the London artisans, the effect of throwing great power into -the hands of a few men. These leaders were implicitly -obeyed in times of industrial conflict, but the repeated -defeats which they were unable to avert prevented that -growth of confidence which is indispensable for permanent -organisation.<a id="FNanchor_153" href="#Footnote_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> Both leaders and rank and file, too, were -largely implicated in political seditions, and were the victims -of spies and Ministerial emissaries of all sorts. All these -circumstances led to the prevalence among them of fearful -oaths, mystic initiation rites, and other manifestations of a -sensationalism which was sometimes puerile and sometimes -criminal.</p> - -<p>The most notorious of these “seditions,” about which -little is really known, was the “Luddite” upheaval of -1811-12, when riotous mobs of manual workers, acting -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</span> -under some sort of organisation, went about destroying -textile machinery and sometimes wrecking factories. To -what extent this had any direct connection with the Trade -Union Movement seems to us, pending more penetrating -investigation of the unpublished evidence, somewhat -uncertain. That the operatives very generally sympathised -with the most violent protest against the displacement of -hand labour by machinery, and the extreme distress which -it was causing, is clear. The Luddite movement apparently -began among the Framework-knitters, who had long been -organised in local clubs, with some rudimentary federal -bond; and the whole direction of the Luddites was often -ascribed, as by the Mayor of Leicester in 1812, to “the -Committee of Framework-knitters, who have as complete -an organisation of the whole body as you could have of a -regiment.”<a id="FNanchor_154" href="#Footnote_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> But money was collected from men of other -trades, notably bricklayers, masons, spinners, weavers, -and colliers, as well as from the soldiers in some of the -regiments stationed at provincial centres; and such evidence -as we have found points rather to a widespread secret -oath-bound conspiracy, not of the men of any one trade, -but of wage-earners of all kinds. We find an informer -stating (June 22, 1812), with what truth we know not, -“that the Union extends from London to Nottingham, -and from thence to Manchester and Carlisle. Small towns -lying between the principal places are not yet organised, -such as Garstang and Burton. Only some of the trades -have taken the first oath. He says there is a second oath -taken by suspicious persons.”<a id="FNanchor_155" href="#Footnote_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a> On the other hand, it looks -as if the various local Trade Clubs were made use of, in -some cases informally, as agents or branches of the conspiracy.</p> - -<p>General Maitland, writing from Buxton (June 22, 1812) -to the Home Secretary, says that, in his opinion, “the whole -of this business ... originated in those constant efforts -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</span> -made by these associations for many years past to keep up -the price of the manufacturers’ wages; that finding their -efforts for this unavailing, both from the circumstances of -the trade and the high price of provisions, they in a moment -of irritation, for which it is but just to say they had considerable -ground from the real state of distress in which they -were placed ... began to think of effecting that by force -which they had ever been trying to do by other means; -and that in this state the oath was introduced.... I -believe the whole to be, certainly a most mischievous, but -undefined and indistinct attempt to be in a state of preparation -to do that by force which they had not succeeded -in carrying into effect as they usually did by other means.” -The whole episode has been too much ignored, even by -social historians; and “Byron’s famous speech and -Charlotte Brontë’s more famous novel give to most people -their idea of the misery of the time, and of its cause, the -displacement of hand labour by machinery.” -<a id="FNanchor_156" href="#Footnote_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a></p> - -<p>The coal-miners were in many respects even worse off -than the hosiery workers and the cotton weavers. In -Scotland they had been but lately freed from actual serfdom, -the final act of emancipation not having been passed until -1799. In Monmouthshire and South Wales the oppression -of the “tommy shops” of the small employers was extreme. -In the North of England the “yearly bond,” the truck -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</span> -system, and the arbitrary fines kept the underground -workers in complete subjection. The result is seen in the -turbulence of their frequent “sticks” or strikes, during -which troops were often required to quell their violence. -The great strike of 1810 was carried on by an oath-bound -confederacy recruited by the practice of “brothering,” “so -named because the members of the union bound themselves -by a most solemn oath to obey the orders of the brotherhood, -under the penalty of being stabbed through the heart or of -having their bowels ripped up.”<a id="FNanchor_157" href="#Footnote_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a></p> - -<p>Notwithstanding these differences between various -classes of workers, the growing sense of solidarity among -the whole body of wage-earners rises into special prominence -during this period of tyranny and repression. The trades -in which it was usual for men to tramp from place to place -in search of employment had long possessed, as we have -seen, some kind of loose federal organisation extending -throughout the country. In spite of the law of 1797 forbidding -the existence of “corresponding societies,” the -various federal organisations of Curriers, Hatters, Calico-printers, -Woolcombers, Woolstaplers, and other handicraftsmen -kept up constant correspondence on trade matters, -and raised money for common trade purposes. In some -cases there existed an elaborate national organisation, -with geographical districts and annual delegate meetings; -like that of the Calico-printers who were arrested by the -Bolton constables in 1818. The rules of the Papermakers,<a id="FNanchor_158" href="#Footnote_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> -which certainly date from 1803, provide for the division of -England into five districts, with detailed arrangements for -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</span> -representation and collective action. This national organisation -was, notwithstanding repressive laws, occasionally -very effective. We need cite only one instance, furnished -by the Liverpool Ropemakers in 1823. When a certain -firm attempted to put labourers to the work, the local -society of ropespinners informed it that this was “contrary -to the regulations of the trade,” and withdrew all their -members. The employers, failing to get men in Liverpool, -sent to Hull and Newcastle, but found that the Ropespinners’ -Society had already apprised the local trade clubs at those -towns. The firm then imported “blacklegs” from Glasgow, -who were met on arrival by the local unionists, inveigled to -a “trade club-house,” and alternately threatened and -cajoled out of their engagements. Finally the head of the -firm went to London to purchase yarn; but the London -workmen, finding that the yarn was for a “struck shop,” -refused to complete the order. The last resource of the -employers was an indictment at the Sessions for combination, -but a Liverpool jury, in the teeth of the evidence and -the judge’s summing up, gave a verdict of acquittal. -<a id="FNanchor_159" href="#Footnote_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a></p> - -<p>This solidarity was not confined to the members of a -particular trade. The masters are always complaining -that one trade supports another, and old account books of -Trade Unions for this period abound with entries of sums -contributed in aid of disputes in other trades, either in the -same town or elsewhere. Thus the small society of London -Goldbeaters, during the three years 1810-12, lent or gave -substantial sums, amounting in all to £200, to fourteen other -trades.<a id="FNanchor_160" href="#Footnote_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a> The Home Secretary was informed in 1823 that -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</span> -a combination of cotton-spinners at Bolton, whose books had -been seized, had received donations, not only from twenty-eight -cotton-spinners’ committees in as many Lancashire -towns, but also from fourteen other trades, from coal-miners -to butchers.<a id="FNanchor_161" href="#Footnote_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a> A picturesque illustration of this brotherly -help in need occurs in the account of an appeal to the -Pontefract Quarter Sessions by certain Sheffield cutlers -against their conviction for combination: “The appellants -were in court, but hour after hour passed, and no counsel -moved the case. The reason was a want of funds for the -purpose. At last, whilst in court, a remittance from the -clubs in Manchester, to the amount of one hundred pounds, -arrived, and then the counsel was fee’d, and the case, which, -but for the arrival of the money from this town, must have -dropped in that stage, was proceeded with.”<a id="FNanchor_162" href="#Footnote_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a> And -although the day of Trades Councils had not yet come, it -was a common thing for the various trade societies of a -particular town to unite in sending witnesses to Parliamentary -Committees, preparing petitions to the House of -Commons and paying counsel to support their case, engaging -solicitors to prosecute offending employers, and collecting -subscriptions for strikes.<a id="FNanchor_163" href="#Footnote_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a> This tendency to form joint -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</span> -committees of local trades was, as we shall see, greatly -strengthened in the agitation against the Combination Laws -from 1823-25. With the final abandonment of all legislative -protection of the Standard of Life, and the complete -divorce of the worker from the instruments of production, -the wage-earners in the various industrial centres became -indeed ever more conscious of the widening of the old -separate trade disputes into “the class war” which has -characterised the past century.</p> - -<p>It is difficult to-day to realise the naïve surprise with -which the employers of that time regarded the practical -development of working-class solidarity. The master -witnesses before Parliamentary Committees, and the judges -in sentencing workmen for combination, are constantly -found reciting instances of mutual help to prove the existence -of a widespread “conspiracy” against the dominant -classes. That the London Tailors should send money to the -Glasgow Weavers, or the Goldbeaters to the Ropespinners, -seemed to the middle and upper classes little short of a -crime.</p> - -<p>The movement for a repeal of the Combination Laws -began in a period of industrial dislocation and severe -political repression. The economic results of the long war, -culminating in the comparatively low prices of the peace -for most manufactured products, though not for wheat, -led in 1816 to an almost universal reduction of wages -throughout the country. In open defiance of the law the -masters, in many instances, deliberately combined in -agreements to pay lower rates. This agreement was not -confined to the employers in a particular trade, who may -have been confronted by organised bodies of journeymen, -but extended, in some cases, to all employers of labour in a -particular locality. The landowners and farmers of Tiverton, -for instance, at a “numerous and respectable meeting -at the Town Hall” in 1816, resolved “that, in consequence -of the low price of provisions,” not more than certain -specified wages should be given to smiths, carpenters, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</span> -masons, thatchers, or masons’ labourers.<a id="FNanchor_164" href="#Footnote_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a> The Compositors, -Coopers, Shoemakers, Carpenters, and many other trades -record serious reductions of wages at this period. In these -cases the masters justified their action on the ground that, -owing to the fall of prices, the Standard of Life of the -journeymen would not be depressed. But in the great -staple industries there ensued a cutting competition between -employers to secure orders in a falling market, their method -being to undersell each other by beating down wages below -subsistence level—an operation often aided by the practice, -then common, of supplementing insufficient earnings out of -the Poor Rate. This produced such ruinous results that -local protests were soon made. At Leicester the authorities -decided to maintain the men’s “Statement Price” by -agreeing to wholly support out of a voluntary fund those -who could not get work at the full rates. This was bitterly -resented by the neighbouring employers, who seriously -contemplated indicting the lord-lieutenant, mayor, alder-men, -clergy, and other subscribers for criminal conspiracy -to keep up wages.<a id="FNanchor_165" href="#Footnote_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> And in 1820 a public meeting of the -ratepayers of Sheffield protested against the “evil of parish -pay to supplement earnings,” and recommended employers -to revert to the uniform price list which the men had gained -in 1810.<a id="FNanchor_166" href="#Footnote_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a> Finally we have the employers themselves -publicly denouncing the ruinous extent to which the cutting -of wages had been carried. A declaration dated June 16, -1819, and signed by fourteen Lancashire manufacturers, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</span> -regrets that they have been compelled by the action of a few -competitors to lower wages to the present rates, and strongly -condemns any further reduction; whilst twenty-five of the -most eminent calico-printing firms append an emphatic -approval of the protest, and state “that the system of -paying such extremely low wages for manufacturing labour -is injurious to the trade at large.”<a id="FNanchor_167" href="#Footnote_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> At Coventry the -ribbon manufacturers combined with the Weavers’ Provident -Union to maintain a general adherence to the agreed -list of prices, and in 1819 subscribed together no less than -£16,000 to cover the cost of proceedings with this object. -This combination formed the subject of an indictment at -Warwick Assizes, which put an end to the association, the -remaining funds being handed over to the local “Streets -Commissioners” for paving the city. These protests and -struggles of the better employers were in vain. Rates were -reduced and strikes occurred all over the country, and were -met, not by redress or sympathy, but by an outburst of -prosecutions and sentences of more than the usual ferocity. -The common law and ancient statutes were ruthlessly used -to supplement the Combination Acts, often by strained -constructions. The Scotch judges in particular, as an -eminent Scotch jurist declared to the Parliamentary Committee -in 1824, applied the criminal procedure of Scotland -to cases of simple combination, from 1813-19, in a way -that he, on becoming Lord Advocate, refused to countenance.<a id="FNanchor_168" href="#Footnote_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> -The workers, on attempting some spasmodic preparations -for organised political agitation, were further -coerced, in 1819, by the infamous “Six Acts,” which at one -blow suppressed practically all public meetings, enabled -the magistrate to search for arms, subjected all working-class -publications to the crushing stamp duty, and rendered -more stringent the law relating to seditious libels. The -whole system of repression which had characterised the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</span> -statesmanship of the Regency culminated at this period in -a tyranny not exceeded by any of the monarchs of the -“Holy Alliance.” The effect of this tyranny was actually -to shield the Combination Laws by turning the more energetic -and enlightened working-class leaders away from all -specific reforms to a thorough revolution of the whole system -of Parliamentary representation. Hence there was no -popular movement whatever for the repeal of the Combination -Laws. If we were writing the history of the English -working class instead of that of the Trade Union Movement, -we should find in William Cobbett or “Orator” Hunt, in -Samuel Bamford or William Lovett, a truer representative -of the current aspirations of the English artisan at this -time than in the man who now came unexpectedly on -the scene to devise and carry into effect the Trade Union -Emancipation of 1824.</p> - -<p>Francis Place was a master tailor who had created a -successful business in a shop at Charing Cross. Before -setting up for himself he had worked as a journeyman -breeches-maker, and had organised combinations in his own -and other trades. After 1818 he left the conduct of the -business to his son, and devoted his keenly practical intellect -and extraordinary persistency first to the repeal of the -Combination Laws, and next to the Reform Movement. -In social theory he was a pupil of Bentham and -James Mill, and his ideal may be summed up as political -Democracy with industrial liberty, or, as we should now -say, thoroughgoing Radical Individualism. No one who -has closely studied his life and work will doubt that, within -the narrow sphere to which his unswerving practicality confined -him, he was the most remarkable politician of his age. -His chief merit lay in his thorough understanding of the -art of getting things done. In agitation, permeation, -wire-pulling, Parliamentary lobbying, the drafting of -resolutions, petitions, and bills—in short, of all those artifices -by which a popular movement is first created and then -made effective on the Parliamentary system—he was an -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</span> -inventor and tactician of the first order. Above all, he -possessed in perfection the rare quality of permitting other -people to carry off the credit of his work, and thus secured -for his proposals willing promoters and supporters, some of -the leading Parliamentary figures of the time owing all their -knowledge on his questions to the briefs with which he -supplied them. The invaluable collection of manuscript -records left by him, now in the British Museum, prove that -modesty had nothing to do with his contemptuous readiness -to leave the trophies of victory to his pawns provided -his end was attained. He was thoroughly appreciative of -the fact that in every progressive movement his shop at -Charing Cross was the real centre of power when the Parliamentary -stage of a progressive movement was reached. -It remained, from 1807 down to about 1834, the recognised -meeting-place of all the agitators of the time. -<a id="FNanchor_169" href="#Footnote_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a></p> - -<p>It was in watching the effect of the Combination Laws -in his own trade that Place became converted to their -repeal. The special laws of 1720 and 1767, fixing the -wages of journeymen tailors, as well as the general law -of 1800 against all combinations, had failed to regulate -wages, to prevent strikes, or to hinder those masters who -wished in times of pressure to engage skilled men, from -offering the bribe of high piecework rates, or even time -wages in excess of the legal limit. Place gave evidence -as a master tailor before the Select Committee of the House -of Commons which inquired into the subject in 1810; and -it was chiefly his weighty testimony in favour of freedom -of contract that averted the fresh legal restrictions which -a combination of employers was then openly promoting.<a id="FNanchor_170" href="#Footnote_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> -This experience of the practical freedom of employers to -combine intensified Place’s sense of the injustice of denying -a like freedom to the journeymen, whilst the brutal prosecution -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</span> -of the compositors of the <i>Times</i> in the same year -brought home to his mind the severity of the law. Four -years later (1814), as he himself tells us, he “began to work -seriously to procure a repeal of the laws against combinations -of workmen, but for a long time made no visible -progress.” The employers were firmly convinced that -combinations of wage-earners would succeed in securing a -great rise of wages, to the serious detriment of profits. Far -from contemplating a repeal of the Act of 1800, they were -in 1814 and 1816 pestering the Home Secretary for legislation -of greater stringency as the only safeguard for their -“freedom of enterprise.”<a id="FNanchor_171" href="#Footnote_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a> The politicians were equally -certain that Trade Union action would raise prices, and -thus undermine the foreign trade upon which the prosperity -and international influence of England depended. -The working men themselves afforded in the first instance -no assistance. Those who had suffered legal prosecution -were hopeless of redress from an unreformed Parliament, -and offered no support. One trade, the Spitalfields silk-weavers, -supported the Government because they enjoyed -what they deemed to be the advantage of legal protection -from the lowering of wages by competition.<a id="FNanchor_172" href="#Footnote_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a> Others were -suspicious of the intervention of one who was himself an -employer, and who had not yet gained recognition as a -friend to labour. But Place was undismayed by hostility -and indifference. Knowing that with an English public -the strength of his cause would lie, not in any abstract -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</span> -reasoning or appeal to natural rights, but in an enumeration -of actual cases of injustice, he made a point of obtaining -the particulars of every trade dispute. He intervened, as -he says, in every strike, sometimes as a mediator, sometimes -as an ally of the journeymen. He opened up a voluminous -correspondence with Trade Unions throughout the kingdom, -and wrote innumerable letters to the newspapers. In 1818 -he secured a useful medium in the <i>Gorgon</i>,<a id="FNanchor_173" href="#Footnote_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a> a little working-class -political newspaper, started by one Wade, a woolcomber, -and subsidised by Bentham and Place himself. -This gained him his two most important disciples, eventually -the chief instruments of his work, J. R. McCulloch -and Joseph Hume. McCulloch, afterwards to gain fame as -an economist, was at that time the editor of the <i>Scotsman</i>, -perhaps the most important of the provincial newspapers. -A powerful article based on Place’s facts which he contributed -to the <i>Edinburgh Review</i> in 1823 secured many -converts; and his constant advocacy gave Place’s idea a -weight and notoriety which it had hitherto lacked. Joseph -Hume was an even more important ally. His acknowledged -position in the House of Commons as one of the -leaders of the growing party of Philosophic Radicalism -gained for the repeal movement a steadily increasing support -with advanced members of Parliament. Among a certain -section in the House the desirability of freedom of combination -began to be discussed; presently it was considered -practicable; and soon many came to regard it as an inevitable -outcome of their political creed. In 1822 Place -thought the time ripe for action; and Hume accordingly -gave notice of his intention to bring in a Bill to repeal all -the laws against combinations.</p> - -<p>Place’s manuscripts and letters contain a graphic -account of the wire-pullings and manipulations of the next -two years.<a id="FNanchor_174" href="#Footnote_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a> In these contemporary pictures of the inner -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</span> -workings of the Parliamentary system we watch Hume -cajoling Huskisson and Peel into granting him a Select -Committee, staving off the less tactful proposals of a rival -M.P.,<a id="FNanchor_175" href="#Footnote_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a> and finally, in February 1824, packing the Committee -of Inquiry at length appointed. Hume, with some -art, had included in his motion three distinct subjects—the -emigration of artisans, the exportation of machinery -and combinations of workmen, all of which were forbidden -by law. To Place and Hume the repeal of the Combination -Laws was the main object; but Huskisson and his colleagues -regarded the Committee as primarily charged with an -inquiry into the possibility of encouraging the rising manufacture -of machinery, which was seriously hampered by -the prohibition of sales to foreign countries. Huskisson -tried to induce Hume to omit from the Committee’s reference -all mention of the Combination Laws, evidently regarding -them as only a minor and unimportant part of the inquiry. -But Place and Hume were now masters of the situation; -and for the next few months they devoted their whole time -to the management of the Committee. At first no one -seems to have had any idea that its proceedings were going -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</span> -to be of any moment; and no trouble was taken by the -Ministry with regard to its composition. “It was with -difficulty,” writes Place, “that Mr. Hume could obtain -the names of twenty-one members to compose the Committee; -but when it had sat three days, and had become -both popular and amusing, members contrived to be put -upon it; and at length it consisted of forty-eight members.”<a id="FNanchor_176" href="#Footnote_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a> -Hume, who was appointed chairman, appears to -have taken into his own hands the entire management of -the proceedings. A circular explaining the objects of the -inquiry was sent to the mayor or other public officer of -forty provincial towns, and appeared in the principal local -newspapers. Public meetings were held at Stockport and -other towns to depute witnesses to attend the Committee.<a id="FNanchor_177" href="#Footnote_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> -Meanwhile Place, who had by this time acquired the confidence -of the chief leaders of the working class, secured the -attendance of artisan witnesses from all parts of the kingdom. -Read in the light of Place’s private records and daily correspondence -with Hume, the proceedings of this “Committee -on Artisans and Machinery” reveal an almost perfect -example of political manipulation. Although no hostile -witness was denied a hearing, it was evidently arranged that -the employers who were favourable to repeal should be -examined first, and that the preponderance of evidence -should be on their side. And whilst those interests which -would have been antagonistic to the repeal were neither -professionally represented nor deliberately organised, the -men’s case was marshalled with admirable skill by Place, -and fully brought out by Hume’s examination. Thus the -one acted as the Trade Unionists’ Parliamentary solicitor, -and the other as their unpaid counsel. -<a id="FNanchor_178" href="#Footnote_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</span></p> - -<p>Place himself tells us how he proceeded: “The delegates -from the working people had reference to me, and I opened -my house to them. Thus I had all the town and country -delegates under my care. I heard the story which every -one of these men had to tell, I examined and cross-examined -them, took down the leading particulars of each case, -and then arranged the matter as briefs for Mr. Hume, and -as a rule, for the guidance of the witnesses, a copy was -given to each.... Each brief contained the principal -questions and answers.... That for Mr. Hume was -generally accompanied by an appendix of documents -arranged in order, with a short account of such proceedings -as were necessary to put Mr. Hume in possession of the -whole case. Thus he was enabled to go on with considerable -ease, and to anticipate or rebut objections.” -<a id="FNanchor_179" href="#Footnote_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a></p> - -<p>The Committee sat in private; but Hume’s numerous -letters to Place show how carefully the latter was kept -posted up in all the proceedings: “As the proceedings -of the Committee were printed from day to day for the -use of the members, I had a copy sent to me by Mr. Hume, -which I indexed on paper ruled in many columns, each -column having an appropriate head or number. I also -wrote remarks on the margins of the printed evidence; -this was copied daily by Mr. Hume’s secretary, and then -returned to me. This consumed much time, but enabled -Mr. Hume to have the whole mass constantly under his -view; and I am very certain that less pains and care would -not have been sufficient to have carried the business -through.” -<a id="FNanchor_180" href="#Footnote_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a></p> - -<p>From Westminster Hall we are transported, by these -private notes for Hume’s use, all now preserved in the -British Museum, into the back parlour of the Charing -Cross shop, where the London and provincial artisan -witnesses came for their instructions. “The workmen,” -as Place tells us, “were not easily managed. It required -great care and pains not to shock their prejudices so as -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</span> -to prevent them doing their duty before the Committee. -They were filled with false notions, all attributing their -distresses to wrong causes, which I, in this state of the -business, dared not attempt to remove. Taxes, machinery, -laws against combinations, the will of the masters, the -conduct of magistrates—these were the fundamental causes -of all their sorrows and privations.... I had to discuss -everything with them most carefully, to arrange and prepare -everything, and so completely did these things occupy -my time that for more than three months I had hardly -any rest.” -<a id="FNanchor_181" href="#Footnote_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a></p> - -<p>The result of the inquiry was as Hume and Place had -ordained. A series of resolutions in favour of complete -freedom of combination and liberty of emigration was -adopted by the Committee, apparently without dissent. -A Bill to repeal all the Combination Laws and to legalise -trade societies was passed through both Houses, within -less than a week, at the close of the session, without either -debate or division. Place and Hume contrived privately -to talk over and to silence the few members who were alive -to the situation; and the measure passed, as Place remarks, -“almost without the notice of members within or newspapers -without.”<a id="FNanchor_182" href="#Footnote_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a> So quietly was the Bill smuggled through -Parliament that the magistrates at a Lancashire town unwittingly -sentenced certain cotton-weavers to imprisonment -for combination some weeks after the laws against -that crime had been repealed. -<a id="FNanchor_183" href="#Footnote_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a></p> - -<p>Place and Hume had, however, been rather too clever. -Whilst the governing classes were quite unconscious that -any important alteration of law or policy had taken place, -the unlooked-for success of Place’s agitation produced, as -Nassau Senior describes, “a great moral effect” in all the -industrial centres. “It confirmed in the minds of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</span> -operatives the conviction of the justice of their cause, tardily -and reluctantly, but at last fully, conceded by the Legislature. -That which was morally right in 1824 must have -been so, they would reason, for fifty years before.... They -conceived that they had extorted from the Legislature an -admission that their masters must always be their rivals, -and had hitherto been their oppressors, and that combinations -to raise wages, and shorten the time or diminish the -severity of labour, were not only innocent, but meritorious.”<a id="FNanchor_184" href="#Footnote_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a> -Trade Societies accordingly sprang into existence or emerged -into aggressive publicity on all sides. A period of trade -inflation, together with a rapid rise in the price of provisions, -favoured a general increase of wages. For the next six -months the newspapers are full of strikes and rumours of -strikes. Serious disturbances occurred at Glasgow, where -the employers had been exceptionally oppressive, where the -cotton operatives committed several outrages, and where -a general lock-out took place. The cotton-spinners were -once more striking in the Manchester district. The shipping -trade of the North-East Coast was temporarily paralysed -by a strong combination of the seamen on the Tyne -and Wear, who refused to sail except with Unionist seamen -and Unionist officers. The Dublin trades, then the best -organised in the kingdom, ruthlessly enforced their bye-laws -for the regulation of their respective industries, and -formed a joint committee, the so-called “Board of Green -Cloth,” whose dictates became the terror of the employers. -The Sheffield operatives have to be warned that, if they -persist in demanding double the former wages for only -three days a week work, the whole industry of the town -will be ruined.<a id="FNanchor_185" href="#Footnote_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> The London shipwrights insisted on what -their employers considered the preposterous demand for a -“book of rates” for piecework. The London coopers -demanded a revision of their wages, which led to a long-sustained -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</span> -conflict. In fact, as a provincial newspaper -remarked a little later, “it is no longer a particular class of -journeymen at some single point that have been induced -to commence a strike for an advance of wages, but almost -the whole body of the mechanics in the kingdom are combined -in the general resolution to impose terms on their -employers.” -<a id="FNanchor_186" href="#Footnote_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a></p> - -<p>The opening of the session of 1825 found the employers -throughout the country thoroughly aroused. Hume and -Place had in vain preached moderation, and warned the -Unions of the danger of a reaction. The great shipowning -and shipbuilding interest, which had throughout the century -preserved intact its reputation for unswerving hostility to -Trade Unionism, had possession of the ear of Huskisson, -then President of the Board of Trade and member for -Liverpool. Early in the session he moved for a committee -of inquiry into the conduct of the workmen and the effect -of the recent Act, which, he complained, had been smuggled -through the House without his attention having been called -to the fact that it went far beyond the mere repeal of the -special statutes against combinations.<a id="FNanchor_187" href="#Footnote_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a> This time the -composition of the committee was not left to chance, or to -Hume’s manipulation. The members were, as Place complains, -selected almost exclusively from the Ministerial -benches, twelve out of the thirty being placemen, and many -being representatives of rotten boroughs. Huskisson, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</span><a id="FNanchor_188" href="#Footnote_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a> -Peel, and the Attorney-General themselves took part in its -proceedings; Wallace, the Master of the Mint, was made -chairman, and Hume alone represented the workmen. -Huskisson regarded the Committee as merely a formal preliminary -to the introduction of the Bill which the shipping -interest had drafted,<a id="FNanchor_189" href="#Footnote_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a> under which Trade Unions, and even -Friendly Societies, would have been impossible. For the -inner history of this Committee we have to rely on Place’s -voluminous memoranda, and Hume’s brief notes to him. -According to these, the original intention was to call only a -few employers as witnesses, to exclude all testimony on the -other side, and promptly to report in favour of the repressive -measure already prepared. Place, himself an expert in -such tactics, met them by again supplying Hume daily with -detailed information which enabled him to cross-examine -the masters and expose their exaggerations. And, if Place’s -account of the animus of the Committee and the Ministers -against himself be somewhat highly coloured, we have -ample evidence of the success with which he guided the -alarmed Trade Unions to take effectual action in their own -defence. His friend John Gast, secretary to the London -Shipwrights, called for two delegates from each trade -in the metropolis, and formed a committee which kept -up a persistent agitation against any re-enactment of the -Combination Laws. Similar committees were formed -at Manchester and Glasgow by the cotton operatives, at -Sheffield by the cutlers, and at Newcastle by the seamen -and shipwrights. Petitions, the draft of which appears in -Place’s manuscripts, poured in to the Select Committee and -to both Houses. If we are to believe Place, the passages -leading to the committee-room were carefully kept thronged -by crowds of workmen insisting on being examined to rebut -the accusations of the employers, and waylaying individual -members to whom they explained their grievances. All this -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</span> -energy on the part of the Unions was, as Place observes, in -marked contrast with their apathy the year before. The -workmen, though they had done nothing to gain their -freedom of association, were determined to maintain it. -Doherty, the leader of the Lancashire Cotton-spinners, -writing to Place in the heat of the agitation, declared that -any attempt at a re-enactment of the Combination Laws -would result in a widespread revolutionary movement. -<a id="FNanchor_190" href="#Footnote_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> -The net result of the inquiry was, on the whole, satisfactory. -The Select Committee found themselves compelled to hear -a certain number of workmen witnesses, who testified to the -good results of the Act of the previous year. The ship-owners’ -Bill was abandoned, and the House of Commons -was recommended to pass a measure which nominally -re-established the general common-law prohibition of -combinations, but specifically excepted from prosecution -associations for the purpose of regulating wages or hours -of labour. The master shipbuilders were furious at this -virtual defeat. The handbill is still extant which they -distributed at the doors of the House of Commons on the -day of the second reading of the emasculated Bill.<a id="FNanchor_191" href="#Footnote_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a> They -declared that its provisions were quite insufficient to save -their industry from destruction. If Trade Unions were to -be allowed to exist at all, they demanded that these bodies -should be compelled to render full accounts of their expenditure -to the justices in Quarter Sessions, and that any -diversion of monies raised for friendly society purposes -should be severely punished. They pleaded, moreover, -that at any rate all federal or combined action among trade -clubs should be prohibited. Place and Hume, on the other -hand, were afraid, and subsequent events proved with -what good grounds, that the narrow limits of the trade -combinations allowed by the Bill, and still more the vague -terms “molest” and “obstruct,” which it contained, -would be used as weapons against Trade Unionism. The -Government, however, held to the draft of the Committee. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</span> -The shipbuilders secured nothing. Hume induced Ministers -to give way on some verbal points, and took three divisions -in vain protest against the measure. Place carried on the -agitation to the House of Lords, where Lord Rosslyn -extracted the concession of a right of appeal to Quarter -Sessions, which was afterwards to prove of some practical -value.</p> - -<p>The Act of 1825 (6 Geo. IV. c. 129)<a id="FNanchor_192" href="#Footnote_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a>—which became -known among the manufacturers as “Peel’s Act”—though -it fell short of the measure which Place and Hume had so -skilfully piloted through Parliament the year before, effected -a real emancipation. The right of collective bargaining, -involving the power to withhold labour from the market by -concerted action, was for the first time expressly established. -And although many struggles remained to be fought before -the legal freedom of Trade Unionism was fully secured, no -overt attempt has since been made to render illegal this -first condition of Trade Union action. -<a id="FNanchor_193" href="#Footnote_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a></p> - -<p>It is a suggestive feature of this, as of other great reforms, -that the men whose faith in its principle, and whose -indefatigable industry and resolution carried it through, -were the only ones who proved altogether mistaken as to -its practical consequences. If we read the lesson of the -century aright, the manufacturer was not wholly wrong -when he protested that liberty of combination must make -the workers the ultimate authority in industry, although his -narrow fear as to the driving away of capital and commercial -skill and the reduction of the nation to a dead level of -anarchic pauperism were entirely contradicted by subsequent -developments. And the workman, to whom liberty -to combine opened up vistas of indefinite advancement of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</span> -his class at the expense of his oppressors, was, we now see, -looking rightly forward, though he, too, greatly miscalculated -the distance before him, and overlooked many arduous -stages of the journey. But what is to be said of the forecasts -of Place and the Philosophic Radicals? “Combinations,” -writes Place to Sir Francis Burdett in 1825, “will -soon cease to exist. Men have been kept together for long -periods only by the oppressions of the laws; these being -repealed, combinations will lose the matter which cements -them into masses, and they will fall to pieces. All will be -as orderly as even a Quaker could desire.... He knows -nothing of the working people who can suppose that, when -left at liberty to act for themselves without being driven -into permanent associations by the oppression of the laws, -they will continue to contribute money for distant and -doubtful experiments, for uncertain and precarious benefits. -If let alone, combinations—excepting now and then, and -for particular purposes under peculiar circumstances—will -cease to exist.” -<a id="FNanchor_194" href="#Footnote_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a></p> - -<p>It is pleasant to feel that Place was right in regarding -the repeal as beneficial and worthy of his best efforts in -its support; but in every less general respect he and his -allies were as wrong as it was possible for them to be. The -first disappointment, however, came to the workmen. Over -and over again they had found their demands for higher -wages parried only by the employers’ resort to the law, and -they now saw the way clear before them for an organised -attack upon their masters’ profits. Trades which had not -yet enjoyed permanent combinations began to organise in -the expectation of raising their wages to the level of those -of their more fortunate brethren. The Sheffield shop-assistants -combined to petition for early closing.<a id="FNanchor_195" href="#Footnote_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a> The -cotton-weavers of Lancashire met in delegate meeting at -Manchester in August 1824 to establish a permanent -organisation to prevent reductions in prices and to secure -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</span> -a uniform wage, the notice stating that it was by their -secret combinations that the tailors, joiners, and spinners -had succeeded in keeping up wages.<a id="FNanchor_196" href="#Footnote_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a> In the same month -the Manchester dyers turned out for an advance, and paraded -the streets, which they had placarded with their proposals.<a id="FNanchor_197" href="#Footnote_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a> -The Glasgow calender-men struck for a regular twelve hours’ -day, and carried their point. The success of the shipwrights -on the north-east coast<a id="FNanchor_198" href="#Footnote_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a> induced the London shipwrights -to convert their “Committee for conducting the -Business in the North” into the “Shipwrights’ Provident -Union of the Port of London,” which existed continuously -until its absorption in the twentieth century by the -national society dominating the trade.</p> - -<p>“Such is the rage for union societies,” reports the -<i>Sheffield Iris</i> of July 12, 1825, “that the sea apprentices in -Sunderland have actually had regular meetings every day -last week on the moor, and have resolved not to go on board -their ships unless the owners will allow them tea and sugar.” -Local trade clubs expanded, like the Manchester Steam-Engine -Makers’ Society, into national organisations. In -other cases corresponding clubs developed into federal -bodies. The object in all these cases was the same. The -preamble to the first rules of the Friendly Society of Operative -House Carpenters and Joiners of Great Britain, which -was established by a delegate meeting in London in 1827, -states that, “for the amelioration of the evils attendant on -our trade, and the advancement of the rights and privileges -of labour,” it was considered “absolutely necessary that a -firm compact of interests should exist between the whole of -the operative carpenters and joiners throughout the United -Kingdom of Great Britain.” -<a id="FNanchor_199" href="#Footnote_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</span></p> - -<p>Nor was it only in the multiplication of trade societies -that the expansion showed itself. A committee of delegates -from the London trades meeting during the summer of -1825 set on foot the <i>Trades Newspaper and Mechanics’ -Weekly Journal</i>, a sevenpenny stamped paper, with the -motto, “They helped every one his neighbour, and every -one said to his brother, ‘Be of good cheer.’”<a id="FNanchor_200" href="#Footnote_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a> A vigorous -attempt was made to promote Trade Union organisation -in all industries, and to bring to bear a body of instructed -working-class opinion upon the political situation of the -day. -<a id="FNanchor_201" href="#Footnote_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a></p> - -<p>The high hopes of which all this exultant activity was -the symptom were soon rudely dashed. The year 1825 -closed with a financial panic and widespread commercial -disaster. The four years that followed were years of contraction -and distress. Hundreds of thousands of workmen -in all trades lost their employment, and wages were reduced -all round. In many manufacturing districts the operatives -were kept from starvation only by public subscriptions.<a id="FNanchor_202" href="#Footnote_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a> -Strikes under these circumstances ended invariably in -disaster. A notable stand made by the Bradford woolcombers -and weavers in 1825 resulted in complete defeat -and the break-up of the Union. -<a id="FNanchor_203" href="#Footnote_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a></p> - -<p>During the greater part of the following year all Lancashire -was convulsed by incessant strikes of coal-miners and -textile workers against the repeated reductions of wages to -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</span> -which the employers resorted—strikes which were marred by -serious disorder, the destruction of many hundreds of looms, -and severe repression by the troops. -<a id="FNanchor_204" href="#Footnote_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a></p> - -<p>At Kidderminster, three years later, practically the whole -trade of the town was brought to a standstill by the carpet-weavers’ -six months’ resistance to a reduction of 17 per -cent in their wages<a id="FNanchor_205" href="#Footnote_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a>—a resistance in which the operatives -received the sympathy and support of many who did not -belong to their class. In the same year the silk-weavers of -London and other towns maintained an embittered resistance -to a further cut at wages.<a id="FNanchor_206" href="#Footnote_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a> The emancipated combinations -were no more able to resist reductions than the -secret ones had been, and in some instances the workmen -again resorted to violence and machine-breaking.</p> - -<p>For a moment the repeal seemed, after all, to have done -nothing but prove the futility of mere sectional combination, -and the working men turned back again from Trade -Union action to the larger aims and wider character of the -Radical and Socialistic agitations of the time, with which, -from 1829 to 1842, the Trade Union Movement became -inextricably entangled. This is the phase which furnishes -the theme of the following chapter.</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_111" href="#FNanchor_111" class="label">[111]</a>An elaborate account of this legislation will be found in <i>Labour -Legislation, Labour Movements, and Labour Leaders</i>, by G. Howell, 1902, -pp. 21-42.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_112" href="#FNanchor_112" class="label">[112]</a>Act of Common Council, November 22, 1750: Hughson’s <i>London</i>, -p. 422. There is evidence of at least one other club of painters in London -dating back to the eighteenth century, the “Original Society of Painters -and Glaziers” existing in 1779, which afterwards became the St. Martin’s -Society of Painters and Glaziers (<i>Beehive</i>, October 24, 1863).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_113" href="#FNanchor_113" class="label">[113]</a>This term was used to denote men who had not served a legal apprenticeship. -See “Rules and Regulations of the Journeymen Weavers,” -reprinted in Appendix No. 10 to Report on Combination Laws, 1825.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_114" href="#FNanchor_114" class="label">[114]</a>The case of R. <i>v.</i> the Journeymen Tailors of Cambridge in 1721 -(8 Mod. 10) is obscurely reported; and it is uncertain under what law the -men were convicted. See Wright’s <i>Law of Criminal Conspiracies and -Agreements</i>, p. 53.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_115" href="#FNanchor_115" class="label">[115]</a>See the petitions from Devonshire towns, House of Commons Journals, -1717, vol. xviii. p. 715, which, with others in subsequent years, led to a -Select Committee in 1726 (Journals, vol. xx. p. 648, March 31, 1726).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_116" href="#FNanchor_116" class="label">[116]</a>See, for instance, the Acts regulating the woollen industry, 12 Geo. I. -c. 34 (1725); against embezzlement or fraud by shoemakers, 9 Geo. I. -c. 27 (1729); relating to hatters, 22 Geo. II. c. 27 (1749); to silkweavers, -17 Geo. III. c. 55 (1777); and to papermaking, 36 Geo. III. c. 111 (1795). -Whitbread declared in the House of Commons that there were in 1800 no -fewer than forty such statutes.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_117" href="#FNanchor_117" class="label">[117]</a><i>A Full and Accurate Report of the Proceedings of the Petitioners, etc.</i> -By One of the Petitioners (London, January 1800, 19 pp.). A rare -pamphlet in the Goldsmiths’ Library at the University of London. “It -is remarkable,” says Mr. Justice Stephen, “that in the parliamentary -history for 1799 and 1800 there is no account of any debate on these Acts, -nor are they referred to in the Annual Register for those years” (<i>History -of the Criminal Law</i>, vol. iii. p. 208). That the measure excited some -interest in the textile districts may be inferred from the publication at -Leeds of a pamphlet entitled an <i>Abstract of an Act to prevent Unlawful -Combinations among Journeymen to raise Wages, etc.</i>(Leeds, 1799), which -is in the Manchester Public Library (P. 1735). Lord Holland’s speeches -against it are said to have been reprinted for distribution in Manchester -and Liverpool (Lady Holland’s <i>Journal</i>, vol. ii. p. 102).</p> - -<p>Mr. and Mrs. Hammond have now traced fairly full accounts of the -proceedings, elucidating the scanty references in the Journals of the House -of Commons and House of Lords for 1799-1800 by quotations from the -<i>Parliamentary Register</i>, the <i>Senator</i>, <i>The Times</i>, <i>London Chronicle</i>, <i>True -Briton</i>, and <i>Morning Post</i>. See <i>The Town Labourer</i>, 1917, ch. vii. pp. -111-42; also Cunningham, <i>Growth, etc.</i>, 1903, pp. 732-7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_118" href="#FNanchor_118" class="label">[118]</a><i>Times</i>, January 7, 1800; <i>Labour Legislation, Labour Movements, and -Labour Leaders</i>, by George Howell, 1902, p. 23.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_119" href="#FNanchor_119" class="label">[119]</a>39 and 40 George III. c. 90; see <i>Cunningham</i>, 1903, p. 634.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_120" href="#FNanchor_120" class="label">[120]</a>39 and 40 George III. c. 60; see, for all this, <i>The Town Labourer, -1760-1832</i>, by J. L. and B. Hammond, 1917, ch. vii. A case in which -an attempt to put the arbitration clauses in force was baulked by the -employers was mentioned to the Committee on Artisans and Machinery, -1824, p. 603.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_121" href="#FNanchor_121" class="label">[121]</a><i>Combinations of Workmen: Substance of the Speech of Francis Jeffrey -at the Dinner to Joseph Hume, M.P., at Edinburgh, November 18, 1825</i> -(Edinburgh, 1825).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_122" href="#FNanchor_122" class="label">[122]</a><i>Sheffield Iris</i>, March 23, 1814.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_123" href="#FNanchor_123" class="label">[123]</a>Place MSS. 27798—7. The Act of 1800 was scathingly denounced -by Cobbett in the <i>Political Register</i>, August 30, 1823.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_124" href="#FNanchor_124" class="label">[124]</a>This is a constant subject of complaint by other employers.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_125" href="#FNanchor_125" class="label">[125]</a>Introduction to the London Scale of Prices (in London Society of -Compositors’ volume).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_126" href="#FNanchor_126" class="label">[126]</a>House of Commons Return, No. 135, of 1834.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_127" href="#FNanchor_127" class="label">[127]</a>Advertisements in <i>Nottingham Journal</i>, 1794-1810.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_128" href="#FNanchor_128" class="label">[128]</a><i>Considerations addressed to the Journeymen Calico-Printers by one of -their Masters</i>(Manchester, 1815); see also the Report of House of -Commons Committee on the Case of the Calico-Printers, 1806.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_129" href="#FNanchor_129" class="label">[129]</a>Evidence before Committee on Artisans and Machinery, 1824, as -summarised in the <i>Report on Trade Societies</i>(1860) of the Social Science -Association: see also <i>A Digest of the Evidence before the Committee on -Artizans and Machinery</i>, by George White, 1824.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_130" href="#FNanchor_130" class="label">[130]</a><i>The Edinburgh Book of Prices for Manufacturing Cabinet Work</i> -(Edinburgh, 1805, 126 pp.), “as mutually agreed upon by the Masters -and Journeymen.” In 1825 the journeymen prepared a <i>Supplement</i>, -which, after the masters had concurred in it, was published by the men -(Edinburgh, 1825). Both these are in the Goldsmiths’ Library at the -University of London.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_131" href="#FNanchor_131" class="label">[131]</a><i>A Few Remarks on the State of the Laws at present in Existence for regulating -Masters and Workpeople</i>, 1823 (142 pp.), p. 84. Anonymous, but -evidently by George White and Gravener Henson.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_132" href="#FNanchor_132" class="label">[132]</a>See, for instance, <i>The Times</i> from 17th to 25th of June 1819.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_133" href="#FNanchor_133" class="label">[133]</a><i>An Account of the Rise and Progress of the Dispute between the Masters -and Journeymen Printers exemplified in the Trial at large, with Remarks -Thereon</i>, 1799, a rare pamphlet, in the Goldsmiths’ Library at the University -of London.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_134" href="#FNanchor_134" class="label">[134]</a>Place MSS. 27798—8; <i>Times</i>, November 9, 1810.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_135" href="#FNanchor_135" class="label">[135]</a>Report in <i>Manchester Exchange Herald</i>, preserved in Place MSS. -27799—156.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_136" href="#FNanchor_136" class="label">[136]</a><i>Bookfinishers’ Friendly Circular</i>, 1845-51, pp. 5, 21.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_137" href="#FNanchor_137" class="label">[137]</a>Bain’s <i>Merchant and Craft Gilds of Aberdeen</i>, p. 261. An earlier -combination of 1768 is also mentioned.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_138" href="#FNanchor_138" class="label">[138]</a>R. <i>v.</i> Hammond and Webb, 2 Esp. 719; see the <i>Morning Chronicle</i> -report, preserved in Place MSS. 27799—29.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_139" href="#FNanchor_139" class="label">[139]</a><i>Star</i>, November 26, 1799.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_140" href="#FNanchor_140" class="label">[140]</a>R. <i>v.</i> Connell and others, <i>Times</i>, July 10, 1819.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_141" href="#FNanchor_141" class="label">[141]</a>R. <i>v.</i> Ferguson and Edge, 2 St. 489.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_142" href="#FNanchor_142" class="label">[142]</a><i>Sheffield Iris</i>, December 17, 1816. The men’s clubs often existed -under the cloak of friendly societies. In the overseers’ return of sick -clubs, made to Parliament in 1815, the following trade friendly societies -are included, many of these, at any rate, being essentially Trade Unions:</p> - -<table summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Tailors,</td> -<td class="tdl">with</td> -<td class="tdr">360 members,</td> -<td class="tdr">and</td> -<td class="tdr">£740</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Braziers,</td> -<td class="tdl">with</td> -<td class="tdr">664 members,</td> -<td class="tdr">and</td> -<td class="tdr">1768</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Masons,</td> -<td class="tdl">with</td> -<td class="tdr">693 members,</td> -<td class="tdr">and</td> -<td class="tdr">1852</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Scissorsmiths,</td> -<td class="tdl">with</td> -<td class="tdr">550 members,</td> -<td class="tdr">and</td> -<td class="tdr">1309</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Filesmiths,</td> -<td class="tdl">with</td> -<td class="tdr">260 members,</td> -<td class="tdr">and</td> -<td class="tdr">600</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">United Silversmiths,</td> -<td class="tdl">with</td> -<td class="tdr">240 members,</td> -<td class="tdr">and</td> -<td class="tdr">299</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cutlers,</td> -<td class="tdl">with</td> -<td class="tdr">65 members,</td> -<td class="tdr">and</td> -<td class="tdr">450</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Grinders,</td> -<td class="tdl">with</td> -<td class="tdr">283 members</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td colspan="5" /><td class="tdr"><i>Sheffield Iris</i>, 1851.</td> -</tr> -</table> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_143" href="#FNanchor_143" class="label">[143]</a><i>A Few Remarks, etc.</i>, p. 86.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_144" href="#FNanchor_144" class="label">[144]</a>Committee on Artisans and Machinery, 1824, p. 395.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_145" href="#FNanchor_145" class="label">[145]</a>See the <i>Gorgon</i> for January and February 1819.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_146" href="#FNanchor_146" class="label">[146]</a>Second Report of Committee on Artisans and Machinery, 1824, p. 62. -For other cases, see <i>The Town Labourer</i>, by J. L. and B. Hammond, 1917, -pp. 130-33.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_147" href="#FNanchor_147" class="label">[147]</a>Throughout the century it seems to have been customary in most -handicrafts for the artisan to be allowed the privilege of apprenticing one -son, usually, the eldest, free of charge. For other boys, especially for the -sons of parents not belonging to the trade, a fee of £5 to £20 was exacted -by the employer. The secretary of the Old Amicable Society of Woolstaplers -thirty years ago informed us that, as his brother had already -entered the trade, his father had to pay £100 for his indentures.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_148" href="#FNanchor_148" class="label">[148]</a>To take, for instance, the cabinetmakers and millwrights. When -Lovett came to London in 1819 he found that he could not get employment -without joining the Union (<i>Life of William Lovett</i>, by himself). The -millwrights at the beginning of the century were so strongly organised—this -probably led to the engineering employers’ petition in 1799 out of -which the Combination Acts sprang—that when Fairbairn (after being -actually engaged at Rennie’s works) was refused admission into their -society, he was driven to tramp out of London in search of work in a -non-union district (<i>Life of Sir William Fairbairn</i>, by himself, 1877, -pp. 89, 92). For the last three-quarters of the century a considerable -proportion of the cabinetmakers and engineers employed in London have -been outside the Trade Union ranks.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_149" href="#FNanchor_149" class="label">[149]</a><i>Articles of the Society of Journeymen Brushmakers, held at the sign of -the Craven Head, Drury Lane</i>, 1806; Minutes, April 27, 1831.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_150" href="#FNanchor_150" class="label">[150]</a>John Gast, a shipwright of Deptford, was evidently one of the ablest -Trade Unionists of his time. We first hear of him in 1802, when there was -a serious strike in London that attracted the attention of the Government -(Home Office Papers in Record Office, 65—1, July and August 1802), as -the author of a striking pamphlet entitled <i>A Vindication of the Conduct of -the Shipwrights during the late disputes with their Employers</i>(1802, 38 pp.). -In 1818 he is found advocating the first recorded proposal for a general -workmen’s organisation, as distinguished from separate trade clubs—to -be described in our next chapter; and his <i>Articles of the Philanthropic -Hercules for the Mutual Support of the Labouring Mechanics</i>, which were -printed in the <i>Gorgon</i>, attracted the attention of Francis Place, who described -him (Place MSS, 27819—23) as having “long been secretary to the -Shipwrights’ Club: he was a steady, respectable man. He had formed -several associations of working men, but had been unable to keep up any -one of them.” He became one of Place’s most useful allies in the agitation -for a repeal of the Combination Laws, and when, in 1825, their re-enactment -was threatened, his “committee of trades delegates” was Place’s strongest -support. Gast was the leading spirit in the establishment of the <i>Trades -Newspaper</i> in July 1825, and became chairman of the committee of -management, as well as a frequent contributor. In the same year he was -actively engaged in the shipwrights’ struggle for a “Book of Rates,” or -definite list of piecework prices, and the energy with which he counteracted -the design of the Board of Admiralty, of allowing the London shipbuilders -to borrow men from the Portsmouth Navy Yard, contributed -mainly to the success of the fight.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_151" href="#FNanchor_151" class="label">[151]</a>Place MSS. 27800—195.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_152" href="#FNanchor_152" class="label">[152]</a>Place MSS. 27798—11; and <i>The Town Labourer, 1760-1832</i>, by -J. L. and B. Hammond, 1917. Between 1798-1803 and 1804-16 the -piecework wages for handloom cotton weaving were reduced in some cases -by 80 per cent at a time of war prices (<i>Geschichte der englischen Lohnarbeit</i>, -by Gustav Steffen, Stuttgart, 1900, vol. ii. pp. 19-20). See <i>History -of Wages in the Cotton Trade during the Past Hundred Years</i>, by G. H. -Wood, 1910; and Cunningham, <i>Growth, etc.</i>, 1903, p. 634.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_153" href="#FNanchor_153" class="label">[153]</a>See on all these points the evidence given before the Committee on -Artisans and Machinery, 1824; especially that of Richmond.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_154" href="#FNanchor_154" class="label">[154]</a>Letter to the local Major-General, June 15, 1812, in Home Office -Papers, 40—1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_155" href="#FNanchor_155" class="label">[155]</a><i>Ibid.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_156" href="#FNanchor_156" class="label">[156]</a><i>The Town Labourer, 1760-1832</i>, by J. L. and B. Hammond, 1917, -p. 15. Whether Gravener Henson, the bobbin-net maker of Nottingham, -subsequently author of a <i>History of the Framework-Knitters</i>(1831), who had -long been a leader of the Framework-knitters, was the “King Lud” -under whose orders the machine-breakers often purported to act, is yet -unproven (<i>Life of Francis Place</i>, by Prof. Graham Wallas, revised edition, -1918). The Report of the House of Commons Committee on the Framework-knitters’ -petitions (1812) affords evidence of the all-pervading misery -of the time. For other glimpses of the Luddite organisation, see <i>An -Appeal to the Public, containing an account of services rendered during the -disturbances in the North of England in the year 1812</i>, by Francis Raynes, -1817 (in Home Office Papers, 40); <i>Report of Proceedings under Commission -of Oyer and Terminer, January 2 to 12, 1813, at York</i>, by J. and W. B. -Gurney, 1813; <i>Digest of Evidence of Committee on Artizans and Machinery</i>, -by George White, 1824 (see p. 36, Richmond’s evidence as to the appeals of -the Luddites to the Glasgow cotton-spinners); and <i>Annual Register</i>, 1812.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_157" href="#FNanchor_157" class="label">[157]</a>Evidence of a colliery engineer in the Newcastle district before -Committee on Combination Laws, 1825; summarised in <i>Report on Trade -Societies</i>, 1860, by Social Science Association. See also <i>A Voice from the -Coalmines</i>, 1825; <i>A Candid Appeal to the Coalowners and Viewers of -Collieries on the Tyne and Wear, including a copy of the Collier’s Bond, with -Animadversions thereon and a series of proposed Amendments, from the -Committee of the Colliers’ United Association</i>, 1826 (in Home Office Papers, -H.O. 40 (19), with Lord Londonderry’s letter of February 28, 1826); <i>The -Miners of Northumberland and Durham</i>, by Richard Fynes, pp. 12-16 -(1873); <i>An Earnest Address ... on behalf of the Pitmen</i>, by W. Scott, 1831.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_158" href="#FNanchor_158" class="label">[158]</a>See Appendix to Report of Select Committee on Combinations, 1825.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_159" href="#FNanchor_159" class="label">[159]</a>R. <i>v.</i> Yates and Others, Liverpool Sessions, August 10, 1823. See -newspaper report preserved in Place MSS. 27804—154.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_160" href="#FNanchor_160" class="label">[160]</a>The entries in this old cash-book are of some interest:</p> - -<table summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt">May</td> -<td class="tdr tdt">29,</td> -<td class="tdl tdt">1810</td> -<td class="tdl">Paid ye Brushmakers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">£15</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt"></td> -<td class="tdr tdt"></td> -<td class="tdl tdt"></td> -<td class="tdl">Lent ye Brushmakers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">10</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt"></td> -<td class="tdr tdt"></td> -<td class="tdl tdt"></td> -<td class="tdl">Paid ye Friziers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">20</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt">June</td> -<td class="tdr tdt">26,</td> -<td class="tdl tdt">1810</td> -<td class="tdl">Paid ye Silversmiths</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">10</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt"></td> -<td class="tdr tdt"></td> -<td class="tdl tdt"></td> -<td class="tdl">Expenses to Pipemakers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">4</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">10</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt">July</td> -<td class="tdr tdt">24,</td> -<td class="tdl tdt">1810</td> -<td class="tdl">Paid ye Braziers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">10</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">10</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt"></td> -<td class="tdr tdt"></td> -<td class="tdl tdt"></td> -<td class="tdl">Paid ye Bookbinders</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">10</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt"></td> -<td class="tdr tdt"></td> -<td class="tdl tdt"></td> -<td class="tdl">Paid ye Curriers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">10</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt">Aug.</td> -<td class="tdr tdt">21,</td> -<td class="tdl tdt">1810</td> -<td class="tdl">Lent ye Bit and Spurmakers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">5</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt"></td> -<td class="tdr tdt"></td> -<td class="tdl tdt"></td> -<td class="tdl">Lent ye Scalemakers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">5</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt"></td> -<td class="tdr tdt"></td> -<td class="tdl tdt"></td> -<td class="tdl">Paid ye Leathergrounders</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">5</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt">Oct.</td> -<td class="tdr tdt">26,</td> -<td class="tdl tdt">1810</td> -<td class="tdl">Paid ye Tinplate Workers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">30</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt">Dec.</td> -<td class="tdr tdt">11,</td> -<td class="tdl tdt">1810</td> -<td class="tdl">Lent ye Ropemakers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">10</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt">May</td> -<td class="tdr tdt">30,</td> -<td class="tdl tdt">1811</td> -<td class="tdl">Received of Scale Beam-makers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">5</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt">June</td> -<td class="tdr tdt">25,</td> -<td class="tdl tdt">1811</td> -<td class="tdl">Expenses with Papermakers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">12</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">6</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt">July</td> -<td class="tdr tdt">20,</td> -<td class="tdl tdt">1812</td> -<td class="tdl">Lent ye Sadlers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">10</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt">Oct.</td> -<td class="tdr tdt">12,</td> -<td class="tdl tdt">1812</td> -<td class="tdl">Paid to Millwrights</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">50</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl tdt">Dec.</td> -<td class="tdr tdt">7,</td> -<td class="tdl tdt">1812</td> -<td class="tdl">Borrowed from the Musical Instrument-makers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">2</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdb">0</td> -</tr> -</table> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_161" href="#FNanchor_161" class="label">[161]</a>Home Office Papers, 40—18, March 31, 1823.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_162" href="#FNanchor_162" class="label">[162]</a>See report in the <i>Manchester Exchange Herald</i>, about 1818, preserved -in Place MSS. 27799—156.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_163" href="#FNanchor_163" class="label">[163]</a>See, for instance, the witnesses delegated by the Glasgow and Manchester -trades to the Select Committee on Petitions of Artisans, etc., report -of June 13, 1811; or the joint action of the Yorkshire and West of England -Woollen-workers given in evidence before the Select Committee of 1806. -These cases are typical of many others.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_164" href="#FNanchor_164" class="label">[164]</a>Printed handbill signed by thirty-two persons, issued in the summer -of 1816, preserved in Place MSS. 27799—141. Place has also preserved -the rejoinder of the workmen, which is unsigned, as he notes, for fear of -prosecution.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_165" href="#FNanchor_165" class="label">[165]</a><i>The Stocking Makers’ Monitor</i>, January 1818; <i>A few Remarks on the -State of the Law, etc.</i>, by White and Henson, p. 88; <i>An Appeal to the Public -on the subject of the Framework-Knitters’ Fund</i>, by the Rev. Robert Hall -(Leicester, 1819); Cobbett’s <i>Weekly Register</i>, vol. xxxix.; <i>A Reply to the -Principal Objections advanced by Cobbett and Others</i>, by the Rev. Robert -Hall (Leicester, 1821); <i>Digest of Evidence before the Committee on Artizans -and Machinery</i>, by George White, 1824.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_166" href="#FNanchor_166" class="label">[166]</a><i>Proceedings at a public Meeting of the Inhabitants of the Township of -Sheffield, held at the Town Hall, March 15, 1820</i>(Sheffield, 1820, 16 pp.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_167" href="#FNanchor_167" class="label">[167]</a><i>Times</i>, August 5, 1819.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_168" href="#FNanchor_168" class="label">[168]</a>Evidence of Sir William Rae, Bart., before Select Committee on -Artisans and Machinery, 1824, p. 486.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_169" href="#FNanchor_169" class="label">[169]</a>An admirable biography has now been written, <i>The Life of Francis -Place, 1771-1854</i>, by Prof. Graham Wallas; first edition, 1898; revised -edition, 1918.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_170" href="#FNanchor_170" class="label">[170]</a>Place MSS. 27798—8, 12, etc.; <i>Times</i>, November 9, 1810; <i>The -Tailoring Trade</i>, by F. W. Galton, 1896, pp. 110-11.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_171" href="#FNanchor_171" class="label">[171]</a>See the petitions of the Master Manufacturers of Glasgow, Lancashire, -and Nottinghamshire, in the Home Office Papers (42—141, 149, 150, 195, -etc.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_172" href="#FNanchor_172" class="label">[172]</a>When Place in 1824 urged the “Committee of Engine Silk-weavers” -of Spitalfields to petition for a repeal of the Combination Laws, the meeting -“Resolved, that protected as we have been for years under the salutary -laws and wisdom of the Legislature, and being completely unapprehensive -of any sort of combination on our part, we cannot therefore take any sort -of notice of the invitation held out by Mr. Place.” When this resolution -was put by the chairman, “an unanimous burst of applause followed, -with a multitude of voices exclaiming, ‘The law, cling to the law, it will -protect us!’” Place MSS. 27800—52; <i>Morning Chronicle</i>, February 9, -1824.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_173" href="#FNanchor_173" class="label">[173]</a>The volumes for 1818-19 are in the British Museum.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_174" href="#FNanchor_174" class="label">[174]</a>The story has now been well told in <i>The Life of Francis Place</i>, by -Prof. Graham Wallas, revised edition, 1918, ch. viii.; and in <i>The Town -Labourer</i>, by J. L. and B. Hammond, 1917, ch. vii. A few other details -will be found in <i>Digest of Evidence before the Committee on Artisans -and Machinery</i>, by George White, 1824, and in <i>Labour Legislation, Labour -Movements, and Labour Leaders</i>, by G. Howell, 1902, pp. 43-57.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_175" href="#FNanchor_175" class="label">[175]</a>In 1823 George White, a “clerk of committees” of the House of -Commons, had formed an alliance with Gravener Henson, the bobbin-net -maker of Nottingham, who had long been a leader of the framework-knitters’ -combinations, to whom reference has been made in preceding pages. -Together they prepared an elaborate Bill repealing all the Combination -Acts, and substituting a complicated machinery for regulating piecework -and settling industrial disputes. Some of these proposals were meritorious -anticipations of subsequent factory legislation; but the time was not -ripe for such measures. This Bill, promptly introduced by Peter Moore, -the member for Coventry, had the effect of scaring some timid legislators, -and especially alarming the Front Bench. Hume was at a loss to know -how to act; but Place, in a letter displaying great political sagacity, -advised him to baulk the rival Bill by putting its author on the Committee -of Inquiry, explaining that “Moore is not a man to be put aside. The -only way to put him down is to let him talk his nonsense in the Committee, -where, being outvoted, he will be less of an annoyance in the House.” -See Place MSS. 27798—12.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_176" href="#FNanchor_176" class="label">[176]</a>Place MSS. 27798—30.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_177" href="#FNanchor_177" class="label">[177]</a>This attracted the attention of the Home Secretary (Home Office -Papers, 40—18).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_178" href="#FNanchor_178" class="label">[178]</a>Place offered to act as Hume’s “assistant”; but the members of -the Committee, whose suspicions had been aroused, refused to permit him -to remain in the room, on the double ground that he was not a member of -the House, nor even a gentleman!</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_179" href="#FNanchor_179" class="label">[179]</a>Place MSS. 27798—22.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_180" href="#FNanchor_180" class="label">[180]</a><i>Ibid.</i> 27798—23.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_181" href="#FNanchor_181" class="label">[181]</a>Place MS. 27798—22.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_182" href="#FNanchor_182" class="label">[182]</a>The Act was 5 George IV. c. 95. The question of the exportation of -machinery was deferred until the next session.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_183" href="#FNanchor_183" class="label">[183]</a>Letter in the <i>Manchester Gazette</i>, preserved in the Place MSS. -27801—214.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_184" href="#FNanchor_184" class="label">[184]</a>MS. Report of Nassau Senior to Lord Melbourne on Trade Combinations -(1831; unpublished; in Home Office Library).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_185" href="#FNanchor_185" class="label">[185]</a><i>Sheffield Iris</i>, April 2, 1825.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_186" href="#FNanchor_186" class="label">[186]</a><i>Sheffield Mercury</i>, October 8, 1825; see the <i>Manchester Guardian</i> for -August 1824 to a similar effect.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_187" href="#FNanchor_187" class="label">[187]</a>Later in the year Lord Liverpool, the Prime Minister, and Lord -Eldon, the Lord Chancellor, protested in debate that they had been quite -unaware of the passing of the Act, and that they would never have assented -to it.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_188" href="#FNanchor_188" class="label">[188]</a>The <i>Annual Register</i> for 1825 gives a fuller report of Huskisson’s -speech than Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. Further particulars are -supplied in George White’s <i>Abstract of the Act repealing the Laws against -Combinations of Workmen</i>(1824); in Place’s <i>Observations on Mr. Huskisson’s -Speech on the Law relating to Combinations of Workmen</i>, by F. P. (1825, -32 pp.); in Wallas’s <i>Life of Francis Place</i>, revised edition, 1918, ch. viii.; -in Hammond’s <i>The Town Labourer</i>, ch. vii.; and in Howell’s <i>Labour -Legislation, Labour Movements, and Labour Leaders</i>, pp. 51-7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_189" href="#FNanchor_189" class="label">[189]</a>This included a provision to forbid the subscription of any funds to a -trade or other association, unless some magistrate approved its objects -and became its treasurer.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_190" href="#FNanchor_190" class="label">[190]</a>Place MSS. 27803—299.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_191" href="#FNanchor_191" class="label">[191]</a><i>Ibid.</i> 27803—212.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_192" href="#FNanchor_192" class="label">[192]</a>Home Office Papers, letter of January 3, 1832 (H.O. 40—30).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_193" href="#FNanchor_193" class="label">[193]</a>It is pleasant to record that some of the workmen expressed their -gratitude for Francis Place’s indefatigable services. “Soon after the -proceedings in 1825 were closed,” he writes, “the seamen of the Tyne and -Wear sent me a handsome silver vase, paid for by a penny-a-week subscription; -and the cutlers of Sheffield sent me an incomparable set of -knives and forks in a case” (Place MSS. 27798—66).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_194" href="#FNanchor_194" class="label">[194]</a>June 25, 1825. <i>Ibid.</i> 27798—57.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_195" href="#FNanchor_195" class="label">[195]</a><i>Sheffield Iris</i>, September 27, 1825.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_196" href="#FNanchor_196" class="label">[196]</a>Handbill preserved in Place MSS. 27803—255.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_197" href="#FNanchor_197" class="label">[197]</a><i>Manchester Guardian</i>, August 7, 1824; see also <i>On Combinations of -Trades</i>(1830).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_198" href="#FNanchor_198" class="label">[198]</a>This is expressly stated in the preamble to the rules adopted at the -meeting on August 16, 1824, and recorded in the first minute-book.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_199" href="#FNanchor_199" class="label">[199]</a>This society afterwards developed into the existing General Union -of Carpenters and Joiners of Great Britain.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_200" href="#FNanchor_200" class="label">[200]</a>Two rival journals, <i>The Journeyman’s and Artisan’s London and -Provincial Chronicle</i>, and <i>The Mechanic’s Newspaper and Trade Journal</i>, -were also started, but soon expired.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_201" href="#FNanchor_201" class="label">[201]</a>The <i>Trades Newspaper</i> was managed by a committee of eleven -delegates from different trades, of which John Gast was chairman, and was -edited, at first by Mr. Baines, son of the proprietor of the <i>Leeds Mercury</i>, -and afterwards by a Mr. Anderson. <i>The Laws and Regulations of the -Trades Newspaper</i>(1825, 12 pp.) are preserved in the Place MSS. 27803—414. -The issues from July 17, 1825, to its amalgamation with <i>The Trades Free -Press</i> in 1828, are in the British Museum.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_202" href="#FNanchor_202" class="label">[202]</a>£232,000 was raised by one committee alone between 1826 and 1829. -See <i>Report of the Committee appointed at a Public Meeting at the City of -London Tavern. May 2, 1826, to relieve the Manufacturers</i>, by W. H. Hyett, -1829.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_203" href="#FNanchor_203" class="label">[203]</a><i>Wool and Wool-combing</i>, by Burnley, p. 169.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_204" href="#FNanchor_204" class="label">[204]</a>Home Office Papers, 40—20, 21, etc.; <i>Annual Register</i>, 1826, pp. 63, -70, 111, 128; Walpole’s <i>History of England</i>, vol. ii. p. 141.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_205" href="#FNanchor_205" class="label">[205]</a><i>A Letter to the Carpet Manufacturers of Kidderminster</i>, by the Rev. -H. Price (1828, 16 pp.); <i>A Letter to the Rev. H. Price, upon the Tendency of -Certain Publications of his</i>, by Oppidanus, 1828; and <i>A Verbatim Report -of the Trial of the Rev. Humphrey Price upon a Criminal Information by the -Kidderminster Carpet Manufacturers for Alleged Inflammatory Publications -during the Turn-out of the Weavers</i>, 1829.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_206" href="#FNanchor_206" class="label">[206]</a><i>Resolutions of the Meeting of Journeymen Broad Silk Weavers at -Spitalfields, April 16, 1829</i>; in Home Office Papers, 40—23, 24. See, for -this period, Cunningham’s <i>Growth of English Industry and Commerce in -Modern Times</i>, 1903, pp. 759-762; and also <i>The Skilled Labourer</i>, by -J. L. and B. Hammond, 1919, published too late for us to make use of its -interesting descriptions of the principal trades.</p> - -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III</h2> -</div> - -<p class="h2sub">THE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD<br /> -[1829-1842]</p> - -<p>So far we have been mainly concerned with societies formed -in particular trades, nearly always confined to particular -localities, and known as institutions, associations, trade -clubs, trade societies, unions, and union societies. We have -by anticipation applied the term Trade Union to them in -its modern sense; but in no case that we have discovered -did they call themselves so. It is in the leading articles of -the newspapers of 1830-4 that we first come upon references -to some great Power of Darkness vaguely described as “the -Trades Union.” We find, moreover, that there was in that -day, as there has been repeatedly since, an Old Unionism -and a New Unionism, and that “the Trades Union” represented -the New Unionism, and the trade club, or Trade -Union, as we have called it, the Old. The distinction between -a Trade Union and a Trades Union is exactly that -which the names imply. A Trade Union is a combination -of the members of one trade; a Trades Union is a combination -of different trades. “<i>The</i> Trades Union,” the bugbear -of the <i>Times</i> in 1834, means the ideal at which the -Trades Unionists aimed: that is, a complete union of all -the workers in the country in a single national Trades -Union. The peculiar significance of Trades Union as distinguished -from Trade Union must be carefully borne in -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</span> -mind throughout this chapter, as it has passed out of use -and occurs now only as a literary blunder. Our present -unions of workers in different though related trades are -usually called Amalgamations or Federations. But both -Amalgamations and Federations, being definitely limited -to similar or related and interdependent trades, are in idea -essentially Trade Unions. The distinctive connotation of -the term Trades Union was the ideal of complete solidarity -of all wage-workers in “One Big Union”—that is to say, -a single “universal” organisation. It is the attempt, -on the part of the Trade Union leaders, to form not only -national societies of particular trades, but also to include -all manual workers in one comprehensive organisation, -that constitutes the New Unionism of 1829-34. -<a id="FNanchor_207" href="#Footnote_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a></p> - -<p>We are not altogether without information as to the -genesis of the idea. The first attempt at a General Trades -Union of which we have any record is that of the “Philanthropic -Society” or “Philanthropic Hercules” of 1818. -This we hear of almost simultaneously in Manchester, the -Potteries and London, though it seems to have originated -in first-named town. A meeting of workmen of various -trades, held at Manchester in August 1818, convinced of -the impotence of isolated Trade Clubs, sought to establish -a society on a federal basis, each constituent trade raising -its own funds and separately moving for advances or -resisting reductions; but pledged first to consult the committee -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</span> -and the other trades, and promised the support -of all, both in approved trade movements and in case of -legal prosecution or oppression. A committee of eleven -was to be chosen by ballot, one-third retiring monthly by -rotation; and was to be assisted by a similar local organisation -in each town.<a id="FNanchor_208" href="#Footnote_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a> How far the “General Union,” as -the “Philanthropic Society” seems also to have been called, -got under way in Lancashire or Staffordshire remains -uncertain; but in London the idea was taken up by one -of the ablest Trade Unionists of the time—the shipwright -John Gast, whom we have already mentioned as an ally of -Francis Place, who became president and called upon “the -general body of mechanics” to subscribe a penny per -week to a central fund for the defence of their common -interests. -<a id="FNanchor_209" href="#Footnote_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a></p> - -<p>Whether anything came of the attempts at a General -Union in 1818-19 we have not discovered, but in all probability -the project immediately failed. Seven years later -a similar effort met with no greater success. “In 1826,” -as we incidentally learn from a subsequent Labour journal,<a id="FNanchor_210" href="#Footnote_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a> -“a Trades Union was formed in Manchester, which extended -slightly to some of the surrounding districts, and embraced -several trades in each; but it expired before it was so much -as known a large majority of the operatives in the neighbourhood.”</p> - -<p>What was aimed at is clear enough. It was being -recommended to the workmen by some of their intellectual -advisers. An able pamphlet of 1827 tells them that -“Against the competition of the underpaid of surrounding -trades, the ready remedy is a central union of all the general -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</span> -unions of all the trades of the country. The remuneration -of all the different branches of artisans and mechanics in -the country might then be fixed at those rates which would -leave such an equalised remuneration to all as would take -away any temptation from those in one branch to transfer -their skill in order to undersell the labour of the well-remunerated -in another branch: the Central Union fund -being always ready to assist the unemployed in any particular -branch, when their own local and general funds -were exhausted; provided always their claims to support -were by the Central Union deemed to be just.” -<a id="FNanchor_211" href="#Footnote_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a></p> - -<p>Experience seems to show that national organisation -of particular trades must precede the formation of any -General Trades Union; and it was in this way that the -project now took form. In 1829 we see renewed attempts -at national organisation, in which the Lancashire and -Yorkshire textile and building operatives were pioneers. -The year 1829, closing the long depression of trade which -began in the autumn of 1825, after the repeal of the Combination -Laws, witnessed the establishment of important -national Unions in both industries, but that of the Cotton-spinners -claims precedence in respect of its more rapid -development.</p> - -<p>The Cotton-spinners’ trade clubs of Lancashire date -apparently from 1792, and they spread, within a generation, -to thirty or forty towns, remaining always strictly -local organisations. In the early years of the nineteenth -century attempts had been made by the Glasgow Spinners -to unite the Lancashire and Scottish organisations in a -national association; but these attempts had not resulted -in more than temporary alliances in particular emergencies. -The rapid improvement of spinning machinery, and the -enterprise of the Lancashire millowners, were, at the date -of the repeal of the Combination Laws, shifting the centre -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</span> -of the trade from Glasgow to Manchester; and it was the -Lancashire Cotton-spinners who now took the lead in trade -matters. The failure of a disastrous six months’ strike -in 1829 at Hyde, near Manchester, led to the conviction -that no local Union could succeed against a combination -of employers; and the spinners’ societies of England, -Scotland, and Ireland were therefore invited to send delegates -to a conference to be held at Ramsay, in the Isle of Man, -in the month of December 1829.</p> - -<p>This delegate meeting, of which there is an excellent -report,<a id="FNanchor_212" href="#Footnote_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a> lasted for nearly a week. The proceedings were of -a remarkably temperate character, the discussions turning -chiefly on the relative advantages of one supreme executive -to be established at Manchester, and three co-equal national -executives for England, Scotland, and Ireland. No secrecy -was attempted. John Doherty,<a id="FNanchor_213" href="#Footnote_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a> secretary and leader of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</span> -the Manchester Cotton-spinners, advocated a central executive; -while Thomas Foster (a man of independent means -who attended the conference at his own expense) favoured -a scheme of home rule. Eventually a “Grand General -Union of the United Kingdom” was established, subject -to an annual delegate meeting and three national committees. -The union was to include all male spinners and -piecers, the women and girls being urged to form separate -organisations, which were to receive all the aid of the whole -confederation in supporting them to obtain “men’s prices.” -The union was to promote local action for a further legislative -restriction of the hours of labour, to apply to all -persons under 21 years of age. Its income consisted of a -contribution of a penny per week per member, to be levied -in addition to the contribution to the local society. Doherty -was general secretary, and Foster and a certain Patrick -McGowan were appointed to organise the spinners throughout -the United Kingdom.</p> - -<p>The Boroughreeve and Constables of Manchester, on -May 26, 1830, wrote in alarm to Sir Robert Peel: “The -combination of workmen, long acknowledged a great evil, -and one most difficult to counteract, has recently assumed -so formidable and systematic a shape in this district that -we feel it our duty to lay before you some of its most alarming -features.... A committee of delegates from the operative -spinners of the three Kingdoms have established an annual -assembly in the Isle of Man to direct the proceedings of the -general body towards their employers, the orders for which -they promulgate to their respective districts and subcommittees. -To these orders the most implicit deference -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</span> -is shown; and a weekly levy or rent of one penny per head -on each operative is cheerfully paid. This produces a large -sum, and is a powerful engine, and principally to support -those who have turned out against their employers, -agreeable to the orders of the committee, at the rate -of ten shillings per week for each person. The plan of -a general turnout having been found to be impolitic, -they have employed it in detail, against particular -individuals or districts, who, attacked thus singly, are -frequently compelled to submit to their terms rather -than to the ruin which would ensue to many by allowing -their machinery (in which their whole capital is invested) -to stand idle.” -<a id="FNanchor_214" href="#Footnote_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a></p> - -<p>Whether this Cotton-spinners’ Federation, as we should -call it, became really representative of the three kingdoms -does not appear. A second general delegate meeting was -held at Manchester in December 1830, which intervened -in the great spinners’ strike then in progress at Ashton-under-Lyne. -At this conference the constitution of 1829 -was re-enacted with some alterations. The three national -executives were apparently replaced by an executive council -of three members elected by the Manchester Society, to be -reinforced at its monthly meetings by two delegates chosen -in turn by each of the neighbouring districts. A general -delegate meeting seems also to have been held, attended by -one delegate from each of the couple of scores of towns in -which there were local clubs.<a id="FNanchor_215" href="#Footnote_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a> Foster was appointed general -secretary; and a committee was ordered to draw up a -general list of prices, for which purpose one member in each -mill was directed to send up a copy of the list by which he -was paid. Although another delegate meeting of this -“Grand General Union” was fixed for Whit Monday 1831 -at Liverpool, no further record of its existence can be traced. -It is probable that the attempt to include Scotland and -Ireland proved a failure, and that the union had dwindled -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</span> -into a federation of Lancashire societies, mainly preoccupied -in securing a legislative restriction of the hours of -labour. -<a id="FNanchor_216" href="#Footnote_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a></p> - -<p>But the National Union of Cotton-spinners prepared -the way for the more ambitious project of the Trades -Union. Doherty, who seems to have resigned his official -connection with the Cotton-spinners’ Union, conceived the -idea of a National Association, not of one trade alone, but -of all classes of wage-earners. Already in May 1829 we -find him, as Secretary of the Manchester Cotton-spinners, -writing to acknowledge a gift of ten pounds from the Liverpool -Sailmakers, and expressing “a hope that our joint -efforts may eventually lead to a Grand General Union of -all trades throughout the United Kingdom.”<a id="FNanchor_217" href="#Footnote_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a> At his -instigation a meeting of delegates from twenty organised -trades was held at Manchester in February 1830, which -ended in the establishment, five months later, of the -National Association for the Protection of Labour. The -express object of this society was to resist reductions, but -not to strike for advances. In an eloquent address to -working men of all trades, the new Association appealed to -them to unite for their own protection and in order to -maintain “the harmony of society” which is destroyed by -their subjection. How is it, the Association asks, that -whilst everything else increases—knowledge, wealth, civil -and religious liberty, churches, madhouses, and prisons—the -circumstances of the working man become ever worse? -“He, the sole producer of food and raiment, is, it appears, -destined to sink whilst others rise.” To prevent this evil -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</span> -the Association is formed.<a id="FNanchor_218" href="#Footnote_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a> Its constitution appears to -have been largely borrowed from that of the contemporary -Cotton-spinners, which it resembled in being a combination, -not of directly enlisted individuals, but of existing separate -societies, each of which paid an entrance fee of a pound, -together with a shilling for each of its members, and contributed -at the rate of a penny per week per head of its -membership. Doherty was the first secretary, and the -Association appears very soon to have enrolled about 150 -separate Unions, mostly in Lancashire, Cheshire, Derby, -Nottingham, and Leicester. The trades which joined were -mainly connected with the various textile industries—the -cotton-spinners, hosiery-workers, calico-printers, and silk-weavers -taking a leading part. The Association also -included numerous societies of mechanics, moulders, black-smiths, -and many miscellaneous trades. The building -trades were scarcely represented—a fact to be accounted -for by the contemporary existence of the Builders’ Union -hereafter described. The list<a id="FNanchor_219" href="#Footnote_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a> of the receipts of the Association -for the first nine months of its existence includes payments -amounting to £1866, a sum which indicates a membership -of between 10,000 and 20,000, spread over the five -counties already mentioned. A vigorous propaganda was -carried on throughout the northern and midland counties -by its officials, who succeeded in establishing a weekly -paper, the <i>United Trades Co-operative Journal</i>, which was -presently brought to an end by the intervention of the -Commissioners of Stamps, who insisted on each number -bearing a fourpenny stamp.<a id="FNanchor_220" href="#Footnote_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a> Undeterred by this failure, -the committee undertook the more serious task of starting -a sevenpenny stamped weekly, and requested Francis Place -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</span> -to become the treasurer of an accumulated fund. “The -subscription,” writes Place to John Cam Hobhouse, December -5, 1830, “extends from Birmingham to the Clyde; the -committee sits at Manchester; and the money collected -amounts to about £3000, and will, they tell me, shortly be -as much as £5000, with which sum, when raised, they propose -to commence a weekly newspaper to be called the -<i>Voice of the People</i>.” Accordingly in January 1831 appeared -the first number of what proved to be an excellent weekly -journal, the object of which was declared to be “to unite -the productive classes of the community in one common -bond of union.” Besides full weekly reports of the committee -meetings of the National Association at Manchester -and Nottingham, this newspaper, ably edited by John -Doherty, gave great attention to Radical politics, including -the Repeal of the Union with Ireland, and the progress of -revolution on the Continent. -<a id="FNanchor_221" href="#Footnote_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a></p> - -<p>From the reports published in the <i>Voice of the People</i> -we gather that the first important action of the Association -was in connection with the almost continuous strikes of the -cotton-spinners at Ashton-under-Lyne, which flamed up -into a sustained conflict on a large scale, during which -Ashton, a young millowner, was murdered by some unknown -person in the winter of 1830-31, in resistance to a new list -of prices arbitrarily imposed by the Association of Master -Spinners in Ashton, Dukinfield, and Stalybridge.<a id="FNanchor_222" href="#Footnote_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a> Considerable -sums were raised by way of levy for the support -of the strike, the Nottingham trades subscribing liberally. -But the Association soon experienced a check. In February -1831 a new secretary decamped with £100. This -led a delegate meeting at Nottingham, in April 1831, to -decree that each Union should retain in hand the money -contributed by its own members. But the usual failings -of unions of various trades quickly showed themselves. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</span> -The refusal of the Lancashire branches to support the -great Nottingham strike which immediately ensued led -to the defection of the Nottingham members. Nevertheless -the Association was spreading over new ground. We -hear of delegates from Lancashire inducing thousands of -colliers in Derbyshire to join, whilst other trades, and even -the agricultural labourers, were talking about it.<a id="FNanchor_223" href="#Footnote_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a> At the end -of April a delegate meeting at Bolton, representing nine -thousand coalminers of Staffordshire, Yorkshire, Cheshire, -and Wales, resolved to join. The Belfast trades applied -for affiliation. In Leeds nine thousand members were -enrolled, chiefly among the woollen-workers. Missionaries -were sent to organise the Staffordshire potters; and a -National Potters’ Union, extending throughout the country, -was established and affiliated. All this activity lends a -certain credibility to the assertion, made in various quarters, -that the Association numbered one hundred thousand -members, and that the <i>Voice of the People</i>, published at -7d. weekly, enjoyed the then enormous circulation of thirty -thousand.</p> - -<p>Here at last we have substance given to the formidable -idea of “the Trades Union.” It was soon worked up by -the newspapers to a pitch at which it alarmed the employers, -dismally excited the imaginations of the middle class, and -compelled the attention of the Government. But there -was no cause for apprehension. Lack of funds made the -Association little more than a name. Practically no trade -action is reported in such numbers of its organ as are still -extant. The business of the Manchester Committee seems -to have been confined to the promotion of the “Short Time -Bill.” On April 23, 1831, at the general meeting of the -Association, then designated the Lancashire Trades Unions, -it was resolved to prepare petitions in favour of extending -this measure to all trades and all classes of workers. Active -support was given in the meantime to Mr. Sadler’s Factory -Bill. Towards the end of the year we suddenly lose all -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</span> -trace of the National Association for the Protection of -Labour, as far as Manchester is concerned. “After it had -extended about a hundred miles round this town,” writes -a working-class newspaper of 1832, “a fatality came upon -it that almost threatened its extinction.... But though it -declined in Manchester it spread and flourished in other -places; and we rejoice to say that the resolute example set -by Yorkshire and other places is likely once more to revive -the drooping energies of those trades who had the honour -of originating and establishing the Association.” -<a id="FNanchor_224" href="#Footnote_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a></p> - -<p>What the fatality was that extinguished the Association in -Manchester is not stated; but Doherty, to whose organising -ability its initial success had been due, evidently quarrelled -with the executive committee, and the <i>Voice of the People</i> -ceased to appear. In its place we find Doherty issuing, -from January 1832, the <i>Poor Man’s Advocate</i>, and vainly -striving, in face of the “spirit” of “jealousy and faction,” -to build up the Yorkshire branches of the Association into -a national organisation, with its headquarters in London. -After the middle of 1832 we hear no more, either of the -Association itself or of Doherty’s more ambitious projects -concerning it. -<a id="FNanchor_225" href="#Footnote_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a></p> - -<p>The place of the National Association was soon filled -by other contemporary general trade societies, of which -the first and most important was the Builders’ Union, or -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</span> -the General Trades Union, as it was sometimes termed. -It consisted of the separate organisations of the seven -building trades, viz. joiners, masons, bricklayers, plasterers, -plumbers, painters, and builders’ labourers, and is, so far -as we know, the solitary example, prior to the present -century, in the history of those trades of a federal union -embracing all classes of building operatives, and purporting -to extend over the whole country. -<a id="FNanchor_226" href="#Footnote_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a></p> - -<p>The Grand Rules of the Builders’ Union set forth an -elaborate constitution in which it was attempted to combine -a local and trade autonomy of separate lodges with a -centralised authority for defensive and aggressive purposes. -The rules inform us that “the object of this society shall -be to advance and equalise the price of labour in every -branch of the trade we admit into this society.” Each -lodge shall be “governed by its own password and sign, -masons to themselves, and joiners to themselves, and so -on;” and it is ordered that “no lodge be opened by any -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</span> -other lodge that is not the same trade of that lodge that, -opens them, that masons open masons, and joiners open -joiners, and so on;” moreover, “no other member [is] to -visit a lodge that is not the same trade unless he is particularly -requested.” Each trade had its own bye-laws; -but these were subject to the general rules adopted at an -annual delegate meeting. This annual conference of the -“Grand Lodge Delegates,” better known as the “Builders’ -Parliament,” consisted of one representative of each lodge, -and was the supreme legislative authority, altering rules, -deciding on general questions of policy, and electing the president -and other officials. The local lodges, though directly -represented at the annual meetings, had had apparently -little connection in the interim with the seat of government. -The society was divided into geographical districts, -the lodges in each district sending delegates to -quarterly district meetings, which elected a grand master, -deputy grand master, and corresponding secretary for the -district, and decided which should be the “divisional -lodge,” or district executive centre. These divisional -lodges or provincial centres were, according to the rules, -to serve in turn as the grand lodge or executive centre for -the whole society. Whether the members of the general -committee were chosen by the general lodge or by the whole -society is not clear; but they formed, with the president -and general corresponding secretary, the national executive. -The expenses of this executive and of the annual -delegate meeting were levied on the whole society, each -lodge sending monthly returns of its members and a -summary of its finances to the general secretary. The -main business of the national executive was to determine -the trade policy of the Associations, and to grant or withhold -permission to strike. As no mention is made of -friendly benefits, we may conclude that the Builders’ -Union, like most of the national or general Unions of this -militant time, confined itself exclusively to defending its -members against their employers.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</span></p> - -<p>The operative builders did not rest content with an -elaborate constitution and code. There was also a ritual. -The Stonemasons’ Society has preserved among its records -a MS. copy of a “Making Parts Book,” ordered to be -used by all lodges of the Builders’ Union on the admission -of members. Under the Combination Laws oaths of -secrecy and obedience were customary in the more secret -and turbulent Trade Unions, notably that of the Glasgow -Cotton-spinners and the Northumberland Miners. The -custom survived the repeal; and admission to the Builders’ -Union involved a lengthy ceremony conducted by the -officers of the lodge—the “outside and inside tylers,” -the “warden,” the “president,” “secretary,” and “principal -conductor”—and taken part in by the candidates -and the members of the lodge. Besides the opening prayer, -and religious hymns sung at intervals, these “initiation -parts” consisted of questions and responses by the <i>dramatis -personæ</i> in quaint doggerel, and were brought to a close -by the new members taking a solemn oath of loyalty and -secrecy. Officers clothed in surplices, inner chambers -into which the candidates were admitted blindfolded, a -skeleton, drawn sword, battle-axes, and other mystic -“properties” enhanced the sensational solemnity of this -fantastic performance.<a id="FNanchor_227" href="#Footnote_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a> Ceremonies of this kind, including -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</span> -what were described to the Home Office as “oaths of a most -execrable nature,”<a id="FNanchor_228" href="#Footnote_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a> were adopted by all the national and -general Unions of the time: thus we find items for “washing -surplices” appearing in the accounts of various lodges of -contemporary societies. Although in the majority of -cases the ritual was no doubt as harmless as that of the -Freemasons or the Oddfellows, yet the excitement and -sensation of the proceedings may have predisposed lightheaded -fanatical members, in times of industrial conflict, -to violent acts in the interest of the Association. At all -events, the references to its mock terrors in the capitalist -press seem to have effectually scared the governing classes.</p> - -<p>The first years of the Builders’ Union, apparently, were -devoted to organisation. During 1832 it rapidly spread -through the Lancashire and Midland towns; and at the -beginning of the following year a combined attack was -made upon the Liverpool employers. The ostensible -grievance of the men was the interference of the “contractor,” -who, supplanting the master mason, master -carpenter, etc., undertook the management of all building -operations. A placard issued by the Liverpool Painters -announces that they have joined “the General Union of -the Artisans employed in the process of building,” in order -to put down “that baneful, unjust, and ruinous system -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</span> -of monopolising the hard-earned profits of another man’s -business, called ‘contracting,’” Naturally, the little -masters were not friendly to the contracting system; -and most of them agreed with the men’s demand that -its introduction should be resisted. Encouraged by this -support, the several branches of the building trade in -Liverpool simultaneously sent in identical claims for a -uniform rate of wages for each class of operatives, a limitation -of apprentices, the prohibition of machinery and -piecework, and other requirements special to each branch -of the trade. These demands were communicated to the -employers in letters couched in dictatorial and even insulting -terms, and were coupled with a claim to be paid wages -for any time they might lose by striking to enforce their -orders. “We consider,” said one of these letters, “that -as you have not treated our rules with that deference you -ought to have done, we consider you highly culpable and -deserving of being severely chastised.” And “further,” -says another, “that each and every one in such strike -shall be paid by you the sum of four shillings per day for -every day you refuse to comply.” -<a id="FNanchor_229" href="#Footnote_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</span></p> - -<p>This sort of language brought the employers of all -classes into line. At a meeting held in June 1833 they -decided not only to refuse all the men’s demands, but to -make a deliberate attempt to extinguish the Union. For -this purpose they publicly declared that henceforth no man -need apply for work unless he was prepared to sign a formal -renunciation of the Trades Union and all its works. The -insistence on this formal renunciation, henceforth to be -famous in Trade Union records as the “presentation of -the document,” exasperated the Builders’ Union. The -Liverpool demands were repeated in Manchester, where -the employers adopted the same tactics as at Liverpool. -<a id="FNanchor_230" href="#Footnote_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a></p> - -<p>In the very heat of the battle (September 1833) the -Builders’ Union held its annual delegate meeting at Manchester. -It lasted six days; cost, it is said, over £3000; -and was attended by two hundred and seventy delegates, -representing thirty thousand operatives. This session of -the “Builders’ Parliament” attracted universal attention. -Robert Owen addressed the Conference at great length, -confiding to it his “great secret” “that labour is the -source of all wealth,” and that wealth can be retained in -the hands of the producers by a universal compact among -the productive classes. It was decided, perhaps under his -influence, to build central offices at Birmingham, which -should also serve as an educational establishment. The -design for this “Builders’ Gild Hall,” as it was termed, -was made by Hansom, an architect who, as an enthusiastic -disciple of Owen, threw himself heartily into the strike -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</span> -that was proceeding also in this town. It included, on -paper, a lecture-hall and various schoolrooms for the children -of members. The foundation-stone was laid with great -ceremony on December 5, 1833, when the Birmingham -trades marched in procession to the site, and enthusiastic -speeches were made. -<a id="FNanchor_231" href="#Footnote_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a></p> - -<p>We learn from the <i>Pioneer, or Trades Union Magazine</i> -(an unstamped penny weekly newspaper published at first -at Birmingham, at that time the organ of the Builders’ -Union<a id="FNanchor_232" href="#Footnote_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a>), the ardent faith and the vast pretensions of these -New Unionists. “A union founded on right and just -principles,” wrote the editor in the first number, “is all -that is now required to put poverty and the fear of it for -ever out of society.” “The vaunted power of capital will -now be put to the test: we shall soon discover its worthlessness -when deprived of your labour. Labour prolific of wealth -will readily command the purchase of the soil; and at a -very early period we shall find the idle possessor compelled -to ask of you to release him from his worthless holding.” -Elaborate plans were propounded for the undertaking of -all the building of the country by a Grand National Gild of -Builders: each lodge to elect a foreman; and the foremen -to elect a general superintendent. The disappointment of -these high hopes was rude and rapid. The Lancashire -societies demurred to the centralisation which had been -voted by the delegate meeting in September at the instigation -of the Midland societies. Two great strikes at Liverpool -and Manchester ended towards the close of the year -in total failure. The Builders’ Gild Hall was abandoned;<a id="FNanchor_233" href="#Footnote_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> -and the <i>Pioneer</i> moved to London, where it became the -organ of another body, the Grand National Consolidated -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</span> -Trades Union, with which the south country and metropolitan -branches of the building trade had already preferred -to affiliate themselves. Nevertheless the Builders’ -Union retained its hold upon the northern counties during -the early months of 1834, and held another “parliament” -at Birmingham in April, at which Scotch and Irish representatives -were present. -<a id="FNanchor_234" href="#Footnote_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a></p> - -<p>The aggressive activity and rapid growth of the -Builders’ Union during 1832-33 had been only a part of -a general upheaval in labour organisation. The Cotton-spinners -had recovered from the failure of the Ashton strike -(1830-31) by the autumn of 1833, when we find Doherty -prosecuting with his usual vigour the agitation for an -eight hours day which had been set on foot by his Society -for National Regeneration. “The plan is,” writes J. -Fielden (M.P. for Oldham) to William Cobbett, “that -about the 1st March next, the day the said Bill (now Act) -limits the time of work for children under eleven years of -age to eight hours a day, those above that age, both grown -persons and adults, should insist on eight hours a day -being the maximum of time for them to labour; and their -present weekly wages for sixty-nine hours a week to be the -minimum weekly wages for forty-eight hours a week after -that time”; and he proceeds to explain that the Cotton-spinners -had adopted this idea of securing shorter hours -by a strike rather than by legislation on Lord Althorpe’s -suggestion that they should “make a short-time bill for -themselves.”<a id="FNanchor_235" href="#Footnote_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a> Fielden and Robert Owen served, with -Doherty, on the committee of this society, which included -a few employers. The Lancashire textile trades followed -the lead of the Cotton-spinners, and prepared for a “universal” -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</span> -strike. Meanwhile their Yorkshire brethren were -already engaged in an embittered struggle with their -employers. The Leeds Clothiers’ Union, established about -1831, and apparently one of the constituent societies of -the National Association for the Protection of Labour, -bore a striking resemblance to the Builders’ Union, not -only in ceremonial and constitution, but also in its policy -and history.<a id="FNanchor_236" href="#Footnote_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a> In the spring of 1833 it made a series of -attacks on particular establishments with the double aim -of forcing all the workers to join the Union and of obtaining -a uniform scale of prices. These demands were met with -the usual weapon. The employers entered into what was -called “the Manufacturers’ Bond,” by which they bound -themselves under penalty to refuse employment to all -members of the Union. The men indignantly refused to -abandon the society; and a lock-out ensued which lasted -some months, and was the occasion of repeated leading -articles in the <i>Times</i>. -<a id="FNanchor_237" href="#Footnote_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a></p> - -<p>The Potters’ Union (also established by Doherty in -1830) numbered, in the autumn of 1833, eight thousand -members, of whom six thousand belonged to Staffordshire -and the remainder to the lodges at Newcastle-on-Tyne, -Derby, Bristol, and Swinton<a id="FNanchor_238" href="#Footnote_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a>—another instance of the -extraordinary growth of Trade Unions during these years.</p> - -<p>How far these and other societies were joined together -in any federal body is not clear. The panic-stricken -references in the capitalist press to “the Trades Union,” -and the vague mention in working-class newspapers of the -affiliation of particular societies to larger organisations, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</span> -lead us to believe that during the year 1833 there was -more than one attempt to form a “General Union of All -Trades.” The Owenite newspapers, towards the end of -1833, are full of references to the formation of a “General -Union of the Productive Classes.” What manner of -association Owen himself contemplated may be learnt -from his speech to the Congress of Owenite Societies in -London on the 6th of October. “I will now give you,” -said he, “a short outline of the great changes which are -in contemplation, and which shall come suddenly upon -society like a thief in the night.... It is intended that -national arrangements shall be formed to include all the -working classes in the great organisation, and that each -department shall become acquainted with what is going -on in other departments; that all individual competition -is to cease; that all manufactures are to be carried on by -National Companies.... All trades shall first form Associations -of lodges to consist of a convenient number for carrying -on the business: ... all individuals of the specific -craft shall become members.”<a id="FNanchor_239" href="#Footnote_239" class="fnanchor">[239]</a> Immediately after this we -find in existence a “Grand National Consolidated Trades -Union,” in the establishment and extraordinary growth of -which the project of “the Trades Union” may be said -to have culminated. This organisation seems to have -actually started in January 1834. Owen was its chief -recruiter and propagandist. During the next few months -his activity was incessant; and lodges were affiliated all -over the country. Innumerable local trade clubs were -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</span> -absorbed. Early in February 1834 a special delegate -meeting was held at Owen’s London Institute in Charlotte -Street, Fitzroy Square, at which it was resolved that -the new body should take the form of a federation of -separate trade lodges, each lodge to be composed usually -of members of one trade, but with provision for “miscellaneous -lodges” in places where the numbers were small, -and even for “female miscellaneous lodges.” Each lodge -retained its own funds, levies being made throughout -the whole order for strike purposes. The Conference -urged each lodge to provide sick, funeral, and superannuation -benefits for its own members; and proposals were -adopted to lease land on which to employ “turn-outs,” -and to set up co-operative workshops. The initiation -rites and solemn oath, common to all the Unions of the -period, were apparently adopted.</p> - -<p>Nothing in the annals of Unionism in this country at -all approached the rapidity of the growth which ensued.<a id="FNanchor_240" href="#Footnote_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a> -Within a few weeks the Union appears to have been joined -by at least half a million members, including tens of -thousands of farm labourers and women. This must -have been in great measure due to the fact that, as no -discoverable regular contribution was exacted for central -expenses, the affiliation or absorption of existing organisations -was very easy. Still, the extension of new lodges in -previously unorganised trades and districts was enormous. -Numerous missionary delegates, duly equipped with all -the paraphernalia required for the mystic initiation rites, -perambulated the country; and a positive mania for -Trade Unionism set in. In December 1833 we are told -that “scarcely a branch of trade exists in the West of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</span> -Scotland that is not now in a state of Union.”<a id="FNanchor_241" href="#Footnote_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a> The -<i>Times</i> reports that two delegates who went to Hull enrolled -in one evening a thousand men of various trades.<a id="FNanchor_242" href="#Footnote_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a> At -Exeter the two delegates were seized by the police, and -found to be furnished with “two wooden axes, two large -cutlasses, two masks, and two white garments or robes, -a large figure of Death with the dart and hourglass, a Bible -and Testament.”<a id="FNanchor_243" href="#Footnote_243" class="fnanchor">[243]</a> Shop-assistants on the one hand, -and journeymen chimney-sweeps on the other, were swept -into the vortex. The cabinetmakers of Belfast insisted on -joining “the Trades Union, or Friendly Society, which -had for its object the unity of all cabinetmakers in the -three kingdoms.”<a id="FNanchor_244" href="#Footnote_244" class="fnanchor">[244]</a> We hear of “Ploughmen’s Unions” -as far off as Perthshire,<a id="FNanchor_245" href="#Footnote_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a> and of a “Shearman’s Union” at -Dundee. And the then rural character of the Metropolitan -suburbs is quaintly brought home to us by the -announcement of a union of the “agricultural and other -labourers” of Kensington, Walham Green, Fulham, and -Hammersmith. Nor were the women neglected. The -“Grand Lodge of Operative Bonnet Makers” vies in -activity with the miscellaneous “Grand Lodge of the -Women of Great Britain and Ireland”; and the “Lodge -of Female Tailors” asks indignantly whether the “Tailors’ -Order” is really going to prohibit women from making -waistcoats. Whether the Grand National Consolidated -Trades Union was responsible for the lodges of “Female -Gardeners” and “Ancient Virgins,” who afterwards distinguished -themselves in the riotous demand for an eight -hours day at Oldham,<a id="FNanchor_246" href="#Footnote_246" class="fnanchor">[246]</a> is not clear.</p> - -<p>How the business of this colossal federation was actually -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</span> -managed we do not know.<a id="FNanchor_247" href="#Footnote_247" class="fnanchor">[247]</a> Some kind of executive committee -sat in London, with four paid officers. The need -for statesmanlike administration was certainly great. The -avowed policy of the federation was to inaugurate a general -expropriatory strike of all wage-earners throughout the -country, not “to condition with the master-producers of -wealth and knowledge for some paltry advance in the artificial -money price in exchange for their labour, health, -liberty, natural enjoyment, and life; but to ensure to -every one the best cultivation of all their faculties and the -most advantageous exercise of all their powers.” But -from the very beginning of its career it found itself incessantly -involved in sectional disputes for small advances -of wages and reduction of hours. The mere joining of -“the Trades Union” was often made the occasion of the -dismissal by the employers of all those who would not -sign the “document” abjuring all combinations. Thus -the accession of the Leicester Hosiers in November 1833 -led to a disastrous dispute, in which over 1300 men had -to be supported. In Glasgow a serious strike broke out -among the building trades at a time when the Calico-printers, -Engineers, and Cabinetmakers were already -struggling with their employers. The most costly conflict, -however, which the Grand National found on its hands -during the winter was that which raged at Derby, where -fifteen hundred men, women, and children had been locked -out by their employers for refusing to abandon the Union. -The “Derby turn-outs” were at first supported, like their -fellow-victims elsewhere, by contributions sent from the -trade organisations in various parts of the kingdom; but -it soon became evident that without systematic aid they -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</span> -would be compelled to give way. A levy of a shilling per -member was accordingly decreed by the Grand National -Executive in February 1834. Arrangements were made -for obtaining premises and machinery upon which to set -a few of the strikers to work on their own account. The -struggle ended, after four months, in the complete triumph -of the employers, and the return of the operatives to work.</p> - -<p>The “Derby turn-out” was widely advertised by the -newspapers, and brought much odium on the Grand National. -But the denunciation of “the Trades Union” greatly -increased when part of London was laid in darkness by a -strike of the gas-stokers. The men employed by the different -gas companies in the metropolis had been quietly organising -during the winter, with the intention of simultaneously -withdrawing from work if their demands were not acceded -to. The plot was discovered, and the companies succeeded -in replacing their Union workmen by others. But weeks -elapsed before the new hands were able completely to perform -their work,<a id="FNanchor_248" href="#Footnote_248" class="fnanchor">[248]</a> and early in March 1834 Westminster -was for some days in partial darkness. Amid the storm of -obloquy caused by these disputes the Grand National -suddenly found itself in conflict with the law. The conviction -of six Dorchester labourers in March 1834 for the -mere act of administering an oath, and their sentence to -seven years’ transportation, came like a thunderbolt on -the Trade Union world.</p> - -<p>To understand such a barbarous sentence we must -picture to ourselves the effect on the minds of the Government -and the propertied classes of the menacing ideal -of “the Trades Union,” brought home by the aggressive -policy of the Unions during the last four years. Already -in 1830 the formation of national and General Unions had -excited the attention of the Government. “When we first -came into office in November last,” writes Lord Melbourne, -the Whig Home Secretary, to Sir Herbert Taylor, “the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</span> -Unions of trades in the North of England and in other -parts of the country for the purpose of raising wages, etc., -and the General Union for the same purpose, were pointed -out to me by Sir Robert Peel [the outgoing Tory Home -Secretary] in a conversation I had with him upon the then -state of the country, as the most formidable difficulty and -danger with which we had to contend; and it struck me -as well as the rest of His Majesty’s servants in the same -light.” -<a id="FNanchor_249" href="#Footnote_249" class="fnanchor">[249]</a></p> - -<p>To advise the Cabinet in this difficulty Lord Melbourne -called in Nassau Senior, who had just completed his first -term of five years as Professor of Political Economy at -Oxford, and directed him to prepare, in conjunction with -a legal expert named Tomlinson, a report on the situation -and a plan of remedial legislation. This document throws -light both on the state of mind and on the practical judgement -of the trusted economist. The two commissioners -appear to have made no inquiries among workmen, and to -have accepted implicitly every statement, including hearsay -gossip, offered by employers. The evidence thus collected -naturally led to a very unfavourable conclusion. It produced, -as the commissioners recite, “upon our minds the -conviction that if the innocent and laborious workman and -his family are to be left without protection against the -cowardly ferocity by which he is now assailed; if the -manufacturer is to employ his capital and the mechanist -or chemist his ingenuity, only under the dictation of his -short-sighted and rapacious workmen, or his equally ignorant -and avaricious rivals; if a few agitators are to be allowed to -command a strike which first paralyses the industry of the -peculiar class of workpeople over whom they tyrannise, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</span> -and then extends itself in an increasing circle over the -many thousands and tens of thousands to whose labour -the assistance of that peculiar class of workpeople is essential;—that -if all this is to be unpunished, and to be almost -sanctioned by the repeal of the laws by which it was formerly -punishable;—it is in vain to hope that we shall long retain -the industry, the skill, or the capital on which our manufacturing -superiority, and with that superiority our power -and almost our existence as a nation, depends.” They -accordingly conclude with a series of astounding proposals -for the amendment of the law. The Act of 1825 could -not conveniently be openly repealed; but its mischievous -results were to be counteracted by drastic legislation. -They recommend that a law should be passed clearly reciting -the common law prohibitions of conspiracy and restraint -of trade. The law should go on to forbid, under severe -penalties, “all attempts or solicitations, combinations, -subscriptions, and solicitations to combinations” to threaten -masters, to persuade blacklegs, or even simply to ask workmen -to join the Union.<a id="FNanchor_250" href="#Footnote_250" class="fnanchor">[250]</a> Picketing, however peaceful, was -to be comprehensively forbidden and ruthlessly punished. -Employers or their assistants were to be authorised themselves -to arrest men without summons or warrant, and hale -them before any justice of the peace. The encouragement -of combinations by masters was to be punished by heavy -pecuniary penalties, to be recovered by any common informer. -“This,” say the commissioners, “is as much as we should -recommend in the first instance. But if it should be proved -that the evil of the combination system cannot be subdued -at a less price, ... <i>we must recommend the experiment of -confiscation</i>,”—confiscation, that is, of the “funds subscribed -for purposes of combination and deposited in Savings -Banks or otherwise.” -<a id="FNanchor_251" href="#Footnote_251" class="fnanchor">[251]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</span></p> - -<p>The Whig Government dared not submit either the -report or the proposals to a House of Commons pledged -to the doctrines of Philosophic Radicalism. “We considered -much ourselves,” writes Lord Melbourne,<a id="FNanchor_252" href="#Footnote_252" class="fnanchor">[252]</a>“and -we consulted much with others as to whether the arrangements -of these unions, their meetings, their communications, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</span> -or their pecuniary funds could be reached or in any -way prevented by any new legal provisions; but it appeared -upon the whole impossible to do anything effectual unless -we proposed such measures as would have been a serious -infringement upon the constitutional liberties of the country, -and to which it would have been impossible to have obtained -the consent of Parliament.”</p> - -<p>The King, however, had been greatly alarmed at the -meeting of the “Builders’ Parliament,” and pressed the -Cabinet to take strong measures.<a id="FNanchor_253" href="#Footnote_253" class="fnanchor">[253]</a> Rotch, the member for -Knaresborough, gave notice in April 1834 of his intention -to bring in a Bill designed to make combinations of trades -impossible—a measure which would have obtained a -large amount of support from the manufacturers.<a id="FNanchor_254" href="#Footnote_254" class="fnanchor">[254]</a> The -coal-owners and ship-owners, the ironmasters, had all -been pressing the Home Secretary for legislation of this -kind.</p> - -<p>But although Lord Melbourne’s prudent caution saved -the Unions from drastic prohibitory laws, the Government -lost no opportunity of showing its hostility to the workmen’s -combinations. When in August 1833 the Yorkshire -manufacturers presented a memorial on the subject of -“the Trades Union,” Lord Melbourne directed the answer -to be returned that “he considers it unnecessary to repeat -the strong opinion entertained by His Majesty’s Ministers -of the criminal character and the evil effects of the unions -described in the Memorial,” adding that “no doubt can be -entertained that combinations for the purposes enumerated -are illegal conspiracies, and liable to be prosecuted as such -at common law.”<a id="FNanchor_255" href="#Footnote_255" class="fnanchor">[255]</a> The employers scarcely needed this -hint. Although combination for the sole purpose of fixing -hours or wages had ceased to be illegal, it was possible -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</span> -to prosecute the workmen upon various other pretexts. -Sometimes, as in the case of some Lancashire miners -in 1832, the Trade Unionists were indicted for illegal -combination for merely writing to their employers that a -strike would take place.<a id="FNanchor_256" href="#Footnote_256" class="fnanchor">[256]</a> Sometimes the “molestation or -obstruction” prohibited in the Act of 1825 was made -to include the mere intimation of the men’s intention to -strike against the employment of non-unionists. In a -remarkable case at Wolverhampton in August 1835, four -potters were imprisoned for intimidation, solely upon -evidence by the employers that they had “advanced their -prices in consequence of the interference of the defendants, -who acted as plenipotentiaries for the men,” without, as -was admitted, the use of even the mildest threat.<a id="FNanchor_257" href="#Footnote_257" class="fnanchor">[257]</a> Picketing, -even of the most peaceful kind, was frequently severely -punished under this head, as four Southwark shoemakers -found in 1832 to their cost.<a id="FNanchor_258" href="#Footnote_258" class="fnanchor">[258]</a> More generally the men on -strike were proceeded against under the laws relating to -masters and servants, as in the case of seventeen tanners -at Bermondsey in February 1834, who were sentenced -to imprisonment for the offence of leaving their work -unfinished. -<a id="FNanchor_259" href="#Footnote_259" class="fnanchor">[259]</a></p> - -<p>With the authorities in this temper, their alarm at the -growth of the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union -may be imagined. A new legal weapon was soon discovered. -At the time of the mutiny at the Nore in 1797 an Act -had been passed (37 Geo. III. c. 123) severely penalising -the administering of an oath by an unlawful society. In -1819, when political sedition was rife, a measure prohibiting -unlawful oaths had formed one of the notorious “Six Acts.” -In neither case were trade combinations aimed at, though -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</span> -Lord Ellenborough, in an isolated prosecution in 1802,<a id="FNanchor_260" href="#Footnote_260" class="fnanchor">[260]</a> had -held that an oath administered by a committee of journeymen -shearmen in Wiltshire came within the terms of the -earlier statute. It does not seem to have occurred to any -one to put the law in force against Trade Unions until the -oath-bound confederacy of the Grand National Consolidated -Trades Union began to make headway even in the rural -villages of the South of England.</p> - -<p>The story of the trial and transportation of the Dorchester -labourers is the best-known episode of early Trade -Union history.<a id="FNanchor_261" href="#Footnote_261" class="fnanchor">[261]</a> The agricultural labourers of the southern -counties, oppressed by the tacit combinations of the farmers -and by the operation of the Corn Laws, as well as exceptionally -demoralised by the Old Poor Law, had long been in -a state of sullen despair. The specially hard times of 1829 -had resulted in outbursts of machine-breaking, rick-burning, -and hunger riots, which had been put down in 1830 by -the movement of troops through the disturbed districts, -and the appointment of a Special Commission of Assize to -try over 1000 prisoners, several of whom were hung and -hundreds transported. The whole wage-earning population -of these rural districts was effectually cowed.<a id="FNanchor_262" href="#Footnote_262" class="fnanchor">[262]</a> With -the improvement of trade a general movement for higher -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</span> -wages seems to have been set on foot. In 1832 we find -the Duke of Wellington, as Lord-Lieutenant of Hampshire, -reporting to Lord Melbourne that more than half the -labourers in his county were contributing a penny per week -to a network of local societies affiliated, as he thought, -to some National Union. “The labourers said that they -had received directions from the Union not to take less -than ten shillings, and that the Union would stand by them.”<a id="FNanchor_263" href="#Footnote_263" class="fnanchor">[263]</a> -These societies, whatever may have been their constitution, -had apparently the effect of raising wages not only in -Hampshire, but also in the neighbouring counties. In -the village of Tolpuddle, in Dorsetshire, as George Loveless -tells us, an agreement was made between the farmers and -the men, in the presence of the village parson, that the -wages should be those paid in other districts. This involved -a rise to ten shillings a week. In the following year the -farmers repented of their decision, and successively reduced -wages shilling by shilling until they were paying only -seven shillings a week. In this strait the men made inquiries -about “the Trades Union,” and two delegates from the -Grand National visited the village. Upon their information -the Lovelesses established “the Friendly Society of Agricultural -Labourers,” having its “Grand Lodge” at Tolpuddle. -For this village club the elaborate ritual and -code of rules of one of the national orders of the Grand -National Consolidated Trades Union were adopted. No -secrecy seems to have been observed, for John Loveless -openly ordered of the village painter a figure of “Death -painted six feet high for a society of his own,”<a id="FNanchor_264" href="#Footnote_264" class="fnanchor">[264]</a> with which -to perform the initiation rites. The farmers took alarm, -and induced the local magistrates, on February 21, 1834, -to issue placards warning the labourers that any one joining -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</span> -the Union would be sentenced to seven years’ transportation. -This was no idle threat. Within three days of the publication -of the notice the Lovelesses and four other members -were arrested and lodged in gaol.</p> - -<p>The trial of these unfortunate labourers was a scandalous -perversion of the law. The Lovelesses and their friends -seem to have been simple-minded Methodists, two of them -being itinerant preachers. No accusation was made, and -no evidence preferred against them, of anything worse -than the playing with oaths, which, as we have seen, formed -a part of the initiation ceremony of the Grand National -and other Unions of the time, with evidently no consciousness -of their statutory illegality. Not only were they -guiltless of any intimidation or outrage, but they had not -even struck or presented any application for higher wages. -Yet the judge (John Williams), who had only recently -been raised to the bench, charged the grand jury on the -case at portentous length, as if the prisoners had committed -murder or treason, and inflicted on them, after the -briefest of trials, the monstrous sentence of seven years’ -transportation.</p> - -<p>The action of the Government shows how eagerly the -Home Secretary accepted the blunder of an inexperienced -judge as part of his policy of repression. Lord Melbourne -expressed his opinion that “the law has in this case been -most properly applied”;<a id="FNanchor_265" href="#Footnote_265" class="fnanchor">[265]</a> and the sentence, far from -exciting criticism in the Whig Cabinet, was carried out -with special celerity. The case was tried on March 18, -1834; before the 30th the prisoners were in the hulks; -and by the 15th of the next month Lord Howick was able -to say in the House of Commons that their ship had already -sailed for Botany Bay. -<a id="FNanchor_266" href="#Footnote_266" class="fnanchor">[266]</a></p> - -<p>The Grand National Consolidated Trades Union proved -to have a wider influence than the Government expected. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</span> -The whole machinery of the organisation was turned to -the preparation of petitions and the holding of public -meetings, and a wave of sympathy rallied, for a few weeks, -the drooping energies of the members. Cordial relations -were established with the five great Unions which remained -outside the ranks, for the northern counties were mainly -organised by the Builders’ Union, the Leeds, Huddersfield -and Bradford District Union, the Clothiers’ Union, the -Cotton-spinners’ Union, and the Potters’ Union, which -on this occasion sent delegates to London to assist the -executive of the Grand National. The agitation culminated -in a monster procession of Trade Unionists to the Home -Office to present a petition to Lord Melbourne—the first -of the great “demonstrations” which have since become -a regular part of the machinery of London politics. The -proposal to hold this procession had excited the utmost -alarm, both in friends and to foes. The <i>Times</i>, with the -Parisian events of 1830 still in its memory, wrote leader -after leader condemning the project, and Lord Melbourne -let it be known that he would refuse to receive any deputation -or petition from a procession. Special constables were -sworn in, and troops brought into London to prevent a -rising. At length the great day arrived (April 21, 1834). -Owen and his friends managed the occasion with much -skill. In order to avoid interference by the new police, -the vacant ground at Copenhagen Fields, on which the -processionists assembled, was formally hired from the owner. -The trades were regularly marshalled behind thirty-three -banners, each man decorated by a red ribbon. At the -head of the procession rode, in full canonicals and the scarlet -hood of a Doctor of Divinity, the corpulent “chaplain to -the Metropolitan Trades Unions,” Dr. Arthur S. Wade.<a id="FNanchor_267" href="#Footnote_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a> -The demonstration, in point of numbers, was undoubtedly -a success. We learn, for instance, that the tailors alone -paraded from 5000 to 7000 strong, and the master builders -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</span> -subsequently complained that their works had been entirely -suspended through their men’s participation. Over a -quarter of a million signatures had been obtained to the -petition, and, even on the admission of the <i>Times</i>, 30,000 -persons took part in the procession, representing a proportion -of the London of that time equivalent to 100,000 -to-day. -<a id="FNanchor_268" href="#Footnote_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a></p> - -<p>Meanwhile Radicals of all shades hastened to the rescue. -A public meeting was held at the Crown and Anchor Tavern -at which Roebuck, Colonel Perronet Thompson, and, Daniel -O’Connell spoke; and a debate took place in the House -of Commons in which the ferocious sentence was strongly -attacked by Joseph Hume.<a id="FNanchor_269" href="#Footnote_269" class="fnanchor">[269]</a> But the Government, far from -remitting the punishment, refused even to recognise that -it was excessive; and the unfortunate labourers were -allowed to proceed to their penal exile. -<a id="FNanchor_270" href="#Footnote_270" class="fnanchor">[270]</a></p> - -<p>The Dorchester conviction had the effect of causing -the oath to be ostensibly dropped out of Trade Union -ceremonies, although in particular trades and districts -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</span> -it lingered a few years longer.<a id="FNanchor_271" href="#Footnote_271" class="fnanchor">[271]</a> At their “parliament” -in April 1834 the Builders’ Union formally abolished -the oath. The Grand National quickly adopted the same -course; and the Leeds and other Unions followed suit. -But the judge’s sentence was of no avail to check the -aggressive policy of the Unions. Immediately after the -excitement of the procession had subsided, one of the -most important branches of the Grand National precipitated -a serious conflict with its employers. The London tailors, -hitherto divided among themselves, formed in December -1833 the “First Grand Lodge of Operative Tailors,” and -resolved to demand a shortening of the hours of labour. -The state of mind of the men is significantly shown by the -language of their peremptory notice to the masters. “In -order,” they write, “to stay the ruinous effects which a -destructive commercial competition has so long been -inflicting on the trade, they have resolved to introduce -certain new regulations of labour into the trade, which regulations -they intend shall come into force on Monday next.” -A general strike ensued, in which 20,000 persons are said -to have been thrown out of work, the whole burden of their -maintenance being cast on the Grand National funds. A -levy of eighteenpence per member throughout the country -was made in May 1834, which caused some dissatisfaction; -and the proceeds were insufficient to prevent the tailors’ -strike pay falling to four shillings a week. The result was -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</span> -that the men gradually returned to work on the employers’ -terms. -<a id="FNanchor_272" href="#Footnote_272" class="fnanchor">[272]</a></p> - -<p>These disasters, together with innumerable smaller -strikes in various parts, all of which were unsuccessful, -shook the credit of the Grand National. The executive -attempted in vain to stem the torrent of strikes by publishing -a “Declaration of the Views and Objects of Trades -Unions,” in which they deprecated disputes and advocated -what would now be called Co-operative Production by -Associations of Producers.<a id="FNanchor_273" href="#Footnote_273" class="fnanchor">[273]</a> They gave effect to this -declaration by refusing to sanction the London shoemakers’ -demand for increased wages, on the ground that a conflict -so soon after the tailors’ defeat was inopportune. The -result was merely that a general meeting of the London -shoemakers voted, by 782 to 506, for secession from the -federation, and struck on their own account. -<a id="FNanchor_274" href="#Footnote_274" class="fnanchor">[274]</a></p> - -<p>An even more serious blow was the lock-out of the -London building trades in July 1834. These trades in -London had joined the Grand Consolidated rather than -the Builders’ Union; and in the summer of 1834 an act of -petty tyranny on the part of a single firm brought about -a general conflict. The workmen employed by Messrs. -Cubitt had resolved not to drink any beer supplied by -Combe, Delafield & Co., in retaliation for the refusal of -that firm to employ Trade Unionists. Messrs. Cubitt -thereupon refused to allow any other beer to be drunk -on their premises, and locked out their workmen. The -employers throughout London, angered by the Union’s -resistance to sub-contract and piecework, embraced this -opportunity to insist that all their employees should sign -the hated “document.” The heads of the Government -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</span> -departments in which building operatives were employed -placed themselves in line with private employers by making -the same demands.<a id="FNanchor_275" href="#Footnote_275" class="fnanchor">[275]</a> The struggle dragged on until -November 1834, when the document seems to have been -tacitly withdrawn, and the men returned to work, accepting -the employers’ terms on the other points at issue.<a id="FNanchor_276" href="#Footnote_276" class="fnanchor">[276]</a> We -learn from the correspondence of the Stonemasons’ Society -that this defeat—for such it virtually was—completely -broke up the organisation in the London building trade. -What was happening to the Builders’ Union during these -months is not clear. The federal organisation apparently -broke up at about this time; and the several trades fell -back upon their local clubs and national societies.</p> - -<p>Whilst the London builders were thus engaged, similar -struggles were going on in the other leading industries. -At Leeds, for instance, in May 1834 the masters were -again presenting the “document”; and the men, after -much resistance and angry denunciation, were compelled -to abandon the Clothiers’ Union. The Cotton-spinners, -whom we left preparing to carry out Fielden’s idea of -a general strike for an eight hours day with undiminished -wages for all cotton operatives, resolved to demand the -reduction of hours from the 1st of March 1834, the day -appointed for the operation of the new Factory Act of -1833 limiting the hours of children to eight per day. The -operatives in many mills sent in notices, which were simply -ignored by the employers. In this they seem to have -estimated the weakness of the men correctly; for the -expected general strike was deferred by a delegate meeting -until the 2nd of June. That date found the men still unprepared -for action, and the strike was further postponed -until the 1st of September. After that we hear no more of it.</p> - -<p>The Oldham operatives did indeed in April 1834 make -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</span> -an unpremeditated attempt to secure eight hours. It happened -that the local constables broke up a Trade Union -meeting. A rescue took place, followed by an attack on -an obnoxious mill, and the shooting of one of the rioters -by a “Knobstick.” The affray provoked the Oldham -working class into a spasm of insurrection. The workers -in all trades, both male and female, ceased work, and held -huge meetings on the Moor, where they were addressed by -Doherty and others from Manchester, and demanded the -eight hours day. Within a week the excitement subsided, -and work was resumed. -<a id="FNanchor_277" href="#Footnote_277" class="fnanchor">[277]</a></p> - -<p>By the end of the summer it was obvious that the -ambitious projects of the Grand National Consolidated -and other “Trades Unions” had ended in invariable and -complete failure. In spite of the rising prosperity of trade, -the strikes for better conditions of labour had been uniformly -unsuccessful. In July 1834 the federal organisations -all over the country were breaking up. The great -association of half a million members had been completely -routed by the employers’ vigorous presentation of the -“document.” Of the actual dissolution of the organisation -we have no contemporary record, but the impression which -it made on the more sober Trade Unionists may be gathered -from the following description, which appeared in a working-class -journal seven years afterwards. “We were present,” -says the editor of the <i>Trades Journal</i>, “at many of the -meetings of the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union, -and have a distinct recollection of the excitement that prevailed -in them—of the apparent determination to carry -out its principles in opposition to every obstacle—of the -enthusiasm exhibited by some of the speakers—of the -noisy approbation of the meeting—the loud cries of ‘hear -hear,’ ‘bravo,’ ‘hurra,’ ‘union for ever,’ etc. It was the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</span> -opinion of many at that time that little real benefit would -be effected by this union, as their proceedings were indicative, -not of a calm and dispassionate investigation of the causes -of existing evils, but of an over-excited state of mind which -would speedily evaporate, and leave them in the same -condition as before. The event proved that this opinion -was not ill-founded. A little mole-hill obstructed their -onward progress; and rather than commence the labour -of removing so puny an obstacle, they chose to turn back, -each taking his own path, regardless of the safety or the -interests of his neighbour. It was painful to see the deep -mortification of the generals and leaders of this quickly -inflated army, when left deserted and alone upon the field.” -<a id="FNanchor_278" href="#Footnote_278" class="fnanchor">[278]</a></p> - -<p>A period of general apathy in the Trade Union world -ensued. The “London Dorchester Committee” continued -with indomitable perseverance to collect subscriptions and -present petitions for the return of the six exiled labourers; -but “the Trades Union,” together with the ideal from -which it sprang, vanished in discredit. The hundreds of -thousands of recruits from the new industries or unskilled -occupations rapidly reverted to a state of disorganisation. -The national “orders” of Tailors and Shoemakers, the -extended organisations of Cotton-spinners and Woollen-workers, -split up into fragmentary societies. Throughout -the country the organised constituents of the Grand National -fell back upon their local trade clubs.</p> - -<p>The records of the rise and fall of the “New Unionism” -of 1830-4 leave us conscious of a vast enlargement in the -ideas of the workers, without any corresponding alteration -in their tactics in the field. In council they are idealists, -dreaming of a new heaven and a new earth; humanitarians, -educationalists, socialists, moralists: in battle they are still -the struggling, half-emancipated serfs of 1825, armed only -with the rude weapons of the strike and boycott; sometimes -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</span> -feared and hated by the propertied classes; sometimes -merely despised; always oppressed, and miserably poor. -We find, too, that they are actually less successful with the -old weapons now that they wield them with new and wider -ideas. They get beaten in a rising market instead of, as -hitherto, only in a falling one. And we shall soon see that -they did not recover their lost advantage until they again concentrated -their efforts on narrower and more manageable aims. -But we have first to inquire how they came by the new ideas.</p> - -<p>In the bad times which followed the peace of 1815 the -writings of Cobbett had attained an extraordinary influence -and authority over the whole of that generation of working -men. His trenchant denunciation of the governing classes, -and his incessant appeals to the wage-earners to assert their -right to the whole administration of affairs, were inspired -by the political tyranny of the anti-Jacobin reaction, the -high prices and heavy taxes, and the apparent creation by -“the Funding System” of an upstart class of non-producers -living on the interest of the huge debt contracted by the -nation during the war—evils the least of which was enough -to stimulate an eager politician like Cobbett to the utmost -exercise of his unrivalled power of invective. But the -working classes were suffering, in addition, from a calamity -which no mere politician of that time grasped, in the effects -of the new machine and factory industry, which was blindly -crushing out the old methods by the mere brute force of -competition instead of replacing it with due order and -adjustment to the human interests involved. This phenomenon -was beyond the comprehension of its victims. Each -of them knew what was happening to himself as an individual; -but only one man—a manufacturer—seems to have -understood what was happening to the entire industry of -the country. This man was Robert Owen. To him, -therefore, political Democracy, which was all-in-all to -Cobbett and his readers, appeared quite secondary to -industrial Democracy, or the co-operative ownership and -control of industry answerable to the economic co-operation -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</span> -in all industrial processes which had been brought about -by machinery and factory organisation, and which had -removed manufacture irrevocably from the separate firesides -of independent individual producers. With Cobbett -and his followers the first thing to be done was to pass a -great Reform Bill, behind which, in their minds, lay only -a vague conception of social change. Owen and his more -enthusiastic disciples, on the other hand, were persuaded -that a universal voluntary association of workers for productive -purposes on his principles would render the political -organisation of society of comparatively trivial account.</p> - -<p>The disillusionment of the newly emancipated Trade -Clubs in the collapse of 1825 left the working-class organisations -prepared for these wider gospels. Social reform was -in the air. “Concerning the misery and degradation of -the bulk of the people of England,” writes a contemporary -observer, “men of every order, as well as every party, unite -and speak continually; farmers, parish officers, clergymen, -magistrates, judges on the bench, members on either side -of both Houses of Parliament, the King in his addresses -to the nation, moralists, statesmen, philosophers; and -finally the poor creatures themselves, whose complaints -are loud and incessant.”<a id="FNanchor_279" href="#Footnote_279" class="fnanchor">[279]</a> Cobbett and the Reformers had -the first turn. The chief political organisation of the -working classes during the Reform Bill agitation began as -a trade club. In 1831 a few carpenters met at their house -of call in Argyle Street, Oxford Street, to form a “Metropolitan -Trades Union,” which was to include all trades, -and to undertake, besides its Trade Union functions, a -vague scheme of co-operative production and a political -agitation for the franchise.<a id="FNanchor_280" href="#Footnote_280" class="fnanchor">[280]</a> But under the influence of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</span> -William Lovett the last object soon thrust aside all the -rest. The purely Trade Union aims were dropped; the -Owenite aspirations sank into the background; and under -the title of the “National Union of the Working Classes” -the humble carpenters’ society expanded into a national -organisation for obtaining Manhood Suffrage. As such it -occupies, during the political turmoil of 1831-2, by far the -largest place in the history of working-class organisation, -and was largely implicated in the agitation and disturbances -connected with the Reform Bill. -<a id="FNanchor_281" href="#Footnote_281" class="fnanchor">[281]</a></p> - -<p>The Reform Bill came and passed, but no Manhood -Suffrage. The effect of this disappointment at the hands -of the most advanced political party in the country is thus -described by Francis Place, now become an outside observer -of the Trade Union Movement. “The year (1833) ended -leaving the (National) Union (of the Working Classes) in -a state of much depression. The nonsensical doctrines -preached by Robert Owen and others respecting communities -and goods in common; abundance of everything man -ought to desire, and all for four hours’ labour out of every -twenty-four; the right of every man to his share of the -earth in common, and his right to whatever his hands had -been employed upon; the power of masters under the -present system to give just what wages they pleased; the -right of the labourer to such wages as would maintain him -and his in comfort for eight or ten hours’ labour; the right -of every man who was unemployed to employment and to -such an amount of wages as have been indicated—and -other matters of a similar kind which were continually -inculcated by the working men’s political unions, by many -small knots of persons, printed in small pamphlets and -handbills which were sold twelve for a penny and distributed -to a great extent—had pushed politics aside ... among -the working people. These pamphlets were written almost -wholly by men of talent and of some standing in the world, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</span> -professional men, gentlemen, manufacturers, tradesmen, and -men called literary. The consequence was that a very large -proportion of the working people in England and Scotland -became persuaded that they had only to combine, as it was -concluded they might easily do, to compel not only a considerable -advance in wages all round, but employment for -every one, man and woman, who needed it, at short hours. -This notion induced them to form themselves into Trades -Unions in a manner and to an extent never before known.” -<a id="FNanchor_282" href="#Footnote_282" class="fnanchor">[282]</a></p> - -<p>This jumble of ordinary Trade Union aims and communist -aspirations, described from the hostile point of view -of a fanatical Malthusian and staunch believer in the -“Wage Fund,” probably fairly represents the character -of the Owenite propaganda. It made an ineradicable -impression on the working-class leaders of that generation, -and inspired the great surge of solidarity which rendered -possible the gigantic enlistments of the Grand National, -with its unprecedented regiments of agricultural labourers -and women. Its enlargement of consciousness of the -working class was no doubt a good in itself which no mistakes -in practical policy could wholly cancel.<a id="FNanchor_283" href="#Footnote_283" class="fnanchor">[283]</a> But Owen did -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</span> -mischief as well as good; and as both the evil and the good -live after him—for nothing that Owen did can yet be said -to be interred with his bones—it is necessary to examine -his Trade Union doctrine in some detail. He was at his -best when, as the experienced captain of industry, he -denounced with fervent emphasis that lowering of the -Standard of Life which was the result of the creed of universal -competition. It was to combat this that he advocated -Factory Legislation, and promoted combinations “to fix -a maximum time and a minimum wages”; and it was by -thus attempting to secure the workers’ Standard of Life -by legislation and Trade Union action that he gained the -influential support, not only of philanthropists, but also of -certain high-minded manufacturers, with whose aid he -formed in December 1833 the “Society for National -Regeneration,”<a id="FNanchor_284" href="#Footnote_284" class="fnanchor">[284]</a> to which we have already referred. The -most definite proposal of this society, the shortening of the -hours of labour to eight per day, was what led to that -suggestion of Fielden’s on which the Lancashire cotton -operatives acted in their abortive general strike for an eight -hours day. It also produced the long series of “Short -Time Committees” in the textile towns whose persistent -agitation eventually secured the passing of the Ten Hours -Bill, itself only an instalment of our great Factory Code. -History has emphatically justified Owen on this side of his -labour policy.</p> - -<p>But there was a Utopian side to it which acted more -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</span> -questionably. The working-class world became, under -his influence, inflated with a premature conception and -committed to an impracticable working scheme of social -organisation. He proved himself an able thinker and -seer when he pointed out that the horrible poverty of the -time was a new economic phenomenon, the inevitable -result of unfettered competition and irresponsible individual -ownership of the means of production now that those -means had become enormously expensive and yet compact -enough to employ hundreds of men under the orders of a -few, besides being so prodigiously efficient as to drive the -older methods quite out of the market. But from the point -of view of the practical statesman, it must be confessed -that he also showed himself something of a simpleton in -supposing, or at least assuming, that competition could be -abolished and ownership socialised by organising voluntary -associations to supersede both the millowners and the State. -He had tried the experiment in America with the famous -community of New Harmony, and its failure had for the time -thoroughly disgusted him with communities. But his -disgust was not disillusion, for its only practical effect was -to set him to repeat the experiment with the Trade Unions. -Under his teaching the Trade Unionists came to believe that -it was possible, by a universal non-political compact of the -wage-earners, apparently through a universal expropriatory -strike, to raise wages and shorten the hours of labour “to -an extent,” as Place puts it, “which, at no very distant -time, would give them the whole proceeds of their labour.” -The function of the brain-worker as the director of industry -was disregarded, possibly because in the cotton industry -(in which Owen had made a fortune) it plays but an insignificant -part in the actual productive processes, and is mainly -concerned with that pursuit of cheap markets to buy in -and dear markets to sell in which formed no part of the -Utopian commonwealth at which “the Trades Union” -aimed. The existing capitalists and managers were therefore -considered as usurpers to be as soon as possible superseded -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</span> -by the elected representatives of voluntary and -sectional associations of producers, in which it seems to -have been assumed all the brain-working technicians would -be included. The modern Socialist proposal to substitute -the officials of the Municipality or State was unthinkable at -a period when all local governing bodies were notoriously -inefficient and corrupt and Parliament practically an -oligarchy. Under the system proposed by Owen the -instruments of production were to become the property, -not of the whole community, but of the particular set of -workers who used them. “There is no other alternative,” -he said, “than National Companies for each trade.... -Thus all those trades which relate to clothing shall form a -company—such as tailors, shoemakers, hatters, milliners, -and mantua-makers; and all the different manufacturers -[<i>i.e.</i> operatives] shall be arranged in a similar way; communications -shall pass from the various departments to the -Grand National establishment in London.” In fact, the -Trade Unions were to be transformed into “national -companies” to carry on all the manufactures.<a id="FNanchor_285" href="#Footnote_285" class="fnanchor">[285]</a> The Agricultural -Union was to take possession of the land, the -Miners’ Union of the mines, the Textile Unions of the factories. -Each trade was to be carried on by its particular -Trade Union, centralised in one “Grand Lodge.”</p> - -<p>Of all Owen’s attempts to reduce his Socialism to -practice this was certainly the very worst. For his short-lived -communities there was at least this excuse: that -within their own area they were to be perfectly homogeneous -little Communist States. There were to be no -conflicting sections; and profit-making and competition -were to be effectually eliminated. But in “the Trades -Union,” as he conceived it, the mere combination of all the -workmen in a trade as co-operative producers no more -abolished commercial competition than a combination of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</span> -all the employers in it as a Joint Stock Company. In effect -his Grand Lodges would have been simply the head offices -of huge Joint Stock Companies owning the entire means of -production in their industry, and subject to no control by -the community as a whole. They would therefore have -been in a position at any moment to close their ranks and -admit fresh generations of workers only as employees at -competitive wages instead of as shareholders, thus creating -at one stroke a new capitalist class and a new proletariat. -Further, the improvident shareholders would soon have -begun to sell their shares in order to spend their capital, -and thus to drop with their children into the new proletariat; -whilst the enterprising and capable shareholders would -equally have sold their shares to buy into other and momentarily -more profitable trades. Thus there would have been -not only a capitalist class and proletariat, but a speculative -stock market. Finally there would have come a competitive -struggle between the Joint Stock Unions to supplant -one another in the various departments of industry. Thus -the shipwrights, making wooden ships, would have found the -boilermakers competing for their business by making iron -ships, and would have had either to succumb or to transform -their wooden ship capital into iron ship capital and -enter into competition with the boilermakers as commercial -rivals in the same trade. This difficulty was staring Owen -in the face when he entered the Trade Union Movement; -for the trades, then as now, were in continual perplexity -as to the exact boundaries between them; for example, -the minute-books of the newly formed Joiners’ Society in -Glasgow (whose secretary was a leading Owenite) show -that its great difficulty was the demarcation of its trade -against the cabinetmaker and the engineer-patternmaker, -each of whom claimed certain technical operations as proper -to himself alone. In short, the Socialism of Owen led him -to propose a practical scheme which was not even socialistic, -and which, if it could possibly have been carried out, would -have simply arbitrarily redistributed the capital of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</span> -country without altering or superseding the capitalist -system in the least.</p> - -<p>All this will be so obvious to those who comprehend -our capitalist system that they will have some difficulty -in believing that it could have escaped so clever a man -and so experienced and successful a capitalist as Owen. -How far he made it a rule to deliberately shut his eyes to -the difficulties that met him, from a burning conviction -that any change was better than leaving matters entirely -alone, cannot even be guessed; but it is quite certain that -he acted in perfect good faith, simply not knowing thoroughly -what he was about. He had a boundless belief in the power -of education to form character; and if any scheme promised -just sufficient respite from poverty and degradation to -enable him and his disciples to educate one generation of -the country’s children, he was ready to leave all economic -consequences to be dealt with by “the New Moral World” -which that generation’s Owenite schooling would have -created. Doubtless he thought that “the Trades Union” -promised him this much; and besides, he did not foresee -its economic consequences. He was disabled by that -confident sciolism and prejudice which has led generations -of Socialists to borrow from Adam Smith and the “classic” -economists the erroneous theory that labour is by itself -the creator of value, without going on to master that -impregnable and more difficult law of economic rent which -is the very corner-stone of collectivist economy. He took -his economics from his friend William Thompson,<a id="FNanchor_286" href="#Footnote_286" class="fnanchor">[286]</a> who, like -Hodgskin and Hodgskin’s illustrious disciple, Karl Marx, -ignored the law of rent in his calculations, and taught that -all exchange values could be measured in terms of “labour -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</span> -time” alone. Part of the Owenite activity of the time -actually resulted in the opening of labour bazaars, in which -the prices were fixed in minutes. The fact that it is the -consumer’s demand which gives to the product of labour -any exchange-value at all, and that the extent and elasticity -of this demand determines how much has to be produced; -and the other governing consideration, namely, that the -expenditure of labour required to bring articles of the same -desirability to market varies enormously according to -natural differences in fertility of soil, distance to be traversed, -proximity to good highways, waterways, or ports, accessibility -of water-power or steam fuel, and a hundred other -circumstances, including the organising ability and executive -dexterity of the producer, found themselves left entirely -out of account. Owen assumed that the labour of the miner -and that of the agricultural labourer, whatever the amount -and nature of the product of each of them, would spontaneously -and continuously exchange with each other equitably -at par of hours and minutes when the miners had received a -monopoly of the bowels of the country, and the agricultural -labourers of its skin. He did not even foresee that the -Miners’ Union might be inclined to close its ranks against -newcomers from the farm labourers, or that the Agricultural -Union might refuse to cede sites for the Builders’ Union to -work upon. In short, the difficult economic problem of -the equitable sharing of the advantages of superior sites -and opportunities never so much as occurred to the enthusiastic -Owenite economists of this period.</p> - -<p>One question, and that the most immediately important -of all, was never seriously faced: How was the transfer -of the industries from the capitalists to the Unions to be -effected in the teeth of a hostile and well-armed Government? -The answer must have been that the overwhelming -numbers of “the Trades Union” would render conflict -impossible. His enthusiastic disciple, William Benbow, successively -a shoemaker, bookseller, and coffee-house keeper, -invented the instrument of the General Strike—a sacred -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</span> -“holiday month” prepared for and participated in by the -entire wage-earning class, the mere “passive resistance” of -which would, without violence or conflict, bring down all -existing institutions. Whether this was in Owen’s mind -in 1834, as it was, in 1839, avowedly in those of the -Chartists, is uncertain.<a id="FNanchor_287" href="#Footnote_287" class="fnanchor">[287]</a> At all events, Owen, like the early -Christians, habitually spoke as if the Day of Judgment of -the existing order of society was at hand. The next six -months, in his view, were always going to see the “New -Moral World” really established. The change from the -capitalist system to a complete organisation of industry -under voluntary associations of producers was to “come -suddenly upon society like a thief in the night.” “One -year,” comments his disciple, “may disorganise the whole -fabric of the old world, and transfer, by a sudden spring, -the whole political government of the country from the -master to the servant.”<a id="FNanchor_288" href="#Footnote_288" class="fnanchor">[288]</a> It is impossible not to regret -that the first introduction of the English Trade Unionist to -Socialism should have been effected by a foredoomed scheme -which violated every economic principle of Collectivism, -and left the indispensable political preliminaries to pure -chance.</p> - -<p>It was under the influence of these large plans and -confident hopes that the Trade Unions were emboldened to -adopt the haughty attitude and contemptuous language -towards the masters which provoked Manchester and -Liverpool employers to meet the challenge of the Builders’ -Union by “the Document.” The “intolerable tyranny” -of the Unions, so much harped on by contemporary writers, -represents, to a large extent, nothing more than the rather -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</span> -bumptious expression of the Trade Unionists’ feeling that -they were the rightful directors of industry, entitled to choose -the processes, and select their fellow-workers, and even their -managers and foremen. And it must be remembered that -this occurred at a period when class prejudice was so strong -that any attempt at a parley made by the workers, however -respectfully, was regarded as presumptuous and unbecoming. -Hence the working class had always too much reason to -believe that civility on their part would be thrown away. -It is certain that during the Owenite intoxication the -impracticable expectations of national dominion on the -part of the wage-earners were met with an equally unreasonable -determination by the governing classes to keep the -working men in a state not merely of subjection, but of -abject submission. The continued exclusion of the workmen -from the franchise made constitutional action on their -side impossible. The employers, on the other hand, used -their political and magisterial power against the men -without scruple, inciting a willing Government to attack -the workmen’s combinations by every possible perversion -of the law, and partiality in its administration. Regarding -absolute control over the conduct of their workpeople as a -<i>sine qua non</i> of industrial organisation, even the genuine -philanthropists among them insisted on despotic authority -in the factory or workshop. Against the abuse of this -authority there was practically no guarantee. On the -other side it can be shown that large sections of the wage-earners -were not only moderate in their demands, but -submissive in their behaviour. As a rule, wherever we find -exceptional aggression and violence on the part of the -operatives, we discover exceptional tyranny on the side of -the employers. To give an example or two, the continual -outrages which disgrace the annals of Glasgow Trade Unionism -for the first forty years of this century are accounted -for by the reports of the various Parliamentary Inquiries -which mark out the Glasgow millowners as extraordinarily -autocratic in their views and tyrannous in their conduct. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</span> -Again, the aggressive conduct of certain sections of the -building trades is frequently complained of in the capitalist -press between 1830-40. But the agreements which the -large contractors of that time required “all those to sign -who enter into their employ,” printed copies of which are -still extant, show that the demands of the employers were -intolerably arbitrary.<a id="FNanchor_289" href="#Footnote_289" class="fnanchor">[289]</a> Then there is the case of the miners -of Great Britain, who were in very ill repute for riotous -proceedings from 1837-44. The provocation they received -may be judged from a manifesto issued by Lord Londonderry -in his dual capacity as mine-owner and Lord-Lieutenant -of Durham County during the great strike of the -miners in 1844 for fairer terms of hiring. He not only -superintends, as Lord-Lieutenant, the wholesale eviction of -the strikers from their homes, and their supersession by -Irishmen specially imported from his Irish estates, but he -peremptorily orders the resident traders in “his town of -Seaham,” on pain of forfeiting his custom and protection, -to refuse to supply provisions to the workmen engaged in -what he deems “an unjust and senseless warfare <i>against -their proprietors and masters</i>.”<a id="FNanchor_290" href="#Footnote_290" class="fnanchor">[290]</a> The same intolerance -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</span> -marks the magazines and journals of the dominant classes -of the period. It seems to have been habitually taken for -granted that the workman had not merely to fulfil his -contract of service, but to yield implicit obedience in the -details of his working life to the will of his master. Combinations -and strikes on the part of the “lower orders” -were regarded as futile and disorderly attempts to escape -from their natural position of social subservience. In -short, the majority of employers, even in this time of negro -emancipation, seem to have been unconsciously acting upon -the dictum subsequently attributed to J. C. Calhoun, the -defender of American slavery, that “the true solution of -the contest of all time between labour and capital is that -capital should own the labourer whether white or black.”</p> - -<p>The closing scene of Owen’s first and last attempt at -“the Trades Union” shows how ephemeral had been his -participation in the real life of the Trade Union Movement. -In August 1834 he called together one of his usual miscellaneous -congresses, consisting of delegates from all kinds -of Owenite societies, with a few from the Grand National -and other Trade Unions. At this congress the “Grand -National Consolidated Trades Union,” which was to have -brought to its feet Government, landlords, and employers, -was formally converted into the “British and Foreign -Consolidated Association of Industry, Humanity, and -Knowledge,” having for its aim the establishment of a -“New Moral World” by the reconciliation of all classes. -Beyond one or two small and futile experiments in -co-operative production, it had attempted nothing to -realise Owen’s Utopia. Its whole powers had been spent, -seemingly with his own consent, in a series of aggressive -strikes. For all that, Owen’s meteoric appearance in the -Trade Union World left a deep impression on the movement. -The minute-books and other contemporary records of the -Trade Unions of the next decade abound in Owenite -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</span> -phraseology, such as the classification of Society into the -“idle” and the “industrious” classes, the latter apparently -meaning—and being certainly understood to mean—only -the manual workers. More important is the persistence of -the idea that the Trade Unions, as Associations of Producers, -should recover control of the instruments of production. -From this time forth innumerable attempts were made, by -one Trade Union or another, to employ its own members -in Productive Co-operation. A long series of industrial -disasters, culminating in the great losses of 1874, has, even -now, scarcely eradicated the last remnant of this Joint Stock -Individualism from the idealists of the Trade Union Movement; -or taught them to distinguish accurately between -it and the demonstrably successful Co-operative Production -of the Associations of Consumers which constitute the -Co-operative Movement of to-day. Outside the organised -ranks his effect upon general working-class opinion was, as -Place remarks, enormous, as we could abundantly show -were we here concerned with the “Union Shops,” “Equitable -Labour Exchanges,” and industrial communities -which may be considered the most direct result of the -Owenite propaganda, or with the fortunes of the innumerable -co-operative associations of producers, whose delegates -formed the backbone of the Owenite congresses of these -years. -<a id="FNanchor_291" href="#Footnote_291" class="fnanchor">[291]</a></p> - -<p>The Trade Union Movement was not absolutely left for -dead when Owen quitted the field. The skilled mechanics -of the printing and engineering trades had, as we shall -presently see, held aloof from the general movement, and -their trade clubs were unaffected either by the Owenite -boom or its subsequent collapse. In some other trades the -inflation of 1830-4 spread itself over a few more years. The -Potters’ Union went on increasing in strength, and in 1835 -gained a notable victory over the employers, when a “Green -Book of Prices” was agreed to, which long remained famous -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</span> -in the trade. Renewed demands led to the formation by -the employers of a Chamber of Commerce to resist the men’s -aggression. The “yearly bond” was rigidly insisted upon, -and a great strike ensued, which ended in 1837 in the -complete collapse of the Union.<a id="FNanchor_292" href="#Footnote_292" class="fnanchor">[292]</a> In 1836 the Scottish -compositors formed the General Typographical Association -of Scotland, which for a few years exercised an effective -control over the trade. The same year saw a notable strike -by the Preston Cotton-spinners, from which is dated the -general adoption of the self-acting mule.<a id="FNanchor_293" href="#Footnote_293" class="fnanchor">[293]</a> But the most -permanent effect is seen in the building trades. The -national Unions of Plumbers and Carpenters have preserved -an unbroken existence down to the present day,<a id="FNanchor_294" href="#Footnote_294" class="fnanchor">[294]</a> whilst -the Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons remained -for nearly another half century one of the most powerful of -English Unions. The fortnightly circulars of the English -Stonemasons reveal, for a few years, not only a vigorous -life and quick growth, but also many successful short strikes -to secure Working Rules and to maintain Time Wages. -The Scottish Stonemasons are referred to as being even -more active and influential in trade regulation, and as having -included practically all the Scottish masons. There is evidence, -too, of informal federal action between the National -Unions of Stonemasons, Carpenters, and Bricklayers. -Unfortunately the absence of such modern machinery of -organisation as Trades Councils, Trade Union Congresses, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</span> -and standing joint committees prevented the scattered -sectional organisations from forming any general movement. -This state of things was broken into during the year 1837 -by the sensational strikes in Glasgow, the prolonged legal -prosecution and severe punishment of their leaders, and the -appointment of a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into -the results of the repeal of the Combination Laws.</p> - -<p>We do not propose to enter here into the details of the -famous trial of the five Glasgow cotton-spinners for conspiracy, -violent intimidation, and for the murder of fellow-workers. -But it is one of the “leading cases” of Trade -Union history, and the manifestations of feeling which it -provoked show to the depths the state of mind of the -working classes.<a id="FNanchor_295" href="#Footnote_295" class="fnanchor">[295]</a> The evidence given in court, and repeated -before the Select Committee of 1838, leaves no reasonable -doubt that the Cotton-Spinners’ Union in its corporate -capacity had initiated a reign of terror extending over -twenty years, and that some of the incriminated members -had been personally guilty not of instigation alone, but of -actual violence, if not of murder. In spite of this, the whole -body of working-class opinion was on their side, and the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</span> -sentence of seven years’ transportation was received with as -much indignation as that upon the Dorchester labourers -four years before. This was one of the natural effects of -the class despotism and scarcely veiled rebellion which we -have already described. The use of violence by working -men, either against obnoxious employers or against traitors -in their own ranks, was regarded in much the same way -as the political offences of a subject race under foreign -dominion. Such deeds did not, in fact, necessarily indicate -any moral turpitude on the part of the perpetrators. No -one accused the five Glasgow cotton-spinners of bad private -character or conduct, and at least four out of the five were -men of acknowledged integrity and devotedness.<a id="FNanchor_296" href="#Footnote_296" class="fnanchor">[296]</a> Their -unjust treatment whilst awaiting trial, and still more -their sentence to transportation, enlisted the sympathy of -the Parliamentary Radicals, and Wakley, the member for -Finsbury, did not hesitate to bring their case before the -House of Commons as one of legal persecution and injustice.</p> - -<p>At this time the trade societies of Dublin and Cork had -caused serious complaint by attempting to establish, and -not without violence, an effective monopoly in certain -skilled industries. Their action had been reproved by -Daniel O’Connell, whom they, in their turn, had repudiated -and denounced. O’Connell defeated Wakley’s friendly -motion for an inquiry into the cotton-spinners’ case by -a serious indictment of Trade Unionism. By a clever -analysis of the rules of the Irish societies, which he made -out to be purely obstructive and selfish, he condemned, in -a speech of great power, all attempts on the part of trade -combinations to regulate the conditions of labour. The -well-established methods of modern Trade Unionism, such -as the maintenance of a minimum rate, received from him -the same condemnation as the unsocial and oppressive -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</span> -monopolies for which the Irish trades had long been -notorious. The Government met this speech by granting -a Select Committee under Sir Henry Parnell to inquire -into the whole question; and Trade Unionism accordingly -found itself once more on its defence as a permanent element -in social organisation. The case of the Glasgow cotton-spinners -and the appointment of this Parliamentary Committee -for the moment revived the sentiment of solidarity -in the Trade Union world. A joint committee of the -Glasgow trades was formed to collect subscriptions for -the defence of the prisoners; and communications for -this purpose were made to all the known Trade Unions. -Considerable funds were subscribed, as the trial was -repeatedly postponed at great expense to the prisoners; -and when at last, in January, 1838, they were convicted -and sentenced, a combined agitation for some mitigation -of their punishment was begun. By this time it had become -known that some kind of inquiry into Trade Unionism was -in contemplation. The Unions at once set their house in -order. The Stonemasons, who had already given up the -administration of oaths, resolved, for greater security against -illegal practices, “that all forms of regalia, initiation, and -passwords be dispensed with and entirely abolished.”<a id="FNanchor_297" href="#Footnote_297" class="fnanchor">[297]</a> -The Dublin Plasterers formally suspended their exclusive -rules, and deferred the issue of a new edition until after -the inquiry.<a id="FNanchor_298" href="#Footnote_298" class="fnanchor">[298]</a> In Glasgow, the chief seat of the disorder, -many societies—among others, the local Carpenters—deliberately -burned their minute-books and archives for -the past year. The London societies appointed a committee, -“The London Trades Combination Committee,” -to conduct the Unionist case in the Parliamentary inquiry. -Lovett, then well known as a Radical politician, became -secretary, and issued a stirring address to the Trade Unions -throughout the country, asking for subscriptions and evidence. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</span><a id="FNanchor_299" href="#Footnote_299" class="fnanchor">[299]</a> -But the Parliamentary Committee proved both -perfunctory and inconclusive. The Government, which -had conceded it merely to rid itself of the importunity of -Wakley on the one hand and O’Connell on the other, had -evidently no intention of taking any action on the subject; -and the Committee, always thinly attended, made no attempt -at a general inquiry, and confined itself practically to Dublin -and Glasgow. O’Connell got the opportunity he desired -of demonstrating, through selected witnesses, the violent -and exclusive spirit which animated the Irish Unions. With -regard to Glasgow, the chief witness was Sheriff, afterwards -Sir Archibald, Alison, whose vigorous action had quelled -the cotton-spinners in that city. It was scarcely necessary -to call witnesses on behalf of the Unions; but John Doherty, -then become a master-printer and bookseller, was allowed -to describe the Manchester spinners’ organisation and the -ill-fated associations of 1829-31. The inquiry resulted -in nothing but the presentation to the House of two -volumes of evidence, without even so much as a report. -It seems to have been expected that the Committee would -be reappointed to complete its task; but when the next -session came the matter was quietly dropped. -<a id="FNanchor_300" href="#Footnote_300" class="fnanchor">[300]</a></p> - -<p>The temporary fillip given by the cotton-spinners’ trial -and the Parliamentary Committee did not stop the steady -decline of Trade Unionism throughout the country. Trade, -which had been on the wane since 1836, grew suddenly -worse. The decade closed with three of the leanest years -ever known; and widespread distress prevailed. The -membership of the surviving Trade Unions rapidly decreased. -The English Stonemasons, perhaps the strongest -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</span> -of the contemporary societies, reduced themselves, in 1841, -temporarily, to absolute bankruptcy by their disastrous -strike against an obnoxious foreman on the rebuilding of -the Houses of Parliament. The Scottish Stonemasons’ -Society, of equal or greater strength, collapsed at about -the same time, from causes not known to us. The Glasgow -trades had been completely disorganised by the disasters -of 1837. The Lancashire textile operatives showed no sign -of life; whilst such growing societies as the Ironfounders, -the Journeymen Steam-Engine Makers and Millwrights, -and the Boilermakers were crippled by the heavy drafts -made upon their funds by unemployed members. The -state of mind of the working classes was no more propitious -than the state of trade. Fierce discontent and sullen anger -are the characteristics of this period. Hatred of the New -Poor Law, of the iniquitous taxes on food, of the general -oppression by the dominant classes, blazes out in the Trade -Union records of the time. The agitation for the “Six -Points,” set on foot by Lovett and others in the Working -Men’s Association of 1836, became the centre of working-class -aspiration. The <i>Northern Star</i>, started at the end -of 1837, rapidly distanced all other provincial journals in -circulation. The lecturers of the Anti-Corn Law League -increased the popular discontent, even when their own -particular panacea failed to find acceptance. A general -despair of constitutional reform led to the growing supremacy -of the “Physical Force” section of the Chartists, -and to the insurrectionism of 1839-42.</p> - -<p>The political developments of these years are outside -the scope of this work. The Chartist Movement plays -the most important part in working-class annals from -1837 to 1842, and does not quit the stage until 1848. -Made respectable by sincerity, devotion, and even heroism -in the rank and file, it was disgraced by the fustian of -many of its orators and the political and economic quackery -of its pretentious and incompetent leaders whose jealousies -and intrigues, by successively excluding all the nobler -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</span> -elements, finally brought it to nought. An adequate history -of it would be of extreme value to our young Democracy.<a id="FNanchor_301" href="#Footnote_301" class="fnanchor">[301]</a> -Here it is only necessary to say that whilst the Chartist -Movement commanded the support of the vast majority -of the manual-working wage-earners, outside the ranks of -those who were deeply religious, there is no reason to believe -that the Trade Unions at any time became part and parcel -of the Movement, as they had, during 1833-4, of the Owenite -agitation, though some of their members furnished the most -ardent supporters of the Charter. Individual trades, such -as the shoemakers, seem to have been thoroughly permeated -with Chartism, and were always attempting to rally other -trade societies to the cause. The angry strikes of 1842 in -Lancashire and the Midlands, fostered, as some said, by -the Anti-Corn Law League, were “captured” by the -Chartists, and almost converted into political rebellions. -The delegate meeting of the Lancashire and Yorkshire trade -clubs, which was conducting the “general strike” then in -progress “for the wages of 1840,” resolved in August 1842 -to recommend all wage-earners “to cease work until the -Charter becomes the law of the land.”<a id="FNanchor_302" href="#Footnote_302" class="fnanchor">[302]</a> For a few weeks, -indeed, it looked as if the Trade Union Movement, such as -it was, would become merged in the political current. But -the manifest absurdity of persuading starving men to -remain on strike until the whole political machinery of the -country had been altered, must have quickly become -apparent to the shrewder Trade Unionists. When Chartist -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</span> -meetings at Sheffield were calling for a “general strike” -to obtain the Charter, the secretaries of seven local Unions -wrote to the newspapers explaining that their trades had -nothing to do with the meetings or the resolutions.<a id="FNanchor_303" href="#Footnote_303" class="fnanchor">[303]</a> It must -be remembered in this connection that the number of Trade -Unionists was, in these years, relatively small—probably -not so great as a hundred thousand in the whole kingdom—so -that they could not have formed any appreciable proportion -of the two, three or four million adherents that the -Chartist leaders were in the habit of claiming. And it -may be doubted whether in any case a Trade Union itself, -as distinguished from particular members who happened -to be delegates, made any formal profession of adherence -to Chartism. In the contemporary Trade Union records -that are still extant, such as those of the Bookbinders, -Compositors, Ironfounders, Cotton-spinners, Steam-engine -makers, and Stonemasons, there are no traces of Chartist -resolutions; although denunciations of the “Notorious -New Poor Law oppression” abound in the <i>Fortnightly -Circular</i> of the Stonemasons;<a id="FNanchor_304" href="#Footnote_304" class="fnanchor">[304]</a> whilst the Ironfounders, -Compositors, and Cotton-spinners pass resolutions in favour -of Free Trade. A partial explanation of this reticence on -the more exciting topic of the Charter is doubtless to be -found in the frequently adopted rule excluding politics -and religion from Trade Union discussions—a rule which -was, in 1842, protested against by an enthusiastic Chartist -delegate from the Bookbinders at the Manchester Conference.<a id="FNanchor_305" href="#Footnote_305" class="fnanchor">[305]</a> -There must, however, have been something more -than mere obedience to the rule in the unwillingness of the -trade societies to be mixed up with the Chartist agitation. -The rule had not prevented the organised trades of 1831-2</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</span></p> - -<p>from taking a prominent part in the Reform Bill Movement. -The banners of the Edinburgh trade clubs were conspicuous -in the public demonstration on the rejection of the Bill of -1831. When the House of Lords gave way, the Birmingham -Trade Unions themselves organised a triumphal procession, -which was discountenanced by the middle class.<a id="FNanchor_306" href="#Footnote_306" class="fnanchor">[306]</a> The -records of the London Brushmakers show that they even -subscribed from the Union funds to Reform associations. -But we never find the trade societies of 1839-42 contributing -to Chartist funds, or even collecting money for Chartist -victims. The cases of Frost, Williams, and Jones, the -Newport rebels of 1839, were least as deserving of the -working-class sympathy as those of the Glasgow cotton-spinners. -But the Trade Unions showed no inclination -to subscribe money or get up petitions in aid of them. -“Never,” writes Fergus O’Connor, in 1846, “was there more -criminal apathy than that manifested by the trades of Great -Britain to the sufferings of those men;” and he adds, “that -if one half that was done for the Dorchester labourers or -the Glasgow cotton-spinners had been done for Frost, -Williams, and Jones, they would long since have been -restored.” -<a id="FNanchor_307" href="#Footnote_307" class="fnanchor">[307]</a></p> - -<p>Insurrectionism, whether Owenite or Chartist, was, in -fact, losing its attraction for the working-class mind. -Robert Owen’s economic axioms of the extinction of profit -and the elimination of the profit-maker were, during these -very years, passing into the new Co-operative Movement, -inaugurated in 1844 by the Rochdale Pioneers. The -believers in a “new system of society,” to be brought -about by universal agreement, were henceforth to be found -in the ranks of the commercial-minded Co-operators rather -than in those of the militant Trade Unionists. Chartism, -meanwhile, had degenerated from Lovett’s high ideal of a -complete political democracy to an ignoble scramble for the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</span> -ownership of small plots of land. The example of the -French Revolution of 1848 fanned the dying embers for -a few weeks into a new flame; and many of the London -trades swung into the somewhat theatrical fête of April 10, -1848, swelling the procession against which the Duke of -Wellington had marshalled the London middle class. But -the danger of revolution had passed away. A new generation -of workmen was growing up, to whom the worst of -the old oppression was unknown, and who had imbibed -the economic and political philosophy of the middle-class -reformers. Bentham, Ricardo, and Grote were read only -by a few; but the activity of such popular educationalists -as Lord Brougham and Charles Knight propagated “useful -knowledge” to all the members of the Mechanics’ Institutes -and the readers of the <i>Penny Magazine</i>. The middle-class -ideas of “free enterprise” and “unrestricted competition” -which were thus diffused received a great impetus from the -extraordinary propaganda of the Anti-Corn Law League, -and the general progress of Free Trade. Fergus O’Connor -and Bronterre O’Brien struggled in vain against the growing -dominance of Cobden and Bright as leaders of working-class -opinion. And so we find in the Trade Union records -of 1847-8, that vigorous resistance begins to be made to -any movement in support of the old ideals. The Steam-Engine -Makers’ Society suspended some of their branches -for depositing the branch funds in Fergus O’Connor’s Land -Bank. When two branches of the Stonemasons’ Society -propose the same investment, the others indignantly protest -against it as an absurd political speculation. And it -is significant that these protests came, not from the cautious -elders whose enthusiasm had outlived many failures, but -from those who had never shared the old faith. When -in 1848 the Yorkshire Woolstaplers proposed to take a -farm upon which to set to work their unemployed men, it -was the younger members, as we are expressly told, who -strenuously but vainly resisted this action, which resulted -ruinously for the society.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</span></p> - -<p>All this makes the close of the “revolutionary” period -of the Trade Union Movement. For the next quarter of -a century we shall watch the development of the new -ideas and the gradual building up of the great “amalgamated” -societies of skilled artisans, with their centralised -administration, friendly society benefits, and the substitution, -wherever possible, of Industrial Diplomacy for the -ruder methods of the Class War.</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_207" href="#FNanchor_207" class="label">[207]</a>In a manuscript essay on the different forms of association, entitled -“Trades Unions condemned, Trade Clubs justified,” Place gives us the -distinction between the two. “A trade society,” he says, “that is, a -club consisting of the journeymen in any one trade which does not form -part of a union of several trades, which does not appoint delegates to -meet other delegates, is a very different thing from a Trades Union, even -though it may call itself a union. Trades Unions are those in which -several trades, or portions of several trades, in the same line of business -or in different callings, are confederated by means of delegates.” Place -often refers to this distinction between the Trade Clubs, which were, -according to his view, “very valuable institutions,” and the “Trades -Unions,” or “associations of several or many trades in one combination,” -which he regarded as “very mischievous associations.” William Lovett, -too, watching the same transformation, makes, in a letter published in -the <i>Poor Man’s Guardian</i> of August 30, 1834, exactly the same distinction.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_208" href="#FNanchor_208" class="label">[208]</a>See the reports to the Home Secretary (Home Office Papers, 42—179, -180, 181, 182); <i>The Town Labourer</i>(by J. L. and B. Hammond, 1917), -pp. 306-11.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_209" href="#FNanchor_209" class="label">[209]</a>See the “Articles of the Philanthropic Hercules, for the Mutual -Support of the Labouring Mechanics,” dated December 24, 1818, which -Gast contributed to the <i>Gorgon</i>. Gast’s preliminary address appears in -the issue for December 5, 1818, and in that of January 29, 1819, the -society is described as established (Place MSS. 27899—143).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_210" href="#FNanchor_210" class="label">[210]</a><i>The Herald of the Rights of Industry</i>(Manchester, April 5, 1834).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_211" href="#FNanchor_211" class="label">[211]</a><i>Labour Rewarded: The Claims of Labour and Capital: How to secure to -Labour the Whole Product of its Exertions</i>, by One of the Idle Classes [William -Thompson], 1827; see <i>The Irish Labour Movement</i>, by W. P. Ryan, 1919.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_212" href="#FNanchor_212" class="label">[212]</a><i>A Report of the Proceedings of the Meeting of Cotton-spinners at Ramsay</i>, -etc. (Manchester, 1829, 56 pages); <i>Copy of Resolutions of the Delegates -from the Operative Cotton-spinners who met at the Isle of Man</i>(Manchester, -1830), in Home Office Papers, 40—27.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_213" href="#FNanchor_213" class="label">[213]</a>John Doherty, described by Place as a somewhat hot-headed Roman -Catholic—really one of the acutest thinkers and stoutest leaders among -the workmen of his time—was born in Ireland in 1799, and went to work -in a cotton-mill at Larne, Co. Antrim, at the age of ten. In 1816 he -migrated to Manchester, where he quickly became one of the leading -Trade Unionists, and secretary to the local Cotton-spinners’ Society. We -find him, for instance, taking a prominent part in the agitation against -the proposed re-enactment of the Combination Laws in 1825. Whether -he was concerned in the Philanthropic Society or General Union of 1818 -or 1826 we do not know. In 1829 he organised the great strike of the -Hyde spinners against a reduction of rates, and became, as described in -the text, successively General Secretary to the Federation of Spinners’ -Societies, and to the National Association for the Protection of Labour, -in which office he is reported, probably inaccurately, to have received the -then enormous salary of £600 a year. We naturally find him the object -of great suspicion by the Government, but no charge seems ever to have -been brought against him (Home Office Papers, 40—26, 27). The -articles in the <i>Voice of the People</i> and the <i>Poor Man’s Advocate</i>, which are -evidently from his pen, show him to have been a man of wide information, -great natural shrewdness, and far-reaching aims. His idea was that -all the local and district Unions were to be federated in a national organisation -for the sole purpose of dealing with trade matters, and that they should -also be federated in a National Association for obtaining political reforms. -In 1832, during the Reform crisis, Place describes him as advising the -working classes to use the occasion for a social revolution. He subsequently -acted as secretary to an association of operatives and masters -established to enforce the Factory Acts, and was one of Lord Shaftesbury’s -most strenuous supporters. In 1838, when he had become a printer and -bookseller in Manchester, he gave evidence before the Select Committee -on Combinations of Workmen, in which he described the spinners’ organisations -and strikes. There is a pamphlet by him in the Goldsmiths’ Library -at the University of London, entitled <i>A Letter to the Members of the National -Association for the Protection of Labour</i>(Manchester, 1831).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_214" href="#FNanchor_214" class="label">[214]</a>Home Office Papers, 40—27.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_215" href="#FNanchor_215" class="label">[215]</a><i>Ibid.</i>, December 3, 1830, 40—26.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_216" href="#FNanchor_216" class="label">[216]</a>Foster died in 1831, and McGowan settled at Glasgow. “Almost -every spinning district,” writes the <i>Poor Man’s Advocate</i> of June 23, 1832, -“of any consequence, was enrolled in the Union. The power of the -Union, of course, increased with its members, and a number of the worst-paying -employers were compelled to advance the wages of the spinners to -something like the standard rate.... The Union, however, which Mr. -McGowan had mainly contributed to mature, has since, from distrust or -weariness, sunk into comparative insignificance.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_217" href="#FNanchor_217" class="label">[217]</a>The letter is preserved in the MS. “Contribution Book” of the -Liverpool Sailmakers’ Friendly Association, established 1817.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_218" href="#FNanchor_218" class="label">[218]</a><i>Address of the National Association for the Protection of Labour to -the Workmen of the United Kingdom</i>(4 pp. 1830), in Home Office Papers, -40—27.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_219" href="#FNanchor_219" class="label">[219]</a>Given as Appendix to the pamphlet <i>On Combination of Trades</i> -(1830). Compare Wade’s <i>History of the Middle and Working Classes</i> -(1834), p. 277.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_220" href="#FNanchor_220" class="label">[220]</a>Thirty-one numbers, extending from March 6 to October 2, 1830, -are in the Manchester Public Library (620 B).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_221" href="#FNanchor_221" class="label">[221]</a>The numbers from January to September 1831 are in the British -Museum. See Place’s letter in <i>Westminster Review</i>(1831), p. 243.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_222" href="#FNanchor_222" class="label">[222]</a>Home Office Papers, 40—26, 27.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_223" href="#FNanchor_223" class="label">[223]</a>Home Office Papers, April 8, 1831, 44—25.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_224" href="#FNanchor_224" class="label">[224]</a><i>Union Pilot and Co-operative Intelligencer</i>, March 24, 1832 (Manchester -Public Library, 640 E).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_225" href="#FNanchor_225" class="label">[225]</a>Meanwhile the coalminers of Northumberland and Durham, under -the leadership of “Tommy Hepburn,” an organiser of remarkable ability, -had formed their first strong Union in 1830, which for two years kept -the two counties in a state of excitement. Strikes and riotings in 1831 -and 1832 caused the troops to be called out: marines were sent from -Portsmouth, and squadrons of cavalry scoured the country. After six -months’ struggle in 1832 the Union collapsed, and the men submitted. -See Home Office Papers for these years, 40—31, 32, &c.; Sykes’ <i>Local -Records of Northumberland</i>, &c., vol. ii. pp. 293, 353; Fynes’ <i>Miners of -Northumberland and Durham</i>(Blyth, 1873), chaps, iv. v. vi.; <i>An Earnest -Address and Urgent Appeal to the People of England in behalf of the Oppressed -and Suffering Pitmen of the Counties of Northumberland and Durham</i>(by -W. Scott, Newcastle, 1831); <i>History and Description of Fossil Fuel</i>, etc. -(by John Holland, 1835), pp. 298-304.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_226" href="#FNanchor_226" class="label">[226]</a>It is not clear whether this scheme was initiated by carpenters or -masons. The carpenters and joiners are distinguished among the building -trades for the antiquity of their local trade clubs, which are known -to have existed in London as far back as 1799. A national organisation -was established in London in July 1827, called the Friendly Society of -Operative Carpenters and Joiners, which still survives under the title of -the “General Union.” MS. records in the office of the latter show that -this federation had 938 members in 1832, rising to 3691 in 1833, and to -6774 in 1834, a total not paralleled until 1865. This rapid increase -marks the general upheaval of these years. But this Society did not -throw in its lot with the Builders’ Union until 1833. On the other hand, -the existing Operative Stonemasons’ Friendly Society, which dates its -separate existence from 1834, but which certainly existed in some form -from 1832, has among its archives what appear to be the original MS. -rules and initiation rites of its predecessor, the Builders’ Union; and in -these documents the masons figure as the foremost members. Moreover, -these rules and rites closely resemble those of contemporary unions among -the Yorkshire woollen-workers; and an independent tradition fixes the -parent lodge of the Masons’ Society at the great woollen centre of Huddersfield, -whereas the Friendly Society of Carpenters and Joiners, founded in -London, had its headquarters at Leicester. But however this may be, -the constitution and ceremonies described in these documents owe their -significance to the fact that they are nearly identical with those adopted -by many of the national Unions of the period, and were largely adopted -by the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union of 1834.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_227" href="#FNanchor_227" class="label">[227]</a>A similar ritual is printed in <i>Character, Objects, and Effects of Trades -Unions</i>(1834), as used by the Woolcombers’ Union. Probably the Builders’ -Union copied their ritual from some union of woollen-workers. The -Stonemasons’ MS. contains, like the copy printed in this pamphlet, a -solemn reference to “King Edward the Third,” who was regarded as the -great benefactor of the English wool trade, but whose connection with -the building trade is not obvious. In a later printed edition of <i>The -Initiating Parts of the Friendly Society of Operative Masons</i>, dated Birmingham, -1834, his name is omitted, and that of Solomon substituted, apparently -in memory of the Freemasons’ assumed origin at the building -of the Temple at Jerusalem.</p> - -<p>The actual origin of this initiation ceremony is not certainly known -John Tester, who had been a leader of the Bradford Woolcombers in -1825, afterwards turned against the Unions, and published, in the <i>Leeds -Mercury</i> of June and July 1834, a series of letters denouncing the Leeds -Clothiers’ Union. In these he states that “the mode of initiation was the -same as practised for years before by the flannel-weavers of Rochdale, -with a party of whom the thing, in the shape it then wore, had at first -originated.... A great part of the ceremony, ... particularly the death -scene, was taken from the ceremonial of one division of the Oddfellows, -... who were flannel-weavers at Rochdale, in Lancashire; and all that -could be well turned from the rules and lectures of one society into the -regulations of the others was so turned, with some trifling verbal alterations.” -In another letter he says that the writer of the “lecture book” -was one Mark Warde. Tester is not implicitly to be believed, but it -seems probable that the regalia, doggerel rhymes, and mystic rites of the -unions of this time were copied from those of an Oddfellows’ Lodge, with -some recollections of Freemasonry. In his <i>Mutual Thrift</i>(1891), the -Rev. J. Frome Wilkinson describes (p. 14) the initiation ceremony of the -“Patriotic Oddfellows,” a society which merged in the present “Grand -United Order of Oddfellows” before the close of the century. The ceremony -so described corresponds in many characteristic details with that -of the Trades Unions. All the older friendly society “Orders” imposed -an oath, and were consequently unlawful.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_228" href="#FNanchor_228" class="label">[228]</a>Home Office Papers, December 29, 1832, 40—31.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_229" href="#FNanchor_229" class="label">[229]</a>At Birmingham, when the builders’ strike presently extended to -that town, the following was the manifesto drawn up for adoption by the -Builders’ Union, for presentation to the leading building contractor who -had just undertaken to erect the new grammar-school. (No record of -its adoption and presentation has been found.) “We, the delegates of -the several Lodges of the Building Trades, elected for the purpose of -correcting the abuses which have crept into the modes of undertaking -and transacting business, do hereby give you notice that you will receive -no assistance from the working-men in any of our bodies to enable you to -fulfil an engagement which we understand you have entered into with -the Governors of the Free Grammar School to erect a new school in New -Street, unless you comply with the following conditions:</p> - -<p>“Aware that it is our labour alone that can carry into effect what -you have undertaken, we cannot but view ourselves as parties to your -engagement, if that engagement is ever fulfilled; and as you had no -authority from us to make such an engagement, nor had you any legitimate -right to barter our labour at prices fixed by yourself, we call upon -you to exhibit to our several bodies your detailed estimates of quantities -and prices at which you have taken the work; and we call upon you to -arrange with us a fixed percentage of profit for your own services in -conducting the building, and in finding the material on which our labour -is to be applied.</p> - -<p>“Should we find upon examination that you have fixed equitable -prices which will not only remunerate you for your superintendence but -us for our toil, we have no objections upon a clear understanding to become -partners to the contract, and will see you through it, after your having -entered yourself a member of our body, and after your having been duly -elected to occupy the office you have assumed” (<i>Robert Owen: A Biography</i>, -by Frank Podmore, 1906, vol. ii. p. 442-4).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_230" href="#FNanchor_230" class="label">[230]</a><i>An Impartial Statement of the Proceedings of the Members of the Trades -Union Societies, and of the Steps taken in consequence by the Master Traders -of Liverpool</i>(Liverpool, 1833); <i>Remarks on the Nature and Probable -Termination of the Struggle now existing between the Master and Journeyman -Builders</i>(Manchester, 1833); <i>Times</i>, June 27, 1833.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_231" href="#FNanchor_231" class="label">[231]</a><i>Pioneer</i>, December 7, 1833; <i>History of Birmingham</i>, by W. Hutton -(Birmingham, 1835), p. 87.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_232" href="#FNanchor_232" class="label">[232]</a>It was edited by James Morrison, an enthusiastic Owenite, who -died, worn out, in 1835 (<i>Beer’s History of British Socialism</i>, 1919, p. -328).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_233" href="#FNanchor_233" class="label">[233]</a>It was eventually finished by the landlord, and still exists as a -metal warehouse in Shadwell Street.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_234" href="#FNanchor_234" class="label">[234]</a>In May 1834 an informer offered to supply the Home Secretary -With full particulars of its organisation, leading members and their -activities, for two sums of £50 each (Home Office Papers, 40—32).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_235" href="#FNanchor_235" class="label">[235]</a>Letters to Cobbett’s <i>Weekly Register</i>, reprinted in the <i>Pioneer</i>, -December 21, 1833. See also Home Office Papers, 40—32; and the -<i>Crisis</i> for November and December 1833. <i>The Voice of the West Riding</i>, -an unstamped weekly, June and July 1833, was devoted to this agitation -in the Yorkshire textile industry (see Home Office Papers, 40—31).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_236" href="#FNanchor_236" class="label">[236]</a>For an unfavourable account of this Union, see the extremely -biassed statement given in the pamphlet <i>Character, Objects, and Effects of -Trades Unions</i>(1834). The employers seem to have regarded all the -demands of the men as equally unreasonable, even the request for a list -of piecework prices. See <i>Times</i>, October 2, 1833. A printed address -<i>To the Flax and Hemp Trade of Great Britain</i>, issued by the flaxworkers -of Leeds, November 30, 1832, refers with admiration to the effectiveness -of this Union (Home Office Papers, 40—31; see also 41—11).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_237" href="#FNanchor_237" class="label">[237]</a><i>Times</i>, October 28, 1833.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_238" href="#FNanchor_238" class="label">[238]</a><i>Crisis</i>, October 19, 1833.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_239" href="#FNanchor_239" class="label">[239]</a><i>Crisis</i>, October 12, 1833. The history of the General Trades Unions -from 1832 to 1834 is mainly to be gathered from the files of the Owenite -press, the <i>Crisis</i>, the <i>Pioneer</i>, and the <i>Herald of the Rights of Industry</i>, -with frequent ambiguous references in the Home Office Papers for these -years. The <i>Poor Man’s Guardian</i> and the <i>Man</i> also contain occasional -references. The <i>Official Gazette</i>, issued by the Grand National Consolidated -Trades Union itself in June 1834, has unfortunately not been -preserved. We have also been unable to discover any copy of the -Glasgow Owenite journals, the <i>Tradesman</i>, <i>Trades Advocate</i>, <i>Liberator</i>, -etc., mostly edited or written by Owen’s disciple, Alexander Campbell, -the secretary of the local joiners’ Trade Union.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_240" href="#FNanchor_240" class="label">[240]</a>It is interesting to notice how closely this organisation resembles, -in its Trade Union features, the well-known “Knights of Labour” of -the United States, established in 1869, and for some years one of the most -powerful labour organisations in the world (“Historical Sketch of the -Knights of Labour,” by Carroll D. Wright, <i>Quarterly Journal of Economics</i>, -January, 1887). Its place was taken by the American Federation of -Labour, with exclusively Trade Union objects.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_241" href="#FNanchor_241" class="label">[241]</a><i>Glasgow Argus</i>, quoted in <i>People’s Conservative</i>, December 28, 1833.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_242" href="#FNanchor_242" class="label">[242]</a>May 5, 1834.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_243" href="#FNanchor_243" class="label">[243]</a><i>Times</i>, January 23 and 30, 1834.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_244" href="#FNanchor_244" class="label">[244]</a><i>Kerr’s Exposition of Legislative Tyranny and Defence of the Trades -Union</i>(Belfast, 1834), vol. 1611 of the Halliday Tracts in the Royal Irish -Academy, Dublin; see <i>The Irish Labour Movement</i>, by W. P. Ryan, 1919.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_245" href="#FNanchor_245" class="label">[245]</a><i>Poor Man’s Guardian</i>, July 26, 1834.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_246" href="#FNanchor_246" class="label">[246]</a><i>Times</i>, April 19, 1834.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_247" href="#FNanchor_247" class="label">[247]</a>The only record of this organisation known to us is a copy of the -Rules in the Goldsmiths’ Library at the University of London, which -we print in the Appendix. A “Memorial from the Grand National -Consolidated Trades Union of Great Britain and Ireland to the Producers -and Non-Producers of Wealth and Knowledge” is printed in the <i>Crisis</i>, -May 17, 1834; another, “to the Shopmen, Clerks, Porters and other -industrious non-producers,” in the issue for April 26, 1834.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_248" href="#FNanchor_248" class="label">[248]</a>See the London newspapers for March 1834; a good summary is -given in the <i>Companion to the Newspaper</i> for that month (p. 71).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_249" href="#FNanchor_249" class="label">[249]</a>September 26, 1831: <i>Lord Melbourne’s Papers</i>(1889), ch. v. p. 130. -The note he left on leaving the Home Office was as follows: “I take the -liberty of recommending the whole of this correspondence <i>re</i> the Union -to the immediate and serious consideration of my successor at the Home -Department” (Home Office Papers, 40—27). See also the statements in -the House of Lords debate, <i>Times</i>, April 29, 1834; and the comments in -<i>Labour Legislation, Labour Movements, and Labour Leaders</i>, by George -Howell, 1902, p. 23.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_250" href="#FNanchor_250" class="label">[250]</a>“We recommend that the soliciting of any person to join in combinations, -or to subscribe to the like purposes, should be punishable on -summary conviction by imprisonment for a shorter period, say not exceeding -two months.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_251" href="#FNanchor_251" class="label">[251]</a>The report was never published, and lies in MS. in the Home -Office library. Ten years later, when Nassau Senior was acting as -Commissioner to report on the condition of the handloom weavers, -he revived a good deal of his 1830 Report, but not the astonishing -proposals quoted in the text. The portion thus revived appears in -his <i>Historical and Philosophical Essays</i>(1865), vol. ii. We had -placed in our hands, through the kindness of Mrs. Simpson, daughter -of Nassau Senior, the original answers and letters upon which his -report was based. This correspondence shows that the leading Manchester -manufacturers were not agreed upon the desirability of re-enacting -the Combination Laws, though they, with one accord, advocated -stringent repression of picketing. Nor were they clear that combinations -had, on the whole, hindered the introduction of new machinery, one -employer even maintaining that the Unions indirectly promoted its -adoption. But the most interesting feature of the correspondence is the -extent to which the employers complained of the manner in which their -rivals incited, and even subsidised, strikes against attempted reductions of -rates. The millowner, whose improved processes gave him an advantage -in the market, found any corresponding reduction of piecework rates -resisted, not only by his own operatives, but by all the other manufacturers -in the district, who sometimes went so far as to publish a joint -declaration that any such reduction was ‘highly inexpedient.’ The -evidence, in fact, from Nassau Senior’s point of view, justified his -somewhat remarkable proposal to punish employers for conniving at -combinations.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_252" href="#FNanchor_252" class="label">[252]</a>Lord Melbourne to Sir Herbert Taylor, September 26, 1831 (<i>Papers</i>, -chap. v. p. 131). The workmen’s combinations began at this time to -attract more serious attention from capable students than they had -hitherto received. Two able pamphlets, published anonymously—there -is reason to believe at the instance and at the cost of the Whig Government—<i>On -Combinations of Trades</i>(1830), and <i>Character, Objects, and Effects -of Trades Unions</i>(1834), set forth the constitution and proceedings of the -new unions, and criticise their pretensions in a manner which has not -since been surpassed. The second of these was by Edward Carlton -Tufnell, one of the factory commissioners, and remains perhaps the best -statement of the case against Trades Unionism. Tufnell also wrote a -pamphlet, entitled <i>Trades Unionism and Strikes</i>(1834; 12mo); and -Harriet Martineau one <i>On the Tendency of Strikes and Sticks to produce -Low Wages</i>(Durham, 1834; 12mo), neither of which we have seen. A -well-informed but hostile article, founded on these materials, appeared -in the <i>Edinburgh Review</i> for July 1834. Charles Knight published in -the same year a sixpenny pamphlet, <i>Trades Unions and Strikes</i>(1834, -99 pp.), which took the form of a bitter denunciation of the whole movement.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_253" href="#FNanchor_253" class="label">[253]</a>See his letter of March 30, 1834, in <i>Lord Melbourne’s Papers</i>, chap. v.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_254" href="#FNanchor_254" class="label">[254]</a><i>Leeds Mercury</i>, April 26, 1834. Joseph Hume said he had had the -“greatest difficulty in prevailing upon the Ministers not to bring in a -bill for putting down the Trades Unions” (<i>Poor Man’s Guardian</i>, March -29, 1834).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_255" href="#FNanchor_255" class="label">[255]</a>Letter dated September 3, 1833, in <i>Times</i>, September 9, 1833.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_256" href="#FNanchor_256" class="label">[256]</a>R. <i>v.</i> Bykerdike, 1 Moo. and Rob. 179, Lancaster Assizes, 1832. A -letter was written to certain coal-owners, “by order of the Board of -Directors for the body of coal-miners,” stating that unless certain men -were discharged the miners would strike. Held to be an illegal combination. -See <i>Leeds Mercury</i>, May 24, 1834.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_257" href="#FNanchor_257" class="label">[257]</a><i>Times</i>, August 22, 1835.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_258" href="#FNanchor_258" class="label">[258]</a><i>Poor Man’s Guardian</i>, September 29, 1832.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_259" href="#FNanchor_259" class="label">[259]</a><i>Times</i>, February 27, 1834.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_260" href="#FNanchor_260" class="label">[260]</a>R. <i>v.</i> Marks and others, 3 East Rep. 157.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_261" href="#FNanchor_261" class="label">[261]</a>Lengthy accounts appeared in the newspapers for March and April -1834. The indictment is given in full in the House of Commons Return, -No. 250, of 1835 (June 1st). The legal report is in 6 C. and P. 596 (R. <i>v.</i> -Loveless and others). The <i>Times</i> reported the judge’s charge at some -length, March 18, 1834, and the case itself March 20, 1834, giving the -rules of the projected union. An able article in the <i>Law Magazine</i>, vol xi. -pp. 460-72, discusses the law of the case. The defendants subsequently -published two statements for popular circulation, viz. <i>Victims of Whiggery, -a statement of the persecution experienced by the Dorchester Labourers</i>, by -George Loveless (1837), and <i>A narrative of the sufferings of James Loveless, -etc.</i>(1838), which are in the British Museum. See also <i>Labour Legislation, -Labour Movements, and Labour Leaders</i>, by G. Howell, 1902, pp. -62-75; Spencer Walpole’s <i>History of England</i>, vol. iii. chap. xiii. pp. -229-31; and <i>Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates</i>, vols. xxii. and xxiii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_262" href="#FNanchor_262" class="label">[262]</a>The student is referred to the admirable account of these proceedings -in <i>The Village Labourer</i>, by J. L. and B. Hammond, 1912. See, for -a contemporary account, <i>Swing Unmasked, or the Cause of Rural Incendiarism</i>, -by G. C. Wakefield, M.P., 1831.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_263" href="#FNanchor_263" class="label">[263]</a><i>Lord Melbourne’s Papers</i>, pp. 147-150, letters dated November 3 -and 7, 1832. Lord Melbourne seems to have thought, probably quite -incorrectly, that these rural organisations were in connection with the -political organisation called the National Union of the Working Classes, -founded by William Lovett in 1831, to support the Reform Bill.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_264" href="#FNanchor_264" class="label">[264]</a><i>Times</i>, March 20, 1834.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_265" href="#FNanchor_265" class="label">[265]</a><i>Lord Melbourne’s Papers</i>, p. 158.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_266" href="#FNanchor_266" class="label">[266]</a><i>Times</i>, March 18, 20, 31; April 1, 16, 19, 1834; <i>Leeds Mercury</i>, -April 26, 1834.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_267" href="#FNanchor_267" class="label">[267]</a>A prominent Owenite agitator of the time, incumbent of St. Nicholas, -Warwick, who is said to have been inhibited from preaching by his bishop.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_268" href="#FNanchor_268" class="label">[268]</a><i>Times</i>, April 22; <i>Companion to the Newspaper</i>, May and June 1834. -Trade Union accounts declare that 100,000 to 200,000 persons were present. -A detailed description of the day is given in Somerville’s <i>Autobiography -of a Working Man</i>(1848), not usually a trustworthy work.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_269" href="#FNanchor_269" class="label">[269]</a><i>Times</i>, April 19, 1834.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_270" href="#FNanchor_270" class="label">[270]</a>The agitation for their release was kept up, both in and out of -Parliament, by the “London Dorchester Committee”; and in 1836 the -remainder of the sentence was remitted. Through official blundering it -was two years later (April 1838) before five out of the six prisoners returned -home. The sixth, as we learn from a circular of the Committee, -dated August 20, 1838, had even then not arrived. “Great and lasting -honour,” writes a well-informed contemporary, “is due to this body of -workmen (the London Dorchester Committee), about sixteen in number, -by whose indefatigable exertions, extending over a period of five years, -and the valuable assistance of Thomas Wakley, M.P. for Finsbury, the -same Government who banished the men were compelled to pardon -them and bring them home free of expense. From the subscriptions -raised by the working classes during this period, amounting to about -£1300, the Committee, on the return of the men, were enabled to place -five of them, with their families, in small farms in Essex, the sixth preferring -(with his share of the fund) to return to his native place.” (Article -in the <i>British Statesman</i>, April 9, 1842, preserved in Place MSS. 27820—320.) -See also House of Commons Return, No. 191 of 1837 (April 12); -and <i>Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates</i>, vol. xxxii. p. 253.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_271" href="#FNanchor_271" class="label">[271]</a>The series of “Initiation Parts,” or forms to be observed on admission -of new members, which are preserved in the archives of the Stonemasons’ -Society, reveal the steady tendency to simplification of ritual. -We have first the old MS. doggerel already described, dating probably from -1832. The first print of 1834, whilst retaining a good deal of the ceremonial, -turns the liturgy into prose and the oath into an almost identical -“declaration,” invoking the “dire displeasure” of the Society in case of -treachery. The second print, which bears no date, is much shorter; and -the declaration becomes a mere affirmation of adhesion. The Society’s -circulars of 1838 record the abolition, by vote of the members, of all -initiation ceremonies, in view of the Parliamentary Inquiry about to be -held into Trade Unionism. But even the simplified form of 1838 retains, -in its reference to the workmen as “the real producers of <i>all</i> wealth,” an -unmistakable trace of the Owenite spirit of the Builders’ Union of 1832.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_272" href="#FNanchor_272" class="label">[272]</a><i>Times</i>, April 30 to June 10; House of Lords debate, April 28; -<i>Globe</i>, May 21, 1834; Home Office Papers, May 10, 1834, 40—32; <i>The -Tailoring Trade</i>, by F. W. Galton, 1896.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_273" href="#FNanchor_273" class="label">[273]</a><i>Leeds Mercury</i>, May 3, 1834.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_274" href="#FNanchor_274" class="label">[274]</a>See the address of the “Grand Master” to the “Operative Cordwainers -of the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union,” <i>Crisis</i>, -June 28, 1834; also <i>Times</i>, May 2, 1834; Home Office Papers, 40—32.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_275" href="#FNanchor_275" class="label">[275]</a><i>Times</i>, August 21, 1834.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_276" href="#FNanchor_276" class="label">[276]</a><i>Statement of the Master Builders of the Metropolis in explanation of -the differences between them and the workmen respecting the Trades Unions</i>, -1834. See also <i>Times</i>, July 27 to November 29, 1834.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_277" href="#FNanchor_277" class="label">[277]</a>The <i>Times</i> honoured these events by long descriptive reports from -its “own correspondent,” then an unusual practice; see the issues from -April 17 to 25, 1834. A good account is also to be found in the <i>Leeds -Mercury</i>, April 19 and 26, 1834; see also the <i>History of the Marcroft -Family</i>(1889), pp. 1036.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_278" href="#FNanchor_278" class="label">[278]</a><i>Trades Journal</i>, March 1, 1841; probably written by Alexander -Hutchinson, general secretary of the Friendly United Smiths of Great -Britain and Ireland.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_279" href="#FNanchor_279" class="label">[279]</a><i>England and America: a Comparison of the Social and Political State -of both Nations</i>, 1833, 2 vols.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_280" href="#FNanchor_280" class="label">[280]</a><i>Poor Man’s Guardian</i>, March 12, 1831; Place MSS. 27791—246, -272. “There were seven Co-operative Congresses in the years 1830-5 -in which the Trade Union and Labour Exchange elements were prominent” -(Prof. Foxwell’s Introduction to <i>The Right to the Full Produce of Labour</i>, -by Anton Menger, 1899).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_281" href="#FNanchor_281" class="label">[281]</a>See the volumes of the <i>Poor Man’s Guardian</i>, preserved in the -British Museum.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_282" href="#FNanchor_282" class="label">[282]</a>Place MSS. 27797—290; see a similar account in the <i>Life of William -Lovett</i>, by himself, p. 86. James Mill writes to Lord Brougham on September -3, 1832, as follows: “Nothing can be conceived more mischievous -than the doctrines which have been preached to the common people.... -The nonsense to which your lordship alludes about the right of the -labourer to the whole produce of the country, wages, profits, and rent -all included, is the mad nonsense of our friend Hodgskin, which he has -published as a system, and propagates with the zeal of perfect fanaticism.... -The illicit cheap publications, in which the doctrine of the right of -the labouring people, who they say are the only producers, to all that is -produced, is very generally preached, ... are superseding the Sunday -newspapers and every other channel through which the people might get -better information” (Bain’s <i>James Mill</i>, p. 363, 1882). The series of -Socialist authors of these years, usually ignored, have been well described -by Prof. Foxwell in his Introduction to the English translation of Menger’s -<i>Right to the Whole Produce of Labour</i>, 1899; and more fully and philosophically -in M. Beer’s <i>History of British Socialism</i>, 1919, vol. i.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_283" href="#FNanchor_283" class="label">[283]</a>“Owen’s chief merit was that he filled the working classes with -renewed hope at a time when the pessimism, both of orthodox economists -and of their unorthodox opponents, had condemned labour to be an -appendage of machinery, a mere commodity whose value, like that of -all commodities, was determined by the bare cost of keeping up the -necessary supply. Owen laid stress upon the human side of economics. -The object of industry was to produce happier and more contented men -and women” (<i>The Chartist Movement</i>, by Mark Hovell, 1918, p. 45).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_284" href="#FNanchor_284" class="label">[284]</a>The prospectus of this Society is in the British Library of Political -Science at the London School of Economics. A copy is given in the -<i>Morning Chronicle</i>, December 7, 1833. Its Manchester meetings are -reported in the <i>Crisis</i> for November and December 1833. It seems to -have had for its organ a penny weekly called <i>The Herald of the Rights of -Industry</i>, some numbers of which are in the British Museum. Professor -Foxwell has kindly drawn our attention to a further reference to it in the -<i>Life of James Deacon Hume</i>, p. 55. It excited the curiosity of the Home -Secretary. See Home Office Papers, 40—31.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_285" href="#FNanchor_285" class="label">[285]</a>See Owen’s elaborate speech, reported in the <i>Crisis</i>, October 12, -1833; <i>Robert Owen: a Biography</i>, by Frank Podmore, 1906; and <i>Trade -Unionism</i>, by C. M. Lloyd, 1915.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_286" href="#FNanchor_286" class="label">[286]</a><i>Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth most conducive -to Human Happiness</i>, by William Thompson, 1824; also his <i>Labour -Rewarded, the Claims of Labour and Capital</i>; <i>How to secure to Labour the -whole Product of its Exertions</i>, by One of the Idle Classes, 1827; see Professor -Foxwell’s Introduction to <i>The Right to the whole Produce of Labour</i>, -by Anton Menger, 1899; <i>History of British Socialism</i>, by M. Beer, 1919, -vol. i.; and <i>The Irish Labour Movement</i>, by W. P. Ryan, 1919, ch. iii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_287" href="#FNanchor_287" class="label">[287]</a>The pamphlet, entitled <i>The Grand National Holiday and Congress of -the Productive Classes</i>, by William Benbow, 1831, had an extensive circulation. -Mark Hovell (<i>The Chartist Movement</i>, 1918, p. 91) thinks he was -the same William Benbow whom Bamford mentions as a delegate from -Manchester in 1817 (<i>Life of a Radical</i>, p. 8), and whom Henry Hunt -describes as of the Manchester Hampden Club, and as having been reported -by a Government spy to be manufacturing pikes in 1816 (<i>The -Green Bag Plot</i>, 1918).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_288" href="#FNanchor_288" class="label">[288]</a>Leading article in the <i>Crisis</i>, October 12, 1833.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_289" href="#FNanchor_289" class="label">[289]</a>A specimen dated 1837 is preserved by the Stonemasons’ Society, -according to which a Liverpool contractor bound all his employees to -serve him at a fixed wage for a long term of years, any time lost by sickness -or otherwise not to be paid for and to be added to the term; all -“lawful commands” to be obeyed; and no present or future club or -other society to be joined without the employer’s consent.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_290" href="#FNanchor_290" class="label">[290]</a>See his manifestoes reprinted in <i>Northern Star</i>, July 6 and July 27, -1844. “Lord Londonderry again warns all the shopkeepers and tradesmen -in his town of Seaham that if they still give credit to pitmen who -hold off work, and continue in the Union, such men will be marked by -his agents and overmen, and will never be employed in his collieries again, -and the shopkeepers may be assured that they will never have any custom -or dealings with them from Lord Londonderry’s large concerns that he -can in any manner prevent.</p> - -<p>“Lord Londonderry further informs the traders and shopkeepers, -that having by his measures increased very largely the last year’s trade -to Seaham, and if credit is so improperly and so fatally given to his -unreasonable pitmen, thereby prolonging the injurious strike, it is his -firm determination to carry back all the outlay of his concerns even to -Newcastle.</p> - -<p>“Because it is neither fair, just, or equitable that the resident traders -in his own town should combine and assist the infatuated workmen and -pitmen in prolonging their own miseries by continuing an insane strike, -and an unjust and senseless warfare against their proprietors and masters.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_291" href="#FNanchor_291" class="label">[291]</a>Some account of these developments will be found in <i>The Co-operative -Movement in Great Britain</i>, by Beatrice Potter (Mrs. Sidney Webb).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_292" href="#FNanchor_292" class="label">[292]</a>The collapse was duly reported to the Home Secretary (Home Office -Papers, 40—33, 34, 35).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_293" href="#FNanchor_293" class="label">[293]</a>See Ashworth’s paper before British Association, 1837; <i>Remarks -upon the Importance of an Inquiry into the Amount and Appropriation of -Wages by the Working Classes</i>, by W. Felkin, 1837; <i>Appeal to the Public -from the United Trades of Preston</i>, February 14, 1837 (in Home Office -Papers, 40—35).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_294" href="#FNanchor_294" class="label">[294]</a>The United Society of Operative Plumbers (reorganised 1848) still -dominates its branch of the trade, and retains traces of the federal constitution -of the Builders’ Union. The sister organisation of carpenters -(now styled the General Union of Carpenters and Joiners) has been overtaken -and overshadowed by the newer Amalgamated Society of Carpenters -and Joiners; whilst the Operative Bricklayers’ Society has absorbed -practically all the older societies in its own branch of the trade.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_295" href="#FNanchor_295" class="label">[295]</a>Glasgow was still the principal centre of the cotton industry, especially -in weaving. In 1838 there were in the Glasgow area about 36,000 -handlooms devoted mainly to cotton, with two persons to a loom, whilst -in all Lancashire there were only 25,000 (Parliamentary Papers, xlii. -of 1849 and xxiv. of 1840; <i>The Chartist Movement</i>, by Mark Hovell, 1918, -p. 14). Combination among the cotton operatives of Glasgow was of old -standing. After the strike of 1812, already referred to, trouble broke -out again in 1820 and 1822, when outrages were committed (<i>Arts and -Artisans</i>, by J. G. Symons, 1839, p. 137).</p> - -<p>Besides securing full reports in the newspapers, the Trade Union -committee conducting the case published at a low price an account of -the trial in parts, which has not been preserved. Two other exhaustive -reports were issued, and may still be consulted, viz. <i>Report of the trial of -Thomas Hunter and other operative cotton-spinners in Glasgow in 1838</i>, by -Archibald Swinton (Edinburgh, 1838), and <i>The trial of Thomas Hunter, etc., -the Glasgow Cotton-spinners</i>, by James Marshall (Glasgow, 1838). See also -the <i>Autobiography of Sir Archibald Alison</i>, 1883; the <i>Northern Star</i> for -1837-8; the <i>Annual Register</i> for 1838, pp. 206-7; and the evidence -before the Select Committee on Combinations, 1838. A summary will -be found in Howell’s <i>Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and Labour -Leaders</i>, 1902, pp. 83-4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_296" href="#FNanchor_296" class="label">[296]</a>The five prisoners were pardoned in 1840, in consequence of their -exemplary conduct. There is a joint letter by them in the <i>Trades Journal</i> -for August, 1840, relating to the subscriptions raised for them by a -London committee.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_297" href="#FNanchor_297" class="label">[297]</a><i>Stonemasons’ Fortnightly Circular</i>, January 19, 1838.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_298" href="#FNanchor_298" class="label">[298]</a>Evidence of W. Darcy, the secretary, second report of 1838 Committee, -p. 130.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_299" href="#FNanchor_299" class="label">[299]</a>Circular dated March 1, 1838, in Stonemasons’ archives; and <i>An -Address from the London Trades Committee appointed to watch the Parliamentary -Inquiry into Combinations</i>, 1838.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_300" href="#FNanchor_300" class="label">[300]</a>George Howell suggests, we are not sure with what authority, that -Nassau Senior, whose report on Trade Unionism to the Home Secretary -in 1830 we have already described, tendered this to Sir Henry Parnell as -the basis of a report by the Committee of 1838, but the proposal was -not accepted (<i>Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and Labour Leaders</i>, -1902, pp. 83-4). See also <i>The Irish Labour Movement</i>, by W. P. Ryan, 1919.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_301" href="#FNanchor_301" class="label">[301]</a>A series of subsequent publications has now gone far to fill this gap. -<i>The Chartist Movement</i>, by R. G. Gammage (republished 1894), may -now be supplemented by <i>The Life of Francis Place</i>, by Professor Graham -Wallas (revised edition, 1918); <i>Le Chartisme</i>, 1830-48, by E. Dolléans, -2 vols. (Paris, 1912-13); <i>The Chartist Movement</i>, by Mark Hovell, 1918; -<i>The Social and Economic Aspects of the Chartist Movement</i>, by F. F. -Rosenblatt (New York, 1916); <i>The Decline of the Chartist Movement</i>, by -P. W. Slosson (New York, 1916); <i>Chartism and the Churches</i>, by H. V. -Faulkner (New York, 1916); <i>Die Entstehung und die ökonomischen Grundsätze -der Chartistenbewegung</i>, by John Tildsley (Jena, 1898); and especially -by the two separate volumes on the <i>History of British Socialism</i>, -by M. Beer, 1919 and 1920.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_302" href="#FNanchor_302" class="label">[302]</a><i>Northern Star</i>, August 20, 1842.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_303" href="#FNanchor_303" class="label">[303]</a><i>Sheffield Iris</i>, August 1842.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_304" href="#FNanchor_304" class="label">[304]</a>See, for instance, that for October 1839.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_305" href="#FNanchor_305" class="label">[305]</a><i>Northern Star</i>, August 20, 1842. “It is clear that the trade societies -as a whole stood outside the Chartist Movement, though many Trade -Unionists were no doubt Chartists too. The societies could not be induced -to imperil their funds and existence at the orders of the Chartist -Convention” (<i>The Chartist Movement</i>, by Mark Hovell, 1918, p. 169).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_306" href="#FNanchor_306" class="label">[306]</a><i>History of Birmingham</i>, by W. Hutton (Birmingham, edition of -1835), p. 149.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_307" href="#FNanchor_307" class="label">[307]</a><i>Northern Star</i>, August 24, 1846.</p> - -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV</h2> -</div> - -<p class="h2sub">THE NEW SPIRIT AND THE NEW MODEL<br /> -[1843-1860]</p> - -<p>We have seen the magnificent hopes of 1829-42 ending -in bitter disillusionment: we shall now see the Trade -Unionists of the next generation largely successful in -reaching their more limited aims. Laying aside all projects -of Social Revolution, they set themselves resolutely to resist -the worst of the legal and industrial oppressions from which -they suffered, and slowly built up for this purpose organisations -which have become integral parts of the structure of -a modern industrial state. This success we attribute mainly -to the spread of education among the rank and file, and the -more practical counsels which began, after 1842, to influence -the Trade Union world. But we must not overlook the -effect of economic changes. The period between 1825 -and 1848 was remarkable for the frequency and acuteness -of its commercial depressions. From 1850 industrial -expansion was for many years both greater and steadier -than in any previous period.<a id="FNanchor_308" href="#Footnote_308" class="fnanchor">[308]</a> It is no mere coincidence -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</span> -that these years of prosperity saw the adoption by the -Trade Union world of a “New Model” of organisation, -under which Trade Unionism obtained a financial strength, -a trained staff of salaried officers, and a permanence of -membership hitherto unknown.</p> - -<p>The predominance of Chartism over Trade Unionism -was confined to the bad times of 1837-42. Under the -influence of the rapid improvement and comparative prosperity -which followed, the Chartist agitation dwindled -away; and a marked revival in Trade Unionism took -effect in the re-establishment, about 1843, of the Potters’ -Union, and of an active Cotton-spinners’ Association, -and, in 1845, by the amalgamation of the metropolitan -and provincial societies of compositors into the National -Typographical Society.<a id="FNanchor_309" href="#Footnote_309" class="fnanchor">[309]</a> The powerful United Flint Glass -Makers’ Society (reorganised in 1849 as the Flint Glass -Makers’ Friendly Society of Great Britain and Ireland) -dates from the same year. Delegate meetings of other -trades were held; and national societies of tailors and -shoemakers were set on foot. A national conference of -curriers in 1845 established a federal union of all the local -clubs in the trade. But the most important of the new -bodies was the Miners’ Association of Great Britain and -Ireland, formed at Wakefield in 1841.<a id="FNanchor_310" href="#Footnote_310" class="fnanchor">[310]</a> Up to this period -the miners, held in virtual serfage by the truck system and -the custom of yearly hirings, had not got beyond ephemeral -strike organisations. Strong county Unions now grew up in -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</span> -Northumberland and Durham on the one hand, and Lancashire -and Yorkshire on the other; and the new body was -a federation of these. Under the leadership of Martin -Jude, it developed an extraordinary propagandist activity, -at one time paying no fewer than fifty-three missionary -organisers, who visited every coalpit in the kingdom. The -delegate meetings at Manchester and Glasgow in the year -1844 soon came to represent practically the whole of the -mining districts of Great Britain; and the membership -rose, it is said, to at least 100,000. -<a id="FNanchor_311" href="#Footnote_311" class="fnanchor">[311]</a></p> - -<p>A leading feature of this Trade Unionist revival was a -dogged resistance to legal oppression. Although the more -sensational prosecutions of Trade Union leaders had ceased -with the abandonment of unlawful oaths, there was still -going on, up and down the kingdom, an almost continuous -persecution of the rank and file, by the magistrates’ interpretation -of the law relating to masters and servants. The -miners, in particular, were hampered by lengthy hirings, -during which they were compelled to serve if required, -but were not guaranteed employment. Unskilled in legal -subtleties, and not yet served by an experienced class of -Trade Union secretaries, they were made the victims of -a thousand and one quibbles and technicalities. The -Northumberland and Durham Miners’ Union grappled with -the difficulty in a thoroughly practical spirit. They engaged -W. P. Roberts,<a id="FNanchor_312" href="#Footnote_312" class="fnanchor">[312]</a> an able and energetic solicitor, with strong -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</span> -labour sympathies, to light every case in the local courts. -In 1844 the Miners’ Association of Great Britain and Ireland -followed this excellent example by appointing Roberts -their standing legal adviser at a salary of £1000 a year. -When the Durham miners had to relinquish his services -at the end of 1844, he was taken over by the newly -formed Lancashire Miners’ Union. The “miners’ attorney-general,” -as he was called, showed an indefatigable activity -in the defence of his clients, and was soon retained in -all Trade Union cases. The magistrates throughout the -country found themselves for the first time confronted by a -pertinacious legal expert, who, far more ingenious than the -employers, was not less unscrupulous in taking advantage -of every technicality of the law.</p> - -<p>In a letter written to the Flint Glass Makers’ Friendly -Society in 1851, Roberts himself gives a vivid picture of -the difficulties against which the Unions had to contend. -After explaining the law, as he understood it, he proceeds -as follows: “But it is exceedingly difficult to induce those -of the class opposed to you to take this view of things. I -do not say this sarcastically, but as a fact learnt by long -and observant experience. There are indeed men on the -bench who are honest enough, and desirous of doing their -duty. But all their tendencies and circumstances are -against you. They listen to your opponents, not only -often, but cheerfully—so they know more fully the case -against you than in your favour. To you they listen too—but -in a sort of temper of ‘Prisoner at the Bar, you are -entitled to make any statement you think fit, and the -Court is bound to hear you; but mind, whatever you say,’ -etc. In the one case you observe the hearty smile of goodwill; -in the other the derisive sneer, though sometimes -with a ghastly sort of kindliness in it. Then there is the -knowledge of your overwhelming power when acting unitedly, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</span> -and this begets naturally a corresponding desire to resist -you at all hazards. And there are hundreds of other considerations -all acting the same way—meetings, political -councils, intermarriages, hopes from wills, etc. I do not -say that all occupants of the bench are thus influenced, nor -to the same extent; but it certainly is at the best an uphill -game to contend in favour of a working man in a question -which admits of any doubt against him. It never happened -to me to meet a magistrate who considered that an agreement -among masters not to employ any particular ‘troublesome -fellow’ was an unlawful act; reverse the case, however, -and it immediately becomes a formidable conspiracy, -which must be put down by the strong arm of the law, etc.... -When I was acting for the Colliers’ Union in the North -we resisted every individual act of oppression, even in cases -where we were sure of losing; and the result was that in a -short time there was no oppression to resist. For it is to -be observed that oppression like that we are speaking of—which -after all is merely a more genteel and cowardly mode -of thieving—shrinks at once from a determined and decided -opposition. In the North we should have tried this case, -first in the County Court, then at the Assizes, and then -perhaps in the Queen’s Bench.” -<a id="FNanchor_313" href="#Footnote_313" class="fnanchor">[313]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</span></p> - -<p>One result of Roberts’ successful advocacy is perhaps -to be seen in the introduction, during the Parliamentary -session of 1844, of a Bill “for enlarging the powers of -justices in determining complaints between masters, servants, -and artificers,” which the Government got referred -to a committee, by which various extraordinary interpolations -were made in what was at first a harmless measure.<a id="FNanchor_314" href="#Footnote_314" class="fnanchor">[314]</a> -Not only was any J.P. to be authorised to issue a warrant -for the summary arrest of any workman complained of -by his employer, but “any misbehaviour concerning such -service or employment” was to be punished by two months’ -imprisonment, at the discretion of a single justice. It is -easy to see what a wide interpretation would have been -given by many a justice of the peace to this vague phrase; -and Roberts was not slow to point out the danger to his -clients. Upon his incitement the delegate meeting of coal-miners -at Sheffield set on foot a vigorous agitation against -the Bill, which had already slipped through second reading -and committee without a division. The Potters’ Union -took the matter up with special vigour, and circulated draft -petitions throughout the Midlands.<a id="FNanchor_315" href="#Footnote_315" class="fnanchor">[315]</a> A friendly member, -Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, obstructed its further progress, -and got it postponed until after the Easter recess. Meanwhile -petitions poured in upon the astonished House, -amounting, it was said, to a total of two hundred, and -representing two millions of workmen. When the Bill -came on again all the Radicals and the “Young England” -Tories were marshalled against it. Sir James Graham in -vain protested that the Government meant nothing more -than a consolidation of the existing law, and led into the -lobby all his colleagues who were present, including Mr. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</span> -Gladstone. But the combination on the other side of -Duncombe, Wakley, Hume, and Ferrand, with Tories -like Lord John Manners, and a few enlightened Whigs -such as C. P. Villiers, settled the fate of this attempt on the -part of the employers to sharpen the blunted weapon of -the law against the hated Trade Unions. -<a id="FNanchor_316" href="#Footnote_316" class="fnanchor">[316]</a></p> - -<p>The miners were less successful in their strikes than in -their legal and political business. In 1844 their National -Conference at Glasgow, representing 70,000 men, voted, -by 28,042 to 23,357, in favour of striking against their -grievances, and the Durham men, numbering some 30,000, -engaged in that prolonged struggle with Lord Londonderry -and their other employers for more equitable terms of hiring -and payment, to which we have already alluded.<a id="FNanchor_317" href="#Footnote_317" class="fnanchor">[317]</a> After -many months’ embittered strife the strike failed disastrously; -and the great Miners’ Association, whose proceedings form -so important a feature of the <i>Northern Star</i> for 1844 and -1845, gradually disappears from its pages, and in the general -collapse of the coal trade in 1847-8 it came completely to -an end.</p> - -<p>But the culminating point in this revival of Trade -Union activity was the formation, at Easter, 1845, of the -National Association of United Trades for the Protection -of Labour, an organisation which resuscitated and combined -some of the ideas both of Owen and of Doherty. This -Association was explicitly based, as its rules inform us, -“upon two great facts: first, that the industrious classes -do not receive a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labour; -and, secondly, that for some years past their endeavours -to obtain this have, with few exceptions, been unsuccessful. -The main causes of this state of things are to be found in -the isolation of the different sections of working men, and -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</span> -the absence of a generally recognised and admitted authority -from the trades themselves.” But, unlike the Owenite -movement of 1833-4, the National Association of United -Trades was from the first distinguished by the moderation -of its aims and the prudence of its administration—qualities -to which we may attribute its comparatively lengthy survival -for fifteen years. No attempt was made to supersede -existing organisations of particular trades by a “General -Trades Union.” “The peculiar local internal and technical -circumstances of each trade,” say the rules, “render it -necessary that for all purposes of efficient internal government -its affairs should be administered by persons possessing a -practical knowledge of them. For this reason it is not intended -to interfere with the organisation of existing Trade Unions.” -Moreover, the promoters evidently intended the Association -to become more of a Parliamentary Committee than a federation -for trade purposes. Its purpose and duty was declared -to be “to protect the interests and promote the well-being -of the associated trades” by mediation, arbitration, and legal -proceedings, and by promoting “all measures, political -and social and educational, which are intended to improve -the condition of the labouring classes.” -<a id="FNanchor_318" href="#Footnote_318" class="fnanchor">[318]</a></p> - -<p>This new attempt to form a National Federation originated -in a suggestion from the “United Trades” of Sheffield, -embodied in an able letter written to Duncombe<a id="FNanchor_319" href="#Footnote_319" class="fnanchor">[319]</a> by their -secretary, John Drury. Duncombe had become widely -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</span> -known to the Trade Unionists, not only through his friendship -with Fergus O’Connor, and his outspoken support of -Chartism in the House of Commons, but also by his successful -obstruction and defeat of the Masters and Servants -Bill of the previous Session. He appears to have laid -Drury’s proposals before the leading men in the London -Unions, who agreed to form a committee to report on the -scheme, and to summon a conference of Trade Union -delegates from all parts of the country. At Easter, 1845, -110 delegates, representing not only the London trades, but -also the Lancashire miners and textile operatives, the -hosiery and woollen-workers of Yorkshire and the Midlands, -and the “United Trades” of Manchester, Sheffield, Norwich, -Hull, Bristol, Rochdale, and Yarmouth, met together in -London.</p> - -<p>The preliminary report made to the Conference by the -London Committee of Trade Delegates is practically the -first manifestation of that spirit of cautious if somewhat -limited statesmanship which characterised the Trade Union -leaders of the next thirty years.<a id="FNanchor_320" href="#Footnote_320" class="fnanchor">[320]</a> The Committee, whilst -recommending the immediate formation of a national -organisation, “to vindicate the rights of labour,” and “to -oppose the tyranny of any legislative enactments to coerce -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</span> -trade societies, or of a similar character to the Masters and -Servants Bill of last session, were deeply impressed with the -importance of, and beneficial tendency arising from, a good -understanding between the employer and the employed; -seeing that their interests are mutual, and that neither can -injure the other without the wrong perpetrated recoiling -upon the party who inflicts it. They would therefore -suggest it to be one of the principal objects of this Conference -to cultivate a good understanding with the employer, -and thereby remove those prejudices which exist against -trade combinations, by showing upon all occasions that -they only seek by combination to place themselves upon -equal terms as disposers of their labour with those who -purchase it; to secure themselves from injury, but by no -means to inflict it upon others. Although the Committee -are anxious that this desirable and important organisation -should be carried out to the fullest possible extent, they -feel that great caution must be observed in the formation -of its laws and regulations, in order that the evils which -existed and eventually destroyed the Consolidated Union -of 1833 shall be carefully avoided. The Committee conceive -it necessary to call the attention of those trades who -are comparatively disunited, and whose men are consequently -working for different rates of wages, to the great -necessity that exists, that those who are receiving the highest -wages should use every effort within their power to secure -to their fellow-workmen a fair remuneration for their labour; -and that every inducement should be held out by the several -trade societies to their separated brethren to join them, in -order that they may be the better enabled to make common -cause in cases of aggression, which would be the certain -result if each trade were to form itself into one well-regulated -society for their mutual interests.... And, finally, -the Committee would earnestly recommend to this Conference, -in order that these important points may be considered -and dispassionately argued, that no proposition of -a political nature, beyond what has been already alluded -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</span> -to, should be introduced, or occupy its attention; convinced -as they are that the only way to carry out these -desirable objects satisfactorily, and with a due consideration -to the best interests of all those who are concerned, -is to consider and dispose of but one question at a time: -and, moreover, to keep trade matters and politics as separate -and distinct as circumstances will justify.” -<a id="FNanchor_321" href="#Footnote_321" class="fnanchor">[321]</a></p> - -<p>The proceedings of this Conference show that the change -of front on the part of the Trade Union leaders was reflected -in the attitude of the rank and file. The surviving influence -of Owenism is to be traced in the frequent recurrence of -the idea of co-operative production, the desire to establish -agricultural communities, and the proposal for a legislative -shortening of the hours of labour. But of the aggressive -policy and ambitious aims of 1830-34 scarcely a vestige -remains. Strikes were deprecated, and the idea of a general -cessation of work was entirely abandoned. The projects -of co-operative production were on an altogether different -plane from Owen’s grand schemes. The Trade Unionists -of the National Conference of 1845 had apparently no vision -of a general transfer of the instruments of production from -the capitalists to the Trade Unions; co-operative production -was regarded simply as an auxiliary to Trade Union action, -the union workshop furnishing a cheap alternative to -unproductive strike pay. Besides thus formally abandoning -the methods and pretensions of 1834, the Conference -declared its allegiance to a new method of Trade Union -activity—the policy of conciliation and arbitration. In -the demand for “local Boards of Trade,” a phrase borrowed -apparently from the silk-weavers, we see the beginning of -that system of authoritative mutual negotiation between -the representatives of capital and labour which became a -very distinctive feature of British Trade Unionism in the -last half of the nineteenth century.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</span></p> - -<p>But the shadow of the failure of 1834 still hung over -projects of universal Trade Unions. Although nearly all -trades had been represented at the first conference, most -of the larger organisations decided, on consideration, to -hold aloof from the new body. We find, for instance, the -Manchester Lodge of the Stonemasons’ Society promptly -protesting against the adherence of the society’s delegate, -and expressing their emphatic opinion “that past experience -has taught us that we have had general union enough.” -This view was endorsed by the Central Committee, which, -in submitting the matter to the votes of the members, -observes that “there are several trade societies in England -as perfectly organised as ourselves, although their machinery -may be somewhat various; but we can hear of none of these -societies being desirous to join this national movement.... -It may be very well for trades who are divided into sections -and have no national organisation amongst themselves to -join such an association—they have nothing to lose; but -it is a question for serious reflection whether a general union -of each trade separately would not be far more effective than -the heterogeneous association in question.”<a id="FNanchor_322" href="#Footnote_322" class="fnanchor">[322]</a> A similar -view seems to have been taken by the Coal-miners, whose -national federation was still in existence. A delegate -meeting of the newly formed National Typographical -Association decided by a large majority to remain outside. -The Lancashire Cotton-spinners sent a delegate to the -adjourned conference, and even proposed to have perambulating -lecturers to explain the advantages of the new -organisation, but never actually decided to join. -<a id="FNanchor_323" href="#Footnote_323" class="fnanchor">[323]</a></p> - -<p>The adjourned conference on July 28, 1845, was therefore -composed, in the main, of the delegates of the smaller -or less organised trades. About fifty delegates took part -in the proceedings, which extended over six days. It was -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</span> -eventually decided to separate the Trade Union from the -co-operative aims, and to form two distinct but mutually -helpful associations. The “National Association of United -Trades for the Protection of Labour” undertook to deal -with disputes between masters and men, and look after the -interests of labour in the House of Commons. The “National -United Trades Association for the Employment of Labour” -proposed to raise capital with which to employ men who -were on strike under circumstances approved by its twin -brother. At the second conference, held at Manchester in -June 1846, when 126 delegates, representing, it was said, -40,000 members, were present, the contribution to the Trade -Association was fixed at twopence in the pound of weekly -earnings; and it was decided that the strike allowance -should vary from nine shillings up to fourteen shillings per -week, the latter sum being the wages agreed on for men -employed in the association’s own workshops. Up to -this date no strike had been supported, as it was desired -to avoid the premature action which had, it was held, -destroyed the Grand National Consolidated Union. A -number of paid organisers were engaged. The Association, -which hitherto had consisted of woollen and hosiery-workers -and of the Midland hardware trades, spread in various new -directions. The executive of the Friendly Society of Operative -Carpenters and Joiners—the association that had played -so important a part in the movement of 1830—issued a -manifesto to its members in favour of joining, and the general -secretary became an active member of the Executive of -the National Association. The Manchester Section of the -National Cordwainers’ Society urged all its members and -all societies of boot and shoemakers to join. The Potters of -Staffordshire, the Miners of Scotland, the new-born National -Association of Tailors, as well as the Metropolitan branches -of the Boilermakers’ and Masons’ Societies came in. The -Association, in fact, became reputed a power in the land, and -drew down upon itself the abusive censure of the <i>Times</i>. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</span><a id="FNanchor_324" href="#Footnote_324" class="fnanchor">[324]</a> -But in spite of the wise intentions of its founders, it soon -began to suffer from the characteristic complaints of -general unions. The depression of trade which began in -1845 brought about during the next two years reductions -of wages, followed by strikes and turn-outs in -almost every branch of industry. The local committees -of the National Association, frequently composed of -the officials of the trades concerned, promised their -members the support of the national funds, and took -umbrage when the Executive sitting in London reversed -their decisions. Each constituent trade felt that its interests -were misunderstood, or its grievances neglected. A prolonged -strike of the Manchester building trades in 1846, -begun without sanction, failed miserably, the local committee -of the National Association declaring that the -collapse was due to lack of the financial support which had -been promised on behalf of the central body. The coal -and iron miners at Holytown in Lanarkshire engaged in a -struggle against their employers which excited the sympathy -of the Trade Union world, but which ended in failure. An -equally severe conflict by the calico-printers at Crayford -in Kent met with no better success. The Scottish miners -complained that they had been inadequately supported by -the association; and the Lancashire miners made this the -pretext for continued abstention.</p> - -<p>Though Duncombe’s association had discouraged strikes, -and acted principally as a mediating body, the employers -throughout the country showed themselves uniformly -hostile. The “document” which had figured so prominently -in 1833-4 reappeared in a slightly altered form. The -employers signified their toleration if not their approval -of local trade clubs, but condemned with equal acrimony -national unions of particular trades, or general unions of -all trades. Affecting a sudden concern for the independence -of character of their workmen, they insisted that the existence -of any kind of central committee, however representative -it might be, prevented the men from being free agents, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</span> -and exposed them to the arbitrary commands of an irresponsible -body. In face of this attitude, the efforts of the -National Association to bring about peaceful settlements -met with only qualified success. The London Executive, -unable to cope with the applications for assistance that -poured in daily from all parts of the country, issued strong -admonitions against unauthorised strikes, but had eventually -to give or withhold support without sufficient knowledge -of the local circumstances. Duncombe was principally -occupied in drawing up and presenting petitions in favour -of the legislative shortening of the hours of labour, and in -this direction he rendered valuable assistance to the Lancashire -cotton-spinners’ “Short Time Committee,” which -secured the Ten Hours Act of 1847. The Central Executive -was, indeed, during these years, more a Parliamentary -Committee for the whole movement than a federation of -Trade Unions. The plan of co-operative workshops, from -which so much had been expected, proved entirely futile -in the prolonged contests of the staple trades. One -flourishing boot workshop was started; and the 1847 conference -found, in all, one hundred and twenty-three men at -work, the enterprises being confined to those trades carried -on by hand labour in a small way. In 1848 it was decided -to merge the two associations in one, and to set about -raising £50,000 in order to start on a larger scale. But -before this could be attempted the association suffered a -double reverse from which it never recovered. Duncombe -was compelled, by failing health, to withdraw during 1848 -from active participation in its work. And at the end of -the following year a strike of the Wolverhampton tinplate-workers -involved the National Association in a struggle -with employers and with the law which drained its funds -and destroyed its credit. -<a id="FNanchor_325" href="#Footnote_325" class="fnanchor">[325]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</span></p> - -<p>The later history of the association is obscure.<a id="FNanchor_326" href="#Footnote_326" class="fnanchor">[326]</a> It -lingered on for many years in a small way, its paid officers -serving as advisers and representatives to a number of -minor Trade Unions. Its principal work in later years -was the promotion and support of bills for the establishment -of councils of conciliation, and its persistent efforts -certainly paved the way for the Joint Boards subsequently -set on foot. But it ceases after 1851 to exercise any -influence or play any important part in the Trade Union -Movement.</p> - -<p>The National Association of United Trades stands, in -constitution and objects, half-way between the revolutionary -voluntaryism of 1830-4 and the Parliamentary -action of 1863-75. It may, in fact, be regarded either -as a belated “General Trades Union” of an improved -type, or as a premature and imperfect Parliamentary -Committee of the Trade Union world. And although -the great national Unions of the time took no part in its -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</span> -proceedings, its moderate and unaggressive policy was -only one manifestation of the new spirit which now prevailed -in Trade Union councils. We see rising up in the -Unions of the better-paid artisans a keen desire to get at -the facts of their industrial and social condition. This -new feeling for exact knowledge may to some extent be -attributed to the increasing share which the printing trades -were now beginning to take in the Trade Union Movement. -The student of the reports of the larger compositors’ societies, -from the very beginning of the century, will be struck, not -only by the moderation, but also by the elaborate Parliamentary -formality—one might almost say the stateliness -of their proceedings. Instead of rhetorical abuse of all -employers as “the unproductive classes,” and total abstinence -from investigation of the details of disputes, we find -the compositors dealing only with concrete instances of -hardship, and referring every important question to a -“Select Committee” for inquiry and report. In 1848 -the London Consolidated Society of Bookbinders, established -in 1786, used part of its funds to form a library for the -benefit of its members. By 1851 a reading-room furnished -with daily and weekly newspapers had been opened. Four -years later a similar library was established by the London -Society of Compositors. In 1842, the Journeymen Steam-Engine -and Machine Makers’ Friendly Society started a -Mutual Improvement Class at Manchester. Even the -Stonemasons, at that time a rough and somewhat turbulent -body, were reached by the new desire for self-improvement. -The Glasgow branch of the Scottish United Operative -Masons report with pride, in 1845, that they have “formed -a class for mutual instruction ... an association for moral, -physical, and intellectual improvement” which was setting -itself to investigate the question—“Is the present improved -condition of machinery beneficial to the working classes, -or is it hurtful?”<a id="FNanchor_327" href="#Footnote_327" class="fnanchor">[327]</a> But the most effective outcome of -this desire for information was the starting by the Unions -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</span> -of special trade journals. The United Branches of the -Operative Potters set on foot in 1843 the <i>Potters’ Examiner</i>, -a weekly newspaper which dealt with the trade interests -and technical processes of their industry.<a id="FNanchor_328" href="#Footnote_328" class="fnanchor">[328]</a> The Journeymen -Steam-Engine and Machine Makers’ Friendly Society issued -the <i>Mechanics’ Magazine</i> between 1841 and 1847. In -November 1850 Dunning persuaded the London Consolidated -Society of Bookbinders to publish the <i>Bookbinders’ -Trade Circular</i>, in the pages of which he promulgated a -theory of Trade Unionism, from which McCulloch himself -would scarcely have dissented,<a id="FNanchor_329" href="#Footnote_329" class="fnanchor">[329]</a> and made that humble -organ of his society into a monthly magazine of useful -information on all matters connected with books and their -manufacture. But the best of these trade publications, -and the only one which has enjoyed a continuous existence -down to the present day, was the <i>Flint Glass Makers’ -Magazine</i>, an octavo monthly of ninety-six pages, established -at Birmingham in 1850 by the Flint Glass Makers’ Friendly -Society,<a id="FNanchor_330" href="#Footnote_330" class="fnanchor">[330]</a> which advocated “the education of every man in -our trade, beginning at the oldest and coming down to the -youngest.... If you do not wish to stand as you are and -suffer more oppression,” it enjoined its readers, “we say -to you get knowledge, and in getting knowledge you get -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</span> -power.... Let us earnestly advise you to educate; get -intelligence instead of alcohol—it is sweeter and more -lasting.” -<a id="FNanchor_331" href="#Footnote_331" class="fnanchor">[331]</a></p> - -<p>With increased acquaintance with industrial conditions -came a reaction against the policy of reckless aggression -which marked the Owenite inflation. Here again we -find the printing trades taking the lead. Already in 1835, -when the London Compositors were reorganising their -society, the committee went out of their way to denounce -the great general Unions. “Unfortunately almost all -Trades Unions hitherto formed,” they report to their members, -“have relied for success upon extorted oaths and -physical force.... The fault and the destruction of all -Trades Unions has hitherto been that they have copied -the vices which they professed to condemn. While disunited -and powerless they have stigmatised their employers -as grasping taskmasters; but as soon as they (the workmen) -were united and powerful, then they became tyrants in -their turn, and unreasonably endeavoured to exact more -than the nature of their employment demanded, or than -their employers could afford to give. Hence their failure -was inevitable.... Let the Compositors of London show -the Artisans of England a brighter and better example; -and casting away the aid to be derived from cunning and -brute strength, let us, when we contend with our opponents, -employ only the irresistible weapons of truth and reason.”<a id="FNanchor_332" href="#Footnote_332" class="fnanchor">[332]</a> -The disasters of 1837-42 caused this spirit to spread to -other trades. From this time forth the minutes and circulars -of the larger Unions abound in impressive warnings against -aggressive action. “Strikes are prolific,” say the delegates -of the Ironmoulders in council assembled; “in certain -cases they beget others.... How often have disputes -been averted by a few timely words with employers! It -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</span> -is surely no dishonour to explain to your employer the -nature and extent of your grievance.”<a id="FNanchor_333" href="#Footnote_333" class="fnanchor">[333]</a> The Stonemasons’ -Central Committee repeatedly caution their members -“against the dangerous practice of striking.... Keep -from it,” they urge, “as you would from a ferocious animal -that you know would destroy you.... Remember what -it was that made us so insignificant in 1842.... We -implore you, brethren, as you value your own existence, to -avoid, in every way possible, those useless strikes. Let us -have another year of earnest and attentive organisation; -and, if that does not perfect us, we must have another; -for it is a knowledge of the disorganised state of working -men generally that stimulates the tyrant and the taskmaster -to oppress them.”<a id="FNanchor_334" href="#Footnote_334" class="fnanchor">[334]</a> A few years later the Liverpool lodge -invites the support of all the members for the proposition -“that our society no longer recognise strikes, either as a -means to be adopted for improving our condition, or as a -scheme to be resorted to in resisting infringements,”<a id="FNanchor_335" href="#Footnote_335" class="fnanchor">[335]</a> and -suggests, as an alternative, the formation of an Emigration -Fund. The Portsmouth lodge caps this proposal by insisting -not only that strikes should cease, but also that the word -“strike” be abolished! The <i>Flint Glass Makers’ Magazine</i>, -between 1850 and 1855, is full of similar denunciations. -“We believe,” writes the editor, “that strikes have been -the bane of Trades Unions.”<a id="FNanchor_336" href="#Footnote_336" class="fnanchor">[336]</a> In 1854 the Flint Glass -Makers, on the proposition of the Central Committee, -abolished the allowance of “strike-money” by a vote of -the whole of the members. As an alternative it was often -suggested that a bad employer should be defeated by -quietly withdrawing the men one by one, as situations -could be found for them elsewhere. “As man after -man leaves, and no one [comes] to supply their place, -then it is that the proud and haughty spirit of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</span> -oppressor is brought down, and he feels the power he -cannot see.” -<a id="FNanchor_337" href="#Footnote_337" class="fnanchor">[337]</a></p> - -<p>It was part of the same policy of restricting the use of -the weapon of the strike that the power of declaring war -on the employers was, during these years, taken away -from the local branches. In the two great societies of -which we have complete records—the Ironmoulders and -the Stonemasons—we see a gradual tightening up of the -control of the central executive. The Delegate Meeting -of the Ironmoulders in 1846 vested the entire authority -in the Executive Committee. “The system,” they report, -“of allowing disputes to be sanctioned by meetings of our -members, generally labouring under some excitement or -other, or misled by a plausible letter from the scene of the -dispute, is decidedly bad. Our members do not feel that -responsibility on these occasions which they ought. They -are liable to be misled. A clever speech, party feeling, a -misrepresentation, or a specious letter—all or any of these -may involve a shop, or a whole branch, in a dispute, unjustly -and possibly without the least chance of obtaining their -object.... Impressed with the truth of these opinions, we -have handed over for the future the power of sanctioning -disputes to the Executive Committee alone.”<a id="FNanchor_338" href="#Footnote_338" class="fnanchor">[338]</a> The Stonemasons’ -Central Committee, after 1843, peremptorily forbid -lodges to strike shops, even if they do not mean to charge -the society’s funds with strike-pay. And though in this -Union, unlike the Ironmoulders, the decision to strike or -not to strike was not vested in the Executive, any lodge -had to submit its demand, through the <i>Fortnightly Circular</i>, -to the vote of the whole body of members throughout the -kingdom—a procedure which involved delay and gave the -Central Committee an opportunity of using its influence -in favour of peace.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</span></p> -<p>The fact that most of the Executive Committees were, -from 1845 onward, setting their face against strikes, did -not imply the abandonment of an energetic trade policy. -The leaders of the better educated trades had accepted -the economic axiom that wages must inevitably depend -upon the relation of Supply and Demand in each particular -class of labour. It seemed an obvious inference that the -only means in their power to maintain or improve their -condition was to diminish the supply. “All men of experience -agree,” affirms the Delegate Meeting of the Ironmoulders -in 1847, “that wages are to be best raised by the demand -for labour.” Hence we find the denunciations of strikes -accompanied by an insistence on the limitation of apprentices, -the abolition of overtime, and the provision of an Emigration -Fund. The Flint Glass Makers declare that “the -scarcity of labour was one of the fundamental principles -laid down at our first conference held in Manchester in 1849.” -“It is simply a question of supply and demand, and we all -know that if we supply a greater quantity of an article -than what is actually demanded that the cheapening of -that article, whether it be labour or any other commodity, -is a natural result.”<a id="FNanchor_339" href="#Footnote_339" class="fnanchor">[339]</a> In this application of the doctrine -of Supply and Demand the Flint Glass Makers were joined -by the Compositors, Bookbinders, Ironmoulders, Potters, -and, as we shall presently see, the Engineers.<a id="FNanchor_340" href="#Footnote_340" class="fnanchor">[340]</a> For the -next ten years an Emigration Fund becomes a constant -feature of many of the large societies, to be abandoned only -when it was discovered that the few thousands of pounds -which could be afforded for this purpose produced no visible -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</span> -effect in diminishing the surplus labour. Moreover, it was -the vigorous and energetic member who applied for his -passage-money, whilst the chronically unemployed, if he -could be persuaded to go at all, frequently reappeared at -the clubhouse after a brief trip at the society’s expense. -<a id="FNanchor_341" href="#Footnote_341" class="fnanchor">[341]</a></p> - -<p>The harmless but ineffective expedient of emigration -was accompanied by the more equivocal plan of closing -the trade to new-comers. The Flint Glass Makers, like -the other sections of the glass trade, have always been -notorious for their strict limitation of the number of apprentices. -The constant refrain of their trade organ is “Look -to the rule and keep boys back; for this is the foundation -of the evil, the secret of our progress, the dial on which our -society works, and the hope of future generations.”<a id="FNanchor_342" href="#Footnote_342" class="fnanchor">[342]</a> The -printing trades were equally active. Select Committees -of the London Society of Compositors were constantly -inquiring into the most effective way of checking boy-labour -and regulating “turnover” apprentices. And the -engineering trades, at this time entering the Trade Union -world, were basing their whole policy on the assumption -that the duly apprenticed mechanic, like the doctor or the -solicitor, had a right to exclude “illegal men” from his -occupation.</p> - -<p>Such was the “New Spirit” which, by 1850, was -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</span> -dominating the Trade Union world. Meanwhile the steady -growth of national Unions, each with three to five thousand -members, ever-increasing friendly benefits, and a weekly -contribution per member which sometimes exceeded a -shilling, involved a considerable development of Trade -Union structure. The little clubs and local societies had -been managed, in the main, by men working at their trades, -and attending to their secretarial duties in the evening. -With the growth of such national organisations as the -Stonemasons, the Ironmoulders, and the Steam-Engine -Makers, the mere volume of business necessitated the -appointment of one of the members to devote his whole -time to the correspondence and accounts. But the new -official, however industrious and well-meaning, found upon -his hands a task for which neither his education nor his -temperament had fitted him. The archives of these societies -reveal the pathetic struggles of inexperienced workmen to -cope with the difficulties presented by the combination of -branch management and centralised finance. The disbursement -of friendly benefits by branch meetings, the -custody and remittance of the funds, the charges for local -expenses (including “committee liquor”),<a id="FNanchor_343" href="#Footnote_343" class="fnanchor">[343]</a> the mysteries -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</span> -of bookkeeping, and the intricacies of audit all demanded a -new body of officers specially selected for and exclusively -engaged in this work. During these years we watch a -shifting of leadership in the Trade Union world from the -casual enthusiast and irresponsible agitator to a class of -permanent salaried officers expressly chosen from out of -the rank and file of Trade Unionists for their superior business -capacity. But besides the daily work of administration, the -expansion of local societies into organisations of national -extent, and the transformation of loose federations into -consolidated unions, involved the difficult process of constitution-making. -The records of the Ironmoulders and the -Stonemasons show with what anxious solicitude successive -Delegate Meetings were groping after a set of rules that -would work smoothly and efficiently. One Union, however, -the Journeymen Steam-Engine and Machine Makers and -Millwrights’ Friendly Society, tackled the problems of -internal organisation with peculiar ability, and eventually -produced, in the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, a -“New Model” of the utmost importance to Trade Union -history.</p> - -<p>To understand the rise of this remarkable society, we -must revert to the earlier history of combinations which -have hitherto scarcely claimed attention in our account of -the general movement. The origin of Trade Unionism in -the engineering trades is obscure. We learn that at the -close of the last century the then dominant class of millwrights -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</span> -possessed strong, exclusive, and even tyrannical -trade societies, the chief of them being the “London -Fellowship,” meeting at the Bell Inn, Old Bailey.<a id="FNanchor_344" href="#Footnote_344" class="fnanchor">[344]</a> The -millwrights, who were originally constructors of mill-work -of every kind, both wood and iron, were, on the introduction -of the steam-engine, gradually superseded by specialised -workers in particular sections of their trade. The introduction -of what was termed “the engineer’s economy,” that is -to say, the parcelling out of the trade of the millwright -among distinct classes of workmen, and the substitution -of “payment according to merit” for the millwrights’ -Standard Rate, completely disorganised the skilled -mechanics of the engineering trade. This condition was -not materially improved by the establishment, from 1822 -onward, of numerous competing Trade Friendly Societies. -The Ironmoulders alone concentrated their efforts upon -maintaining one national society. The millwrights, smiths, -pattern-makers, and other skilled mechanics engaged in -engine and machine making had societies in London, -Manchester, Newcastle, Bradford, Derby, and other engineering -centres. Of these the Steam-Engine Makers (established -1824); the Journeymen Steam-Engine and Machine Makers -and Millwrights (established 1826); the Associated Fraternity -of Iron Forgers, usually called the “Old Smiths” -(established 1830); and the Boilermakers (established 1832) -are known to have been organisations of national extent, -with branches in all parts of the country, competing, not -only with each other, but with the Metropolitan and other -local societies of Millwrights, Smiths, Patternmakers, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</span> -and General Engineers. This anarchic rivalry prevented -any effectual trade action, and tempted employers to -give the work to the lowest bidder, and to introduce -the worst features of competitive piecework and sub-contract.</p> - -<p>We are, therefore, not surprised to find that the -engineers’ societies took little part in the great upheaval -of 1830-4. But the wave of solidarity which then swept -over the labour world seems to have had considerable, -though tardy, effect even in this trade. The chief districts -affected were London and Lancashire. In 1836 a London -joint committee of several of the sectional societies successfully -conducted an eight months’ strike for a shortening of -the hours of labour to sixty per week, and for extra payment -for overtime. Again, in 1844 a joint committee obtained -from the London employers a further reduction of hours. -Encouraged by these successes, the members of the -Metropolitan societies and branches began to discuss the -possibility of a national amalgamation. The most prominent -personality in this movement was that of William Newton, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</span><a id="FNanchor_345" href="#Footnote_345" class="fnanchor">[345]</a> -a leading member of the Journeymen Steam-Engine and -Machine Makers and Millwrights’ Friendly Society, the -association which afterwards became, as we shall see, the -parent of the amalgamation.</p> - -<p>William Newton had exactly the qualities needed for -his task. Gifted with remarkable eloquence, astute and -conciliatory in his methods, he was equally successful in -inspiring masses of men with a large idea, and in persuading -the representatives and officials of rival societies to agree -with the details of his scheme. His influence was augmented -by his tried devotion to the cause of Trade Unionism. In -1848 he was dismissed from a first-rate position as foreman -in a large establishment owing to his activity in trade matters, -and in the following years his business as a publican was -seriously damaged by his constant absence on society -business. But though from the first he had been an active -member of his Union, and was for many years a Branch -Secretary, he was, so far as we know, at no time its full-time -salaried official. He stands, therefore, midway between -the casual and amateur leaders of the old Trade Unionism -and the new class of permanent officials, sticking closely to -office work, and acquiring a detailed experience in Trade -Union organisation.</p> - -<p>Whilst Newton was bringing the London societies into -line, the Lancashire engineers were moving in the same -direction. Already in 1839 a “committee of the engineering -trades” at Bolton urged upon their comrades the establishment -of “one concentrated union”; and in the following -year, through the energy of Alexander Hutchinson, the -secretary of the Friendly United Smiths of Great Britain -and Ireland, a United Trades Association was set on foot -in Lancashire, to comprise the “Five Trades of Mechanism, -viz. Mechanics, Smiths, Moulders, Engineers, and Millwrights.” -The objects of this association were ably represented -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</span> -and promoted by its organ, the <i>Trades Journal</i>, -established to extend and “improve Trades Unions generally -in Great Britain and Ireland,”<a id="FNanchor_346" href="#Footnote_346" class="fnanchor">[346]</a> The attempt proved, -however, premature, and it was not until the year 1844 -that the Bolton men, under the leadership of John -Rowlinson, succeeded in establishing a permanent “Protection -Society,” composed of delegates from the Societies -of Smiths, Millwrights, Ironmoulders, Engineers, and -Boilermakers. Inspirited by the success of the Bolton -society, which successfully maintained a nine months’ strike -(costing it £9,000) against the “Quittance Paper” (character -note, or leaving certificate) which the employers -eventually agreed to abandon, joint committees of -engineering operatives were formed between 1844 and -1850 in all the principal Lancashire centres. These were -repeatedly addressed by Rowlinson and Hutchinson, and -the ground was prepared for a systematic attempt at -national amalgamation.</p> - -<p>The leading part in the amalgamation was taken by the -society to which Newton belonged. The Journeymen -Steam-Engine and Machine Makers and Millwrights’ -Friendly Society, with its headquarters at Manchester, at -this time far exceeded any other trade society in membership -and wealth. Established in 1826 as the Friendly -Union of Mechanics, it had absorbed in 1837 a strong -Yorkshire society dating from 1822 (the Mechanics’ Friendly -Union Institution), and by 1848 it numbered seven thousand -members organised in branches all over the kingdom, and -possessed an accumulated reserve fund of £25,000. The -silent growth of this Union, the slow perfecting of its -constitution by repeated delegate meetings held at intervals -during the preceding twenty years, stand in marked contrast -with the dramatic advent of the ephemeral organisations of -1830-34. But this task of internal organisation, with its -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</span> -gradual working out of the elaborate financial and -administrative system which afterwards became celebrated -in the constitution of the Amalgamated Engineers, seems -to have absorbed, during the first fifteen years of its -existence, all the energy of its members. In none of the -working-class movements of this period did the society -play any part, nor do we find that it, as a whole, engaged -in any important conflicts with its members’ employers. -At last, in 1843, a delegate meeting urged the members to -oppose systematic overtime, and in 1844 the society, as -we have seen, took part in the London movement for the -shortening of the hours of labour. By 1845 it seems to -have felt itself strong enough to undertake aggressive trade -action by itself, and a delegate meeting in that year -attacked the employment of labourers on machines, “the -piece master system,” and systematic overtime, by -stringent resolutions upon which the Executive Committee -sitting at Manchester were directed to take early action.<a id="FNanchor_347" href="#Footnote_347" class="fnanchor">[347]</a> -During the following year accordingly a simultaneous -attempt appears to have been made by many of the -branches to enforce these rules. This action led, at Belfast, -Rochdale, and Newton-le-Willows, to legal proceedings by -the employers, and the officers of the society, together with -over a score of its members, found themselves in the dock -indicted for conspiracy and illegal combination.<a id="FNanchor_348" href="#Footnote_348" class="fnanchor">[348]</a> The trial -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</span> -of the twenty-six engineers of Newton-le-Willows, and the -conviction of nine of them, including Selsby, the General -Secretary of the great mechanics’ Union, caused a sensation -in the Trade Union world, and tended to draw closer together -the rival societies in the engineering trade.</p> - -<p>The progressive trade policy of the Journeymen Steam-Engine -and Machine Makers’ Society greatly increased the -ascendency which its superiority in wealth and numbers -gave it over the numerous other trade friendly societies in -the engineering trades. William Allan, a young Scotchman, -succeeded Selsby in the salaried post of general secretary -when the latter obtained a commercial post in 1848. A -close friend and ardent disciple of William Newton, he -quickly manifested, in the administration of his own society, -the capacity and energy which enabled him in future years -to play so important a part in the general history of the -Labour Movement. The cause of amalgamation was well -served by the indefatigable missionary efforts of these two -men. The anniversary dinners and friendly social meetings -of the joint committees of the societies in the Lancashire -iron trades were, as we know from contemporary records, -made the occasion of propagandist speeches, and were -doubtless used also by these astute organisers to talk over -the leading men to agreement with their proposals. The -natural jealousy felt by the great provincial centre of Trade -Unionism of the interference of the Metropolis in its concerns -was allayed by Allan’s suggestion that the Lancashire -societies should call a conference of delegates at Warrington -in March 1850, for the purpose of consultation and discussion -only. At this meeting, which was attended only -by the representatives of three of the larger societies -(including the Steam-Engine Makers established at Liverpool -in 1824, and the Smiths’ Benevolent, Friendly, Sick and -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</span> -Burial Society, established in 1830), Newton and Allan -succeeded in getting through the outlines of their scheme -of amalgamation. During the next six months these -proposals were the subject of exhaustive discussion at every -joint committee and branch meeting. Meanwhile the -leaders had established in Manchester a weekly journal for -the express purpose of promoting amalgamation, engaging -as editor, under a written contract, Dr. John Watts, -afterwards well known as one of the ablest advocates of -co-operation. This journal, the <i>Trades Advocate and Herald -of Progress</i>, stated to be “established by the Iron Trades,” -discussed the advantages of union, and incidentally taught -the doctrines of Free Trade and Co-operative Production. -<a id="FNanchor_349" href="#Footnote_349" class="fnanchor">[349]</a></p> - -<p>Lancashire converted and conciliated, London could -now go ahead. Under Newton’s influence the London -joint committee summoned a second delegate meeting at -Birmingham in September 1850, which was attended by -representatives of seven engineering societies. At this -conference the scheme of amalgamation was definitely -adopted; and the Metropolitan “Central Committee” -was charged, as a “Provisional Committee,” to complete -the details of the transfer of the old organisation to the -new body. The tact and skill with which Allan and -Newton carried out their project are conspicuously shown -by the way in which the act of union was regarded by all -concerned. There is no trace of suspicion on the part of -the minor societies that they were taking part in anything -but an amalgamation on equal terms. The whole Trade -Union world, including the Amalgamated Society of -Engineers itself, has retained the tradition that this great -organisation was the outcome of a genuine amalgamation -of societies of fairly equivalent standing. What happened, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</span> -as a matter of fact, was that the society led by Allan and -Newton absorbed its rivals.<a id="FNanchor_350" href="#Footnote_350" class="fnanchor">[350]</a> The new body took over, in -its entirety, the elaborate constitution, the scheme of -benefits (with the addition of Sick Benefit and the adoption -of the innovation of an Emigration Benefit of £6), the trade -policy, and even the official staff of the Journeymen Steam-Engine -and Machine Makers and Millwrights’ Society, which -contributed more than three-fourths of the membership -with which the amalgamation started, and found itself -continued, down to the minutest details, in the rules and -regulations of the new association. An important addition -was, however, the adoption of a definite trade policy of -restricting overtime and preventing piecework; the institution -of District Committees charged to carry out that -policy; and the establishment of a new Strike Pay of 15s. -per week.</p> - -<p>The conclusions of the Birmingham delegates were not -accepted without demur. Many of the branches in -Lancashire and elsewhere objected to the position obtained -by the London Committee, and stood aloof from the -amalgamation. The Manchester Committee showed signs -of jealousy at the transfer of the seat of government to the -Metropolis. But the most important defection was that of -the rank and file of the members of the Steam-Engine -Makers’ Society, an association which stood in membership -and funds second only to the Journeymen Steam-Engine -Makers and Machine Makers’ Society. Newton and Allan -had succeeded in persuading the whole of the Executive -to throw in their lot with the amalgamation, but the bulk -of the members revolted, and the society maintained a -separate existence down to the end of 1919, when it joined -the other societies in the creation of the Amalgamated -Engineering Union. Even in Newton’s own society, in -which the main principles of the amalgamation had been -carried by large majorities, a considerable number of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</span> -provincial branches remained hostile. On January 6, 1851, -when the Provisional Committee formally assumed office -as the Executive Committee of the “Amalgamated Society -of Engineers, Machinists, Smiths, Millwrights and Patternmakers,” -scarcely 5000 members out of the 10,500 represented -at the Birmingham Conference were paying to the -amalgamated funds.<a id="FNanchor_351" href="#Footnote_351" class="fnanchor">[351]</a> For some months, indeed, the success -of Newton’s ambitious scheme looked doubtful. Though -London had rallied to his help, only one small society -standing aloof, the provincial branches came in very slowly. -It took three months’ persuasion to raise the membership -of the amalgamation up to the level of the parent society. -Delegate meetings of the Steam-Engine Makers and the -Smiths’ Societies decided against amalgamation, though -many of their branches broke away and joined the new -society. But towards the end of May the tide turned. The -remaining branches of the Journeymen Steam-Engine and -Machine Makers and Millwrights’ Society held a delegate -meeting, at which it was decided no longer to oppose the -amalgamation; the Smiths’ Society of London and several -other small societies came in; and by October Newton and -Allan were at the head of a united society of 11,000 members -paying 1s. per week each, the largest and most powerful -Union that had ever existed in the engineering trades, and -far exceeding in membership, and still more in annual -income, any other trade society of the time. -<a id="FNanchor_352" href="#Footnote_352" class="fnanchor">[352]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</span></p> - -<p>The successful accomplishment of the amalgamation was -followed by a conflict with the employers, which riveted the -attention of the whole Trade Union world upon the new -body. The aggressive trade policy initiated by Selsby and -Allan in Lancashire and Newton in London had been -repeatedly confirmed by the delegate meetings of their -society, and was formally incorporated in the basis of the -larger organisation.<a id="FNanchor_353" href="#Footnote_353" class="fnanchor">[353]</a> The more energetic branches were not -slow in acting upon it. In 1851 the men at Messrs. Hibbert -& Platt’s extensive works at Oldham made a series of -demands, not only for the abolition of overtime, but also -for the exclusion of “labourers and other ‘illegal’ men” -from the machines. With these demands Messrs. Hibbert -& Platt and other employers had to comply. The private -minutes of the London Executive prove conclusively that -the strike to oust labourers from machines was not authorised -by the central body;<a id="FNanchor_354" href="#Footnote_354" class="fnanchor">[354]</a> but as William Newton, now a -member of the Executive, acted as the representative of -the Oldham men in submitting these demands to Messrs. -Hibbert & Platt, the employers, naturally inferring that -his action was the direct outcome of the amalgamation, -formed in December 1851 the Central Association of -Employers of Operative Engineers to resist the men’s -Union.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile the London Executive had been consulting -the whole of the members on the proposal to abolish -systematic overtime and piecework, and had obtained an -almost unanimous vote in favour of immediate action. A -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</span> -manifesto was issued to the employers, in which the -Executive announced the intention of the society to put -an end to piecework and systematic overtime after -December 31, 1851. The employers replied by an imperious -declaration in the <i>Times</i> that a strike at any one establishment -would be met seven days later by a general lock-out -of the whole engineering trade. The men thereupon offered -to submit the question to arbitration, a proposal which the -employers ignored. On January 1, 1852, the members of -the Amalgamated Society refused to work overtime, and on -the 10th the masters closed, as they had threatened, every -important engineering establishment in Lancashire and the -Metropolis.</p> - -<p>The three months’ struggle that followed interested the -general public more than any previous conflict. The details -were described, and the action of the employers and the -policy of the Union was discussed in every newspaper. The -men found unexpected friends in the little group of -“Christian Socialists,” who threw themselves heartily into -the fray, and rendered excellent service, not only by liberal -subscriptions,<a id="FNanchor_355" href="#Footnote_355" class="fnanchor">[355]</a> but also by letters to the newspapers, public -lectures, and other explanations of the men’s position. The -masters remained obdurate, insisting not only upon the -unconditional withdrawal of the men’s demands, but also -upon their signing the well-known “document” forswearing -Trade Union membership. The capitalists, in fact, took up -the old line of absolute supremacy in their establishments, -and expressly denied the men’s right to take any collective -action whatsoever.</p> - -<p>Notwithstanding the subscription of £4000 by the -public and £5000 by other trade societies, the funds at -the disposal of the Union soon began to run short. The -Executive had undertaken to support not only the 3500 -of its own members and the 1500 mechanics who were out, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</span> -but also the 10,000 labourers who had been made idle. -Altogether over £43,000 was dispensed during the six -months in out-of-work pay. Early in February the masters -opened their workshops. By the middle of March the issue -of the struggle was plain, and during April the men resumed -work on the employers’ terms. Almost all the masters -insisted on the actual signature of the “document” by -their men, and most of these, under pressure of imminent -destitution, reluctantly submitted, without, however, carrying -out their promise by abandoning the Union. Judge -Hughes, writing in 1860, describes this act of bad faith by -the men as “inexcusable,” but there is much to be said for -the view taken by the Amalgamation Executive, who -declared that they held themselves “and every man who -unwillingly puts his hand to that detestable document -which is forced upon us to be as much destitute of that -power of choice which should precede a contract as if a -pistol were at his head and he had to choose between death -and degradation.”<a id="FNanchor_356" href="#Footnote_356" class="fnanchor">[356]</a> A promise extorted under “duress” -carries with it little legal and still less moral obligation, and -whatever discredit attaches to the transaction must be -ascribed at least as much to the masters who made the -demand as to the unfortunate victims of the labour war -who unwillingly complied with it. -<a id="FNanchor_357" href="#Footnote_357" class="fnanchor">[357]</a></p> - -<p>It was the dramatic events of 1852 which made the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</span> -establishment of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers a -turning-point in the history of the Trade Union Movement. -The complete victory gained by the employers did not, as -they had hoped, destroy the Engineers’ Union. The -membership of the society was, in fact, never seriously -shaken.<a id="FNanchor_358" href="#Footnote_358" class="fnanchor">[358]</a> On the other hand, the publicity which it gained -in the conflict gave it a position of unrivalled prominence -in the Trade Union world. From 1852 to 1889 the elaborate -constitution of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers -served as the model for all new national trade societies, -whilst old organisations found themselves gradually incorporating -its leading features. The place occupied in 1830-34 -by the cotton-spinners and the builders was, in fact, now -taken by the iron trades.</p> - -<p>The “New Model” thus introduced differed, both for -good and evil, from the typical Trade Unionism of the -preceding generation. The engineering societies had to -some extent inherited the exclusive policy of the organisations -of the skilled handicraftsmen of the beginning of the -century. Unlike the General Trades Unions of 1830-34 they -restricted their membership to legally apprenticed workmen. -Their records bear traces of the old idea of the legal -incorporation of separate trades, rather than of any general -union of “the productive classes.” The generous but -impracticable “universalism” of the Owenite and Chartist -organisations was replaced by the principle of the protection -of the vested interests of the craftsman in his occupation. -The preface to the rules of the parent society expresses this -dominant idea by a forcible analogy:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</span></p> - -<p>“The youth who has the good fortune and inclination -for preparing himself as a useful member of society by the -study of physic, and who studies that profession with -success so as to obtain his diploma from the Surgeons’ Hall -or College of Surgeons, naturally expects, in some measure, -that he is entitled to privileges to which the pretending -quack can lay no claim; and if in the practice of that -useful profession he finds himself injured by such a pretender, -he has the power of instituting a course of law against him. -Such are the benefits connected with the learned professions. -But the mechanic, though he may expend nearly an equal -fortune and sacrifice an equal proportion of his life in -becoming acquainted with the different branches of useful -mechanism, has no law to protect his privileges.”<a id="FNanchor_359" href="#Footnote_359" class="fnanchor">[359]</a> He is -therefore urged to join the society, which aims at securing -the same protection of his trade against interlopers as is -enjoyed by the learned professions.</p> - -<p>This spirit of exclusiveness has had, as we shall hereafter -discern, an equivocal effect, not only on the history of the -society itself, but on that of the Trade Union Movement. -But the contemporary trade movements either did not -observe or failed to realise the tendency of this attempt to -retain or reconstruct an aristocracy of skilled workmen. -What impressed the working men was not the trade policy -which had brought about the defeat of 1852, but the -admirably thought-out financial and administrative system, -which enabled the Union to combine the functions of a -trade protection society with those of a permanent insurance -company, and thus attain a financial stability hitherto -undreamt of. Time proved that this constitution had its -peculiar defects. But for over twenty years no Trade -Unionist questioned its excellence, and the minute criticism -and heated abuse which it evoked from employers and their -advocates seemed only another testimony to its effectiveness. -We think it worth while, therefore, at the risk of introducing -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</span> -tedious detail, to describe the main features of this “New -Model.”</p> - -<p>In striking contrast with the Cotton-spinners’ and -Builders’ Unions of 1830-34, with their exclusively trade -purposes, the societies in the engineering trades had, like -the trade organisations of the handicraftsmen of the last -century, originated as local benefit clubs. The Journeymen -Steam-Engine Makers’ Society, for instance, had from the -first provided its members with out-of-work pay, a travelling -allowance, a funeral benefit, and a lump sum in case of -accidental disablement. In 1846 it added to these benefits a -small sick allowance, and shortly afterwards an old age -pension to superannuated members. The administration of -these friendly benefits was from the outset the primary -object of the organisation. As the local benefit club -expanded into a national society by the migration of its -members from town to town, the extreme difficulty of -combining local autonomy with a just and economical -administration of extensive benefits became apparent. For -the society, it must be remembered, was not a federation -of independent bodies, each having its own exchequer and -contributing to the central fund its determinate quota of -the expenses of the central office: it was from the first a -single association with a common purse, into which all -contributions were paid, and out of which all expenditure, -down to the stationery and ink used by a branch secretary, -was defrayed. This concentration of funds carried with it -the practical advantage of forming a considerable reserve -at the disposal of the Executive. But so long as it was -combined with local autonomy, it was open to the obvious -objection that a branch might dispense benefits to its own -members with undue liberality, and thus absorb an unfair -amount of the moneys of the whole society. And hence we -find that in 1838 an attempt was made to centralise the -administration, by transforming the local officials from the -servants of the branches into agents of the central authority. -The inherent love of self-government of the British artisan -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</span> -defeated this proposal, which would inevitably have led to -local apathy and suspicion, if not to grosser evils. Some -other method of harmonising local autonomy with centralised -finance had therefore to be invented.</p> - -<p>Under the constitution which the Amalgamated Society -took over from the Journeymen Steam-Engine and Machine -Makers and Millwrights, we find this problem solved with -considerable astuteness. The branch elects and controls its -own local officers, but acts in all cases within rules which -provide explicitly for every detail. Each branch retains its -own funds and administers the friendly benefits payable to -its own members, including the allowance to men out of -work. The financial autonomy of the branch is, however, -more apparent than real. No penny must be expended -except in accordance with precise rules. The branch retains -its own funds, but these are the property of the whole -society, and at the end of each year the balances are -“equalised” by a complicated system of remittances from -branch to branch, ordered by the Central Executive in such -a way that each branch starts the year with the same amount -of capital per member. The cumbrous plan of annual -equalisation is a device adopted in order to maintain the -feeling of local self-government under a strictly centralised -financial system.<a id="FNanchor_360" href="#Footnote_360" class="fnanchor">[360]</a> From the decision of the branch any -member may appeal to the Central Executive Council. -The decisions of this Council on all questions of friendly -benefits are, however, strictly limited to the interpretation -of the existing laws of the society. These rules, which -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</span> -include in equal detail both the constitutional and the -financial code, cannot be altered or modified except by a -specially convened meeting of delegates from every district. -Careful provision is, moreover, made against the danger of -hasty or ill-considered legislation even by this supreme -authority. No amendment may be so much as considered -without having been circulated to all the branches six weeks -prior to the delegate meeting, and having thereupon been -discussed and re-discussed by the members at two successive -general meetings convened for the purpose. Thus every -delegate comes to his legislative duties charged with a -direct and even detailed mandate from his constituents. -Moreover, it is expressly provided that no friendly benefit -shall be abrogated unless the decision of the delegate -meeting to that effect is ratified by a majority of two-thirds -on a vote of the members of the whole society. As a -friendly society, therefore, the Association consists of a -number of self-governing branches acting according to the -provisions of a detailed code, and amenable, in respect of -its interpretation, to a Central Executive.</p> - -<p>As a Trade Union, on the contrary, the Association has -been from the first a highly centralised body. The great -object of the amalgamation was to secure uniformity in -trade policy, and to promote the equalisation of what the -economists call “real wages”<a id="FNanchor_361" href="#Footnote_361" class="fnanchor">[361]</a> throughout the whole -country. With this view the Central Executive has always -retained the absolute power of granting or withholding -strike pay. No individual can receive strike allowance from -his branch except upon an express order of the Executive. -Local knowledge, however, is clearly needed for the decision -in matters of trade policy, and on the amalgamation -“district” committees were established, consisting of the -representatives of neighbouring branches. These committees -have no concern with the administration of -friendly benefits, which, as we have seen, is the business of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</span> -each branch. Their function is to guard the local interests -of the trade, to watch for encroachments, and to advise the -Executive Council in the administration of strike pay. -Unlike the branches, they possess no independent authority, -and are required to act strictly under the orders of headquarters, -to which the minutes of their proceedings are -regularly sent for confirmation.</p> - -<p>Not less impressive than this elaborate constitution, with -its system of checks and counter-checks, was the magnitude -of the financial transactions of the new society. The high -contribution of a shilling a week, paid with unexampled -regularity by a constantly increasing body of members, -provided an income which surpassed the wildest dreams -of previous Trade Union organisations, and enabled the -society to meet any local emergency without serious effort. -A large portion of this income was absorbed by the -expensive friendly benefits, which were on a scale at that -time unfamiliar to the societies in other trades. And when -it was found that the contribution of a shilling a week not -only met all these requirements, but also provided an -accumulating balance, which could be drawn upon for -strike pay, the indignation of the employers knew no -bounds. For many years the union of friendly benefits -with trade protection funds, now considered as the guarantee -of a peaceful Trade Union policy, was denounced as a -dishonest attempt to subsidise strikes at the expense of the -innocent subscriber to a friendly society insurance against -sickness, accident, and old age. -<a id="FNanchor_362" href="#Footnote_362" class="fnanchor">[362]</a></p> - -<p>In scarcely less marked contrast with the current -tradition of Trade Unionism was the publicity which the -Amalgamated Engineers from the first courted. Powerful -societies, such as the existing Union of Stonemasons, had -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</span> -between 1834 and 1850 elaborated a constitution which -proved as durable as that of the Amalgamated Engineers, -though of a slightly different type. But the old feeling of -secretiveness still dominated both the leaders and the rank -and file. The <i>Stonemasons’ Fortnightly Circular</i>, which, -regularly appearing as it has done since 1834, constitutes -perhaps the most valuable single record of the Trade Union -Movement, was never seen outside the branch meeting-place.<a id="FNanchor_363" href="#Footnote_363" class="fnanchor">[363]</a> -At the Royal Commission of 1867-8 the employers’ -witnesses bitterly complained of their inability to get copies -of this publication and of a similar periodical circular of -the Bricklayers’ Society.<a id="FNanchor_364" href="#Footnote_364" class="fnanchor">[364]</a> As late as 1871 we find the liability -to publicity adduced by some Unions as an argument -against seeking recognition by the law.</p> - -<p>The leaders of the Engineers believed, on the contrary, -in the power of advertisement. We have already noticed -the two short-lived newspapers which Newton and Allan -published in 1850 and 1851-2, for the express purpose of -making known the society and its objects. For many years -after the amalgamation it was a regular practice to forward -to the press, for publication or review, all the monthly, -quarterly, and annual reports, as well as the more important -of the circulars issued to the members. Representatives -were sent to the Conference on Capital and Labour held -by the Society of Arts in 1854, and to the congresses of -the Social Science Association from 1859 onward. Newton -and Allan appear, indeed, to have eagerly seized every -opportunity of writing letters to the newspapers, reading -papers, and delivering lectures about the organisation which -they had established.</p> - -<p>It is easy to understand the great influence which, during -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</span> -the next twenty years, this “New Model” exercised upon -the Trade Union world. Its most important imitator was -the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters, which, as we shall -see, arose out of the great London strike of 1859-60. The -tailors in 1866 drew together into an amalgamated society, -which adopted, almost without alteration, the whole code -of the engineers, and in 1869 the London Society of -Compositors appointed a special committee to report upon -“the constitution and working of the Amalgamated Trades,” -with a view to their imitation in the printing industry—an -intention which, in spite of the favourable character of -the report, was not carried out.<a id="FNanchor_365" href="#Footnote_365" class="fnanchor">[365]</a> Scarcely a trade exists -which did not, between 1852 and 1875, either attempt -to imitate the whole constitution of the Amalgamated -Engineers, or incorporate one or other of its characteristic -features.</p> - -<p>The five or six years following the collapse of the great -lock-out of 1852, though constituting a period of quiet -progress in particular societies, are for the historian of the -general Trade Union Movement, almost a blank. The -severe commercial depression of 1846-49 was succeeded by -seven years of steadily expanding trade, which furnished -no occasion for general reduction of wages. The reaction -against the ambitious projects of the Trade Union of 1834 -continued to discourage even federal action;<a id="FNanchor_366" href="#Footnote_366" class="fnanchor">[366]</a> whilst the -complete failure of the struggle of the engineers, followed -as it was in 1853 by the disastrous strike of the Preston -cotton-spinners for a ten per cent advance, by an equally -unsuccessful struggle of the Kidderminster carpet-weavers, -and by a fierce and futile conflict by the Dowlais ironworkers,<a id="FNanchor_367" href="#Footnote_367" class="fnanchor">[367]</a> -increased the disinclination of the Unions to -aggressive trade action on a large scale. The disrepute -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</span> -into which strikes had fallen was intensified by the spread -among the more thoughtful working men of the principles -of Industrial Co-operation. This new development of -Owen’s teaching took two forms, both, it need hardly be -said, differing fundamentally from the Owenism of 1834. -In Lancashire the success of the “Rochdale Pioneers,” -established in 1844, had led to the rapid extension of the -Co-operative Store, the association of consumers for the -supply of their own wants. To some extent the stalwart -leaders of the Lancashire and Yorkshire working men were -diverted from the organisation of trade combinations to -the establishment of co-operative shops and corn-mills. -Meanwhile the “Christian Socialists” of London had -caught up the idea of Buchez and the Parisian projects -of 1848, and were advocating with an almost apostolic -fervour the formation of associations of producers, in which -groups of working men were to become their own employers. -<a id="FNanchor_368" href="#Footnote_368" class="fnanchor">[368]</a></p> - -<p>The generous enthusiasm with which the “Christian -Socialists” had thrown themselves into the Engineers’ -struggle, and their obvious devotion to the interests of -Labour, gave their schemes of “Self-governing Workshops” -a great vogue. Numberless small undertakings were started -by operative engineers, cabinetmakers, tailors, bootmakers, -and hatters in the Metropolis and in other large industrial -centres, and for a few years the Executives and Committees -of the various Unions vied with each other in recommending -co-operative production to their members. But it soon -became apparent that this new form of co-operation was -intended, not as an adjunct or a development of the Trade -Union, but as an alternative form of industrial organisation. -For, unlike the Owenites of 1834, the Christian Socialists -had no conception of the substitution of profit-making -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</span> -enterprise by the whole body of wage-earners, organised -either in a self-contained community or in a complete -Trades Union. They sought only to replace the individual -capitalist by self-governing bodies of profit-making workmen. -A certain number of the ardent spirits among the London -and north country workmen became the managers and -secretaries of these undertakings, and ceased to be energetic -members of their respective Unions. “We have found,” -say the Engineers’ Executive in their annual report of 1855, -“that when a few of our own members have commenced -business hitherto they have abandoned the society, and -conducted the workshops even worse than other employers.” -Fortunately for the Trade Union Movement the uniform -commercial failure of these experiments, so long, at any -rate, as they retained their original form of the self-governing -workshop, soon became obvious to those concerned. The -idea of “Co-operative Production” constantly reappears in -contemporary Trade Union records, but after the failure of -the co-operative establishments of 1848-52 it ceases, for -nearly twenty years, to be a question of “practical politics” -in the Trade Union world.</p> - -<p>In spite of this intellectual diversion the work of Trade -Union consolidation was being steadily carried on. The -Amalgamated Engineers doubled their numbers in the ten -years that followed their strike, and by 1861 their Union -had accumulated the unprecedented balance of £73,398. -The National Societies of Ironfounders and Stonemasons -grew in a similar proportion. A revival of Trade Unionism -took place among the textile operatives. The present -association of Lancashire cotton-spinners began its career -in 1853, whilst the cotton-weavers secured in the same year -what has been fitly termed their Magna Charta, the -“Blackburn List” of piecework rates. But with the -exception of the building trades, Trade Unionism assumed, -during these years, a peaceful attitude. The leaders no -longer declaimed against “the idle classes,” but sought to -justify the Trade Union position with arguments based on -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</span> -middle-class economics. The contributions of the Amalgamated -Engineers are described “as a general voluntary -rate in aid of the Poor’s Rate.”<a id="FNanchor_369" href="#Footnote_369" class="fnanchor">[369]</a> The Executive Council -cannot doubt that employers will not “regard a society -like ours with disfavour. They will begin to understand -that it is not intended, nor adapted, to damage their -interests, but rather to advance them, by elevating the -character of their workmen, and proportionately lessening -their own responsibilities.” The project of substituting -“Councils of Conciliation” for strikes and lock-outs grew -in favour with Trade Union leaders. Hundreds of petitions -in favour of their establishment were got up by the -National Association of United Trades, then on its last -legs. The House of Commons Committees in 1856 and 1860 -found the operatives in all trades disposed to support the -principle of voluntary submission to arbitration. For a -brief period it seemed as if peace was henceforth to prevail -over the industrial world.</p> - -<p>The era of strikes which set in with the contraction -of trade in 1857 proved how fallacious had been these -hopes. The building trades, in particular, had remained -less affected than the Engineers or the Cotton Operatives -by the change of tone. The local branches of the Stonemasons, -Bricklayers, and other building trade operatives, -often against the wish of their Central Committees, were -engaged between 1853 and 1859 in an almost constant succession -of little strikes against separate firms, in which the -men were generally successful in gaining advances of wages. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</span><a id="FNanchor_370" href="#Footnote_370" class="fnanchor">[370]</a> -These years were, moreover, notable for the recognition in -the provincial building trades of “working rules,” or signed -agreements between employers and workmen (usually -between the local Masters’ Associations and the Trade -Unions), specifying in minute detail the conditions of the -collective bargain. Without doubt the adoption of these -rules was a step forward in the direction of industrial peace; -but, like international treaties, they were frequently preceded -by desperate conflicts in which both sides exhausted -their resources, and learnt to respect the strength of the -other party. With the depression of trade more important -disputes occurred. During 1858 fierce conflicts arose -between masters and men in the flint glass industry and -in the West Yorkshire coalfield. The introduction of the -sewing-machine into the boot and shoemaking villages of -Northamptonshire led to a series of angry struggles. But -of the great disputes of 1858 to 1861, the builders’ strike -in the Metropolis in 1859-60 was by far the most important -in its effect upon the Trade Union Movement.</p> - -<p>The dispute of 1859 originated in the growing movement -for a shortening of the hours of labour.<a id="FNanchor_371" href="#Footnote_371" class="fnanchor">[371]</a> The demand -for a Nine Hours Day in the Building Trades was first -made by the Liverpool Stonemasons in 1846, and renewed -by the London Stonemasons in 1853. In neither case, -however, was the claim persisted in. Four years later -the movement was revived by the London Carpenters, -whose memorial to their employers was met, after a joint -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</span> -conference, by a decisive refusal. Meanwhile the Stonemasons -were seeking to obtain the Saturday half-holiday, -which the employers equally refused. This led, in the -autumn of 1858, to the formation of a Joint Committee of -Carpenters, Masons, and Bricklayers, which, on November -18, 1858, addressed a dignified memorial to the master -builders, urging that the hours of labour should be shortened -by one per day, and that future building contracts should -be accepted on this basis. At first ignored by the employers, -this request was eventually refused as decidedly as it had -been in 1853 and 1857. The Joint Committee thereupon -made a renewed attempt by petitioning four firms selected -by ballot. Among these was that of Messrs. Trollope, -who promptly dismissed one of the men who had presented -the memorial. This action led to an immediate strike -against Messrs. Trollope. Within a fortnight every master -builder in London employing over fifty men had closed -his establishment, and twenty-four thousand men were -peremptorily deprived of their employment. The controversy -which raged in the columns of contemporary newspapers -during this pitched battle between Capital and -Labour brought out in strong relief the state of mind of -the Metropolitan employers. Uninfluenced by the progress -of public opinion, or by the new tone of respect and moderation -adopted by Trade Union leaders, the London employers -took up the position of their predecessors of 1834. They -absolutely refused to recognise the claim of the representatives -of the men even to discuss with them the conditions -of employment. This attitude was combined with a determined -attempt to destroy all combination, the instrument -adopted being the well-worn Document. The Central -Association of Master Builders resolved, in terms almost -identical with its predecessor of 1834, that “no member -of this Association shall engage or continue in his employment -any contributor to the funds of any Trades Union -or Trades Society which practises interference with the -regulation of any establishment, the hours or terms of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</span> -labour, the contracts or agreements of employers or employed, -or the qualification or terms of service.”</p> - -<p>This declaration of war on Trade Unionism gained for -the men on strike the support of the whole Trade Union -world. The Central Committee of the great society of -Stonemasons, which had hitherto discouraged the Metropolitan -Nine Hours Movement as premature, took up the -struggle against the Document as one of vital importance. -Meetings of delegates from the organised Metropolitan -trades were held in order to rally the forces of Trade Unionism -to the cause of the builders. The subscriptions which poured -in from all parts of the kingdom demonstrated the possession, -in the hands of trade societies, of heavy and hitherto unsuspected -reserves of financial strength. The London -Pianoforte Makers contributed £300. The Flint Glass -Makers, who had just emerged from a prolonged struggle -on their own account, sent a similar sum. “Trades Committees” -were formed in all the industrial centres, and -remitted large amounts. Glasgow and Manchester sent -over £800 each, and Liverpool over £500. The newly -formed Yorkshire Miners’ Association forwarded £230. -The Boilermakers, Coopers, and Coachmakers’ Societies -were especially liberal in their gifts. But the sensation -of the subscription list was the grant by the Amalgamated -Engineers of three successive weekly donations of £1000 -each—an event long recalled with emotion by the survivors -of the struggle. Altogether some £23,000 were subscribed -(exclusive of the payments by the societies directly concerned), -an amount far in excess of any previous strike -subsidy.</p> - -<p>Such abundant support enabled the men to defeat the -employers’ aims, though not to secure their own demands. -The Central Association of Master Builders clung desperately -to the Document, but failed to obtain an adequate -number of men willing to subscribe to its terms. In -December 1859 a suggestion was made by Lord St. -Leonards that the Document be withdrawn, a lengthy -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_231">[Pg 231]</span> -statement of the law relating to trade combinations being -hung up in all the establishments as a substitute. The -employers’ obstinacy held out for two months longer, -but finally succumbed in February 1860, when the -Platonic suggestion of Lord St. Leonards was adopted, -and the embittered dispute was brought to an end.</p> - -<p>This drawn battle between the forces of Capital and -Labour ranks as a leading event in Trade Union history, -not only because it revived the feeling of solidarity between -different trades, but also on account of the importance -of two consolidating organisations to which it gave birth. -Out of the Building Trades Strike of 1859-60 arose the -London Trades Council (to be described in the following -chapter) and the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters, -the most notable adoption by another trade of the “New -Model” introduced by Newton and Allan.</p> - -<p>The strike had revealed to the London carpenters the -complete state of disorganisation into which their industry -had fallen. It was they, it is true, who had initiated the -Nine Hours Movement in the Metropolis, but the committee -which memorialised the employers had represented -no body of organised workmen. George Potter, who was -the leader of this movement, could draw around him only a -group of delegates elected by the men in each shop. There -were, indeed, not more than about a thousand carpenters -in London who were members of any trade society whatsoever, -and these were scattered among numerous tiny benefit -clubs. The Friendly Society of Operative Carpenters, -which, as we have seen, was a militant branch of the Builders’ -Union of 1830-34, had, like the Stonemasons’ Society, -maintained a continuous existence. Unlike that society, -however, it had kept the old character of a loose federation -for trade purposes only, depending for its finances upon -occasional levies. Perhaps for this reason it had lost its -exclusive hold upon the provinces, and had gained no footing -in London. As a competent observer remarks: “At the -time of the 1859-60 strikes the masons alone of the building -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_232">[Pg 232]</span> -trades were organised into a single society extending -throughout England, and providing not only for trade -purposes, but for the ordinary benefits.... The London -masons locked out were supported regularly and punctually -by their society, and could have continued the struggle -for an indefinite time; but the other trades, split up into -numerous local societies, were soon reduced to extremities.”<a id="FNanchor_372" href="#Footnote_372" class="fnanchor">[372]</a> -The Carpenters’ Committee saw with envy the capacity -of the Stonemasons’ Society to provide long-continued -strike pay for its members, and were profoundly impressed -by the successive donations of £1000 each made by the -Amalgamated Engineers. Directly the strike was over, -the leading members of the little benefit clubs met together -to discuss the formation of a national organisation on the -Engineers’ model. William Allan lent them every assistance -in adapting the rules of his own society to the carpenters’ -trade, and watched over the preliminary proceedings. The -new society started on June 4, 1860, with a few hundred -members. For the first two years its progress was slow; -but in October 1862 it had the good fortune to elect as -its general secretary a man whose ability and cautious -sagacity promptly raised it to a position of influence in -the Trade Union world. Robert Applegarth, secretary -of a local Carpenters’ Union at Sheffield, had been quick -to perceive the advantages of amalgamation, and had -brought his society over with him. Under his administration -the new Union advanced by leaps and bounds, -and in a few years it stood, in magnitude of financial transactions -and accumulated funds, second only to the Amalgamated -Society of Engineers itself. Moreover, Applegarth’s -capacity brought him at once into that little circle of Trade -Union leaders whose activity forms during the next ten -years the central point of Trade Union history.</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_308" href="#FNanchor_308" class="label">[308]</a>Between 1850 and 1874 there was (except, perhaps, during the -American Civil War) no falling off in the value of our export trade comparable -to the serious declines of 1826, 1829, 1837, 1842, and 1848. We -do not pretend to account for this difference, but may remind the reader -of the coincident increase in the production of gold, the influence of Free -Trade and railways, and, as the bimetallists would tell us, the currency -arrangements which were brought to an end in 1873.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_309" href="#FNanchor_309" class="label">[309]</a>This was an elaborate national organisation with 60 branches, -grouped under five District Boards. But it enrolled only 4320 members, -and broke up in 1847, after numerous local strikes. In June 1849 most -of the provincial branches joined in the Typographical Association, from -which for some time the strong Manchester and Birmingham societies -stood aloof; whilst the London men formed the London Society of -Compositors.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_310" href="#FNanchor_310" class="label">[310]</a><i>The Colliers’ Guide, showing the Necessity of the Colliers Uniting to -Protect their Labour from the Iron Hand of Oppression</i>, etc., by J. B. -Thompson (Bishop Wearmouth, 1843); and see many reports in the -<i>Northern Star</i>, from 1843 to 1848; <i>The Miners of Northumberland and -Durham</i>, by Richard Fynes, 1873; <i>A Great Labour Leader</i>[Thomas Burt], -by Aaron Watson, 1908, pp. 19-23.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_311" href="#FNanchor_311" class="label">[311]</a><i>Northern Star</i> for 1843-4; Fynes’ <i>Miners of Northumberland and -Durham</i>, 1873, chap. viii.; <i>Condition of the Working Class in England in -1844</i>, by Friedrich Engels, 1892, pp. 253-9.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_312" href="#FNanchor_312" class="label">[312]</a>William Prowting Roberts, the youngest son of the Rev. Thomas -Roberts, of Chelmsford, was born in 1806, and became a solicitor at -Manchester. He was an enthusiastic Chartist, and friend of Fergus -O’Connor, to whose Land Bank he acted as legal adviser. From 1843 -onwards his name appears in nearly all the legal business of the Trade -Unions. The collapse of 1848 somewhat damaged his reputation, but he -continued to be frequently retained for many years. In 1867 he organised -the defence of Allen, Larking, and O’Brien, the Irish “Manchester -Martyrs,” who were hanged for the rescue of Fenian prisoners and the -murder of a policeman. In later years Roberts retired to a country -house in the neighbourhood of “O’Connorville,” near Rickmansworth, the -scene of one of O’Connor’s colonies, where he died on September 7, 1871. -A pamphlet on the Trade Union Bill of 1871 is the only publication of -his that we have discovered, but he appears also to have edited a report -of the engineers’ trial in 1847, and reports of some other legal proceedings.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_313" href="#FNanchor_313" class="label">[313]</a><i>Flint Glass Makers’ Magazine</i>, October 1851. The years 1847-8 -had witnessed many strikingly vindictive prosecutions of Trade Unionists. -Besides the case of the engineers, to which we shall refer hereafter, -twenty-one stonemasons of London were indicted in 1848 for conspiracy, -but, after repeated postponements, the prosecuting employer failed to -proceed with the case. The Sheffield razor-grinders stood in greater -jeopardy. John Drury, and three other members of their society, were -tried and sentenced to ten years’ transportation at the instance of the -Sheffield Manufacturers’ Protection Association on the random accusations -of two dissolute convicts that they had incited them to destroy -machinery. This monstrous perversion of justice aroused the greatest -indignation. Public meetings were held by the National Association of -United Trades. The indictment was quashed on a technical point, but -a new one was immediately preferred against the defendants. The local -feeling was, however, so great that they were finally, after a year’s suspense, -released on their own recognisances (July 12, 1849). A Sheffield Trade -Unionist declared that “the tyranny of the employers had been so great,” -in perverting the local administration of the law, “that the men laid -their grievances before the Government. Sir George Grey ordered an -inquiry.... Twenty cases of parties who had been convicted by the -magistrates were brought before a Board of Inquiry, seventeen of which -were quashed” (<i>Stonemasons’ Fortnightly Circular</i>, November 23, 1848).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_314" href="#FNanchor_314" class="label">[314]</a>Bill No. 58 of 1844, introduced by William Miles, M.P. (Hansard, -vols. 73 and 74.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_315" href="#FNanchor_315" class="label">[315]</a><i>Potters’ Examiner</i>, April 13, 1844.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_316" href="#FNanchor_316" class="label">[316]</a>Hansard, vols. 73 and 74. The Bill was lost by 54 to 97 (May 1, -1844); see <i>Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844</i>, by Friedrich -Engels, 1892, pp. 283-4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_317" href="#FNanchor_317" class="label">[317]</a><i>The Miners of Northumberland and Durham</i>, by Richard Fynes, -1873, chap. ix.; <i>The British Coal Trade</i>, by H. Stanley Jevons, 1915, -pp. 448-51.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_318" href="#FNanchor_318" class="label">[318]</a><i>Rules and Regulations of the Association of United Trades for the -Protection of Industry</i>(London, August 2, 1845). There is, as far as we -know, only one copy of these rules in existence, but full particulars of -its establishment and working are to be found in the <i>Northern Star</i>, which -it used for a time as its official organ.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_319" href="#FNanchor_319" class="label">[319]</a>Thomas Slingsby Duncombe was the aristocratic demagogue of the -period. An accomplished man of the world, with the habits of a dandy, -he nevertheless devoted himself with remarkable assiduity not only to -the Parliamentary business of the Chartists and Trade Unionists, but also -to the dry details of the committee work of the association of which he -became president. The <i>Life and Correspondence</i> of Duncombe, which his -son published in 1868, describes him almost exclusively as a fashionable -man of the world and House of Commons politician, and entirely ignores -his more solid work for Trade Unionism during the years 1845-8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_320" href="#FNanchor_320" class="label">[320]</a>In this document we may perhaps trace the hand of T. J. Dunning, -one of the ablest Trade Unionists of his time. Born in 1799, he became -Secretary of the Consolidated Society of Bookbinders in 1843. In 1845 -he joined the National Association of United Trades, but left that body -after a few years. The <i>Bookbinders’ Circular</i>, which he started in 1850, -was, during the rest of his life, largely written by himself, and contains -many well-reasoned articles on Trade Union matters. In 1858 Dunning -joined the celebrated Committee of Inquiry into Trade Societies which -was appointed by the Social Science Association. He contributed a -history of his own society to the Report, and frequently took part in the -subsequent annual congresses. His chief literary production is the essay -entitled, <i>Trades Unions and Strikes; their philosophy and intention</i>(1860, -50 pp.), which he wrote for the prize instituted by his own Union for the -best defence of the workmen’s organisation. This essay, which no publisher -would accept, and which was printed by his society, remains, perhaps—apart -from George Howell’s historical researches in <i>Conflicts of -Capital and Labour</i>, and <i>Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and Labour -Leaders</i>—the best presentation of the Trade Union case which any manual -worker has produced. He died in harness on the 23rd of December 1873.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_321" href="#FNanchor_321" class="label">[321]</a>Report of London Committee of Trades Delegates to the National -Conference of Trades Delegates, Easter, 1845; preserved in the archives -of the Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_322" href="#FNanchor_322" class="label">[322]</a><i>Stonemasons’ Fortnightly Circular</i>, May 14, 1846.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_323" href="#FNanchor_323" class="label">[323]</a>Minutes of delegate meetings of the “Operative Cotton-spinners, -Self-acting Minders, Twiners, and Rovers,” held every other Sunday. -See July 20, August 3, and December 14, 1845.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_324" href="#FNanchor_324" class="label">[324]</a><i>Times</i>, November 16, 1846.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_325" href="#FNanchor_325" class="label">[325]</a>The tinplate-workers of Wolverhampton had been endeavouring, -ever since they joined the Association in 1845, to obtain a uniform list -of piecework rates. By the influence of the National Association, such -a list was agreed to during 1849 by all the employers except two. One -of these treated the men with exceptional duplicity. Having, as he -thought, adequately prepared himself; he threw off the mask in July -1850, and flatly refused to continue the negotiations. The fierce industrial -and legal conflict which ensued attracted general attention. -Many of the strikers were imprisoned for breach of contract; and the -struggle culminated in the prosecution of three members of the committee -of the National Association, together with several of the local -Unionists, for conspiracy to molest and intimidate the employer by -inducing men to leave his employment. Owing to legal quibbles, raised -first on behalf of the Crown, and then on behalf of the defendants, the -case was tried no fewer than three times, the final judgment not being -delivered until November 1851, when five of the prisoners were sentenced -to three months’, and one to one month’s imprisonment. See R. <i>v.</i> Rowlands, -5 Cox C. C. p, 436; also Appendix A to <i>The Law relating to Trade -Unions</i>, by Sir William Erie, 1869.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_326" href="#FNanchor_326" class="label">[326]</a>Duncombe formally resigned the presidency in 1852. In 1856 its -secretary, Thomas Winters, gave evidence in favour of conciliation before -the Select Committee on Masters and Operatives (Equitable Councils, -etc.). He stated that the membership then numbered between 5,000 and -6,000, and that the central committee consisted of three salaried members, -who gave up their whole time to the work. A subsequent secretary -(E. Humphries) appeared before a similar committee four years later, his -evidence showing that the association, though it was still in existence, -had taken no part in any of the important labour struggles of the past -seven or eight years. Mr. George Howell incidentally puts the date of -its dissolution at 1860 or 1861 (see his article “Trades Union Congresses -and Social legislation” in <i>Contemporary Review</i> for September 1889).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_327" href="#FNanchor_327" class="label">[327]</a><i>English Stonemasons’ Fortnightly Circular</i>, December 25, 1845.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_328" href="#FNanchor_328" class="label">[328]</a>The <i>Potters’ Examiner</i>, started December 1843, was converted, in -July 1848, into the <i>Potters’ Examiner and Emigrants’ Advocate</i>, published -at Liverpool and concerned chiefly with emigration. It ceased to appear -soon after 1851.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_329" href="#FNanchor_329" class="label">[329]</a>See especially the articles on “Wages of Labour and Trade Societies” -in the second, third, and fourth numbers (December 1850 to February -1851), in which he assumes that the general level of wages is irresistibly -determined by Supply and Demand, but that Trade Unionism, in providing -out-of-work pay, enables the individual workman to resist exceptional -tyranny or exaction.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_330" href="#FNanchor_330" class="label">[330]</a>This journal contains a mass of useful information relating to the -trade, special reports of the Trades Union Congresses, and well-written -articles on industrial and economic problems. It is marked throughout -by moderation of tone and fairness of argument. Unfortunately, so far -as we know, it is not preserved in any public library, and we were indebted -to Mr. Haddleton, Secretary to the Birmingham Trades Council, -who, in 1893, possessed a complete set, for our acquaintance with its -contents.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_331" href="#FNanchor_331" class="label">[331]</a>Opening Address to the Glass Makers of England, Ireland, and -Scotland, No. 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_332" href="#FNanchor_332" class="label">[332]</a>Report of London Compositors’ Committee on Amalgamation, 1834; -Annual Report, February 2, 1835.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_333" href="#FNanchor_333" class="label">[333]</a><i>Address of Delegate Meeting to the Members of the Friendly Society of -Ironmoulders of England, Ireland, and Wales</i>, September 26, 1846.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_334" href="#FNanchor_334" class="label">[334]</a><i>Fortnightly Circular</i>, December 25, 1845.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_335" href="#FNanchor_335" class="label">[335]</a><i>Ibid.</i>, June 1849.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_336" href="#FNanchor_336" class="label">[336]</a>January 1855.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_337" href="#FNanchor_337" class="label">[337]</a>Letter on “The Evil Consequences of Strikes,” in <i>Flint Glass Makers’ -Magazine</i>, July 1850. The suggested alternative—the Strike in Detail—is -discussed in our <i>Industrial Democracy</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_338" href="#FNanchor_338" class="label">[338]</a><i>Address of the Delegate Meeting to the Members of the Friendly Society -of Ironmoulders</i>, 1846.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_339" href="#FNanchor_339" class="label">[339]</a>“Emigration as a Means to an End,” <i>Flint Glass Makers’ Magazine</i>, -August 1854; address of Executive, September 1857.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_340" href="#FNanchor_340" class="label">[340]</a>“Thus if in a depression you have fifty men out of work they will -receive £1,015 in a year, and at the same time be used as a whip by the -employers to bring your wages down; by sending them to Australia at -£20 per head you save £15, and send them to plenty instead of starvation -at home; you keep your own wages good by the simple act of clearing -the surplus labour out of the market” (Farewell Address of the Secretary, -<i>Flint Glass Makers’ Magazine</i>, August, 1854). “Remove the surplus -labour and oppression itself will soon be a thing of the past” (<i>Ibid.</i>).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_341" href="#FNanchor_341" class="label">[341]</a>Emigration Funds begin to appear in Trade Union Reports about -1843 (see the <i>Potters’ Examiner</i>). For thirty years the accounts of the -larger societies include, off and on, considerable appropriations for the -emigration of members. The tabular statement of expenditure published -in the Ironmoulders’ Annual Report shows, for instance, that £4,712 was -spent in this way between 1855 and 1874. In the Amalgamated Carpenters -an Emigration Benefit lingered until 1886, when it was finally abolished -by the General Council; the members resident in the United States and -Colonies strongly objecting to this use of the funds. But it was between -1850 and 1860 that emigration found most favour as an integral part of -Trade Union policy. The Trade Unions of the United States and the -Australian Colonies addressed vigorous protests to the officials of the -English societies (see, for example, the <i>Stonemasons’ Fortnightly Circular</i>, -June 1856), a fact which co-operated with the dying away of the “gold -rush,” and the change of Trade Union opinion, to cause the abandonment -of the policy, until it was revived in 1872 for a decade or so, by -the Agricultural Labourers’ Unions.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_342" href="#FNanchor_342" class="label">[342]</a><i>Flint Glass Makers’ Magazine</i>, September 1857.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_343" href="#FNanchor_343" class="label">[343]</a>During these years the Executive Committees of the larger societies -were waging war on the “liquor allowance.” In the reports and financial -statements of the Unions for the first half of the century, drink was one -of the largest items of expenditure, express provision being made by the -rules for the refreshment of the officers and members at all meetings. -The rules of the London Society of Woolstaplers (1813) state that “the -President shall be accommodated with his own choice of liquors, wine -only excepted.” The Friendly Society of Ironmoulders (1809) ordains -that the Marshal shall distribute the beer round the meeting impartially, -members being forbidden to drink out of turn “except the officers at -the table or a member on his first coming to the town.” Even as late -as 1837 the rules of the Steam-Engine Makers’ Society direct one-third -of the weekly contribution to be spent in the refreshment of the members, -a provision which drops out in the revision of 1846. In that year the -Delegate Meeting of the Ironmoulders prohibited drinking and smoking -at its own sittings, and followed up this self-denying ordinance by altering -the rules of the society so as to change the allowance of beer at -branch meetings to its equivalent in money. “We believe,” they remark -in their address to the members, “the business of the society would be -much better done were there no liquor allowance. Interruption, confusion, -and scenes of violence and disorder are often the characteristic of -meetings where order, calmness, and impartiality should prevail.” By -1860 most of the larger societies had abolished all allowance for liquor, -and some had even prohibited its consumption during business meetings. -It is to be remembered that the Unions had, at first, no other meeting -place than the club-room freely placed at their disposal by the publican, -and that their payment for drink was of the nature of rent. Meanwhile -the Compositors and Bookbinders were removing their headquarters from -public-houses to offices of their own, and the Steam-Engine Makers were -allowing branches to hire rooms for meetings so as to avoid temptation. -In 1850 the Ironmoulders report that some publicans were refusing to -lend rooms for meetings, owing to the growth of Temperance.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_344" href="#FNanchor_344" class="label">[344]</a>It was the strength of their organisation in London in 1799, as we -have seen, that led to the employers’ petition to the House of Commons, -out of which sprang the Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800. See also -the evidence given by Galloway and other employers before the 1824 -Select Committee on Artisans and Machinery; also incidental references -in the <i>Life of Sir William Fairbairn</i>, 1877, and other works. We have -been unable to discover any documents of engineering societies prior to -1822. Sir William Fairbairn, in the preface to his <i>Mills and Mill-work</i>, -1861, attributes the supersession of the millwright to the changes consequent -on the introduction of the steam-engine.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_345" href="#FNanchor_345" class="label">[345]</a>William Newton was born at Congleton in 1822, his father, who -had once occupied a superior position, being then a journeyman machinist. -The boy went to work in engine shops at the age of fourteen, joined the -Hanley Branch of the Journeymen Steam-Engine Makers’ Society in 1842, -soon afterwards moving to London (where he worked in the same shop -as Henry James, afterwards Lord James of Hereford, then an engineer -pupil, and later noted for his knowledge of Trade Unionism), and rose to be -foreman. After his dismissal in 1848 for his Trade Union activity he took -a public-house at Ratcliffe, and devoted himself largely to the promotion -of the amalgamation of the engineering societies. In 1852 he became, -for a short period, secretary to a small insurance company. At the -General Election of 1852 he became a candidate for the Tower Hamlets. -He was opposed by both the great political parties, but the show of hands -at the hustings was in his favour. At the poll he was unsuccessful, -receiving, however, 1,095 votes. In 1860 he was presented with a testimonial -(including a sum of £300) from his A.S.E. fellow-members. In -later years he became the proprietor of a prosperous local newspaper and -was elected by the Stepney Vestry as its chairman and also as its representative -on the Metropolitan Board of Works. He became one of the -leading members of that body, on which he served from 1862 to 1876, -filling the important office of deputy chairman to the Parliamentary, Fire -Brigade, and other influential committees. In 1868 he again contested -the Tower Hamlets against both Liberals and Conservatives, receiving -2,890 votes; and in 1875 he unsuccessfully fought a bye-election at -Ipswich. He died March 9, 1876, when his funeral, in which the Metropolitan -Board of Works took part, assumed a public character.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_346" href="#FNanchor_346" class="label">[346]</a>This journal is preserved in the Manchester Public Library (341, -P. 37). It was a well-written 16 pp. 8vo, issued, at first fortnightly and -afterwards monthly, at 2d. No. 1 is dated July 4, 1840.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_347" href="#FNanchor_347" class="label">[347]</a>Minutes of delegate meeting at Manchester, May 12, 1845. An -admirable account of this society, founded on documents no longer -extant, is given in an article by Professor Brentano in the <i>North British -Review</i>, October 1870, entitled “The Growth of a Trades Union,” For -some other particulars see the <i>Jubilee Souvenir History of the Amalgamated -Society of Engineers</i>, 1901.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_348" href="#FNanchor_348" class="label">[348]</a>Executive Circular, 1846, cited in proceedings in <i>R.</i> v. <i>Selsby</i>. Two -full accounts of the trial were published, viz. a <i>Verbatim Report of the -Trial for Conspiracy in R.</i> v. <i>Selsby and others</i>(Liverpool, 1847, 66 pp.), -published under the “authority of the Executive of the Steam-Engine -Makers’ Society,” and a <i>Narrative, etc., of the Trial, R.</i> v. <i>Selsby</i>(London, -1847, 68 pp.). Both are preserved in the Manchester Public Library, -P. 2198. The legal report is in Cox’s <i>Crown Cases</i>, vol. v. p. 496, etc. -Contemporary Trade Union reports contain many references to the proceedings. -It was noticed as an instance of the animus of the prosecution -that the indictment contained 4914 counts, and measured fifty-seven -yards in length. W. P. Roberts organised the defence, which cost -the Union £1800. The firm in whose works the dispute arose became -bankrupt within a few years. See the <i>Jubilee Souvenir History of the -Amalgamated Society of Engineers</i>, 1901.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_349" href="#FNanchor_349" class="label">[349]</a><i>The Trades Advocate and Herald of Progress</i> was an 8 pp. quarto -weekly, price 1d., No. 1 being dated June 1850. The volume from -June to December 1850 is preserved in the Manchester Public Library -(401 E, 18). An able article by John Burnett in the <i>Newcastle Weekly -Chronicle</i>, July 3, 1875, gives a vivid picture of the struggle for amalgamation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_350" href="#FNanchor_350" class="label">[350]</a>This was pointed out in Professor Brentano’s article in the <i>North -British Review</i>, already quoted.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_351" href="#FNanchor_351" class="label">[351]</a>The organ of the Executive Council was the <i>Operative</i>, a well-written -weekly journal, which was set on foot by Newton in January 1851. The -price was at first 1½d., and afterwards 1d. per number. The issues from -the beginning down to July 1852, probably all that were published, are -preserved in the British Museum (P. P. 1424, a.m.). Newton acted as -editor, and contributed nearly all the articles relating to the engineers -and Trade Unions generally.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_352" href="#FNanchor_352" class="label">[352]</a>The largest and most powerful of the other Unions in 1851 were -those of the Ironfounders and the Stonemasons, which numbered between -four and five thousand members each. It must be remembered that the -previous ephemeral associations of the cotton-spinners and miners, which -often for a time counted their tens of thousands of members, were exclusively -strike organisations, with contributions of 1d. or 2d. per week -only. The huge associations of 1830-34 had usually no regular subscription -at all, and depended on irregularly paid levies. A trade society -which, like the Amalgamated Engineers, could count on a regular income -of £500 a week was without precedent.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_353" href="#FNanchor_353" class="label">[353]</a>See the resolutions of the Birmingham Delegate Meeting of the Iron -Trades, September 28, 1850, in the <i>Trades Union Advocate</i>, November -1850.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_354" href="#FNanchor_354" class="label">[354]</a>It was resolved: “That we are prepared to assist the workmen at -Messrs. Platt to the utmost of our power, but cannot consent to the men -leaving their situations, because they may not at present be able to obtain -the working of the machines.” The best account of the struggle is to be -found in the <i>Jubilee Souvenir History of the A.S.E.</i>(1901), pp. 34-41.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_355" href="#FNanchor_355" class="label">[355]</a>Lord Goderich, afterwards the Marquis of Ripon, gave the Executive -a cheque for £500 to enable the strike pay to be kept up on a temporary -emergency; one of many generous efforts, during a long lifetime, to -assist the wage-earning class.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_356" href="#FNanchor_356" class="label">[356]</a>Executive Circular of April 26, 1852, in <i>Operative</i>, May 1, 1852. A -number of the men refused to sign, and many emigrated. E. Vansittart -Neale advanced £1030 to members for this purpose, the whole of which -was repaid by the borrowers.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_357" href="#FNanchor_357" class="label">[357]</a>Among the abundant literature on this great struggle may be mentioned -the <i>Account</i>, by Thomas (afterwards Judge) Hughes, in the <i>Report -on Trade Societies</i>, by the Social Science Association, 1860; J. M. Ludlow’s -lectures, entitled <i>The Master Engineers and their Workmen</i>, 1852; a -pamphlet, <i>May I not do what I will with my own?</i> by E. Vansittart Neale; -<i>Jubilee Souvenir History of the A.S.E.</i>, 1901; and the evidence given by -William Newton (for the men) and Sidney Smith (for the employers) -before the Select Committee on Masters and Operatives (Equitable -Councils, etc.) in 1856. The employers’ manifestoes will be found in the -<i>Times</i> from December 1851 to April 1852; the men’s documents and -reports of their meetings in the <i>Operative</i>(edited by Newton), and in the -<i>Northern Star</i>, then at its last gasp.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_358" href="#FNanchor_358" class="label">[358]</a>It ended the struggle with £700 in hand. Its membership at the -end of 1852 had fallen from 11,829 to 9737, but even then it had a balance -in hand of £5382, and within three years the members had increased to -12,553, and the accumulated funds to the unprecedented total of £35,695. -And unlike all previous trade societies, its record from 1852 down to the -present time has been one of continued growth and prosperity, the membership -at the end of 1919 being 320,000, with accumulated funds not far -short of three million pounds, being greater in aggregate amount than the -possessions of any other Trade Union organisation of this or any other -country.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_359" href="#FNanchor_359" class="label">[359]</a>Preface to Rules of the Journeymen Steam-Engine, Machine Makers, -and Millwrights’ Friendly Society, edition of 1845.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_360" href="#FNanchor_360" class="label">[360]</a>This plan of “equalisation” is, so far as we know, peculiar to Trade -Unions, though we understand from Dr. Baernreither’s <i>English Associations -of Working Men</i>, pp. 283-84, that a few branches of some of the -Friendly Societies adopted a somewhat similar system. Its origin is -unknown to us, but the device is traditionally ascribed to the Journeymen -Steam-Engine and Machine Makers and Millwrights’ Society, established -in 1826. It was also in early use by the Steam-Engine Makers’ -Society, established in 1824. Until the Trade Union Act of 1871 it had -a positive use. Depending, as Trade Unions were obliged to do, upon -the integrity of their officers, there were great advantages in the wide -distribution of the funds and the local responsibility of each branch for -the safe keeping of its share.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_361" href="#FNanchor_361" class="label">[361]</a>That is to say, local differences in the cost of living have always -been taken into account.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_362" href="#FNanchor_362" class="label">[362]</a>Such protests were frequent in the evidence before the Royal Commission -of 1867-68, and form the staple of the innumerable criticisms on -Trade Unionism between 1852 and 1879. A good vindication of the Trade -Union position is contained in Professor Beesly’s article in the <i>Fortnightly -Review</i>, 1867, which was republished as a pamphlet, <i>The Amalgamated -Society of Carpenters and Joiners</i>, 1867, 20 pp.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_363" href="#FNanchor_363" class="label">[363]</a>The unique collection of these circulars, containing not only statistical -and other information of the society, but also frequent references to the -building trades and the general movement, was generously placed at our -disposal for the purpose of this work, and we have found it of the utmost -value.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_364" href="#FNanchor_364" class="label">[364]</a>See, for instance, the evidence of Mault, Questions 3980 in Second -Report and 4086 in Third Report.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_365" href="#FNanchor_365" class="label">[365]</a>Report of Special Committee, 1869.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_366" href="#FNanchor_366" class="label">[366]</a>The National Association of United Trades continued, as we have -already seen, in nominal existence until 1860 or 1861, but after 1852 it -sank to a membership of a few thousands, and played practically no part -in the Trade Union world.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_367" href="#FNanchor_367" class="label">[367]</a><i>Times</i>, June to December 1853.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_368" href="#FNanchor_368" class="label">[368]</a>A more detailed account of these developments will be found in <i>The -Co-operative Movement in Great Britain</i>(1891; second edition, 1893), -by Beatrice Potter (Mrs. Sidney Webb); <i>Co-operative Production</i>, by -Benjamin Jones, 1894; and in the Report of the Fabian Research -Department on Co-operative Production, published as a supplement to -<i>The New Statesman</i>, February 14, 1914.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_369" href="#FNanchor_369" class="label">[369]</a><i>Address of the Executive Council of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers -to their Fellow-Workmen</i>, 1855.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_370" href="#FNanchor_370" class="label">[370]</a>See <i>The Strikes, their Extent, Evils, and Remedy, being a Description -of the General Movement of the Mass of the Building Operatives throughout -the United Kingdom</i>, by Vindex (1853), 56 pp. One consequence of this -renewed outburst of strikes was the appointment in 1858 by the newly -formed National Association for the Promotion of Social Science of a -Committee to inquire into trade societies and disputes. This inquiry, -conducted by able and zealous investigators, resulted in 1860 in the -publication of a volume which contains the best collection of Trade -Union material and the most impartial account of Trade Union action -that has ever been issued. As a source of history and economic illustration -this <i>Report on Trade Societies and Strikes</i>(1860, 651 pp.) is far superior -to the Parliamentary Blue Books of 1824, 1825, 1838, and 1867-68. -Among the contributors were Godfrey Lushington (afterwards Under-Secretary -of State for the Home Department), J. M. Ludlow (afterwards -Registrar of Friendly Societies), Thomas (afterwards Judge) Hughes, -Q.C., Mr. G. Shaw-Lefevre (afterwards Lord Eversley), F. D. Longe, and -Frank Hill. The Committee was presided over by the late Sir James -Kay-Shuttleworth, and amongst its other members may be mentioned -W. E. Forster, Henry Fawcett, R. H. Hutton, Rev. F. D. Maurice, Dr. -William Farr, and one Trade Union secretary, T. J. Dunning, of the -London Bookbinders.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_371" href="#FNanchor_371" class="label">[371]</a>See the account of it in <i>Labour Legislation, Labour Movements, and -Labour Leaders</i>, by G. Howell, 1902.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_372" href="#FNanchor_372" class="label">[372]</a>Prof. E. S. Beesly, <i>Fortnightly Review</i>, 1867.</p> - -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_233">[Pg 233]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V</h2> -</div> - -<p class="h2sub">THE JUNTA AND THEIR ALLIES</p> - -<p>Many influences had during the preceding years been -co-operating to form what may almost be described as a -cabinet of the Trade Union Movement. The establishment -of such great trade friendly societies as the Amalgamated -Engineers had created, in some sense, a new school -of Trade Union officials, face to face with intricate problems -of administration and finance. The presence in London -of the headquarters of these societies brought their salaried -officers into close personal intimacy with each other. And -it so happened that during these years the little circle of -secretaries included men of marked character and ability, -who were, both by experience and by temperament, admirably -fitted to guide the movement through the acute -crisis which we shall presently describe.</p> - -<p>Foremost in this little group—which we shall hereafter -call the Junta—were the general secretaries of the two amalgamated -societies of Engineers and Carpenters, William -Allan and Robert Applegarth, whose success in building up -these powerful organisations had given them great influence -in Trade Union councils. Bound to these in close personal -friendship were Daniel Guile, the general secretary of the -old and important national society of Ironfounders, Edwin -Coulson, general secretary of the “London Order” of Bricklayers, -and George Odger, a prominent member of a small -union of highly skilled makers of ladies’ shoes, and an -influential leader of London working-class Radicalism.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_234">[Pg 234]</span></p> - -<p>William Allan was the originator of the “New Unionism” -of his time.<a id="FNanchor_373" href="#Footnote_373" class="fnanchor">[373]</a> We have already described how, with the aid -of William Newton, he had gathered up the scattered fragments -of organisation in the engineering trade, and had -adapted the elaborate constitution and financial system of -an old-established society to the needs of a great national -amalgamation. In long hours of patient labour in the office -he had built up an extremely methodical, if somewhat -cumbrous, system of financial checks and trade reports, by -which the exact position of each of his tens of thousands -of members was at all times recorded in his official pigeonholes. -The permanence of his system is the best testimony -to its worth. Even to-day the Engineers’ head office retains -throughout the impress of Allan’s tireless and methodical -industry. Excessive caution, red-tape precision, an almost -miserly solicitude for the increase of the society’s funds, -were among Allan’s defects. But at a time when working -men “agitators” were universally credited with looseness -in money matters and incapacity for strenuous and regular -mental effort, these defects, however equivocal may have -been their ultimate effect on the policy and development -of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, produced a -favourable impression on the public. Allan, moreover, -though not a brilliant speaker, or a man of wide general -interests, was a keen working-class politician, whose temper -and judgement could always be depended on. And he has -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_235">[Pg 235]</span> -left behind him the tradition, not only of absolute integrity -and abnormal industry, but also of a singular freedom from -personal vanity or ambition.</p> - -<p>Whilst Allan aimed at transforming the “paid agitator” -into the trusted officer of a great financial corporation, -Robert Applegarth sought to win for the Trade Union -organisation a recognised social and political status. -Astute and lawyer-like in temperament, he instinctively -made use of those arguments which were best fitted to -overcome the prejudices and disarm the criticisms of -middle-class opponents. Nor did he limit himself to justifying -the ways of Trade Unionists to the world at large. -He made persistent attempts to enlarge the mental horizon -of the rank and file of his own movement, opening out to -those whose vision had hitherto been limited to the strike -and the tap-room, whole vistas of social and political -problems in which they as working men were primarily concerned. -Hence we find him, during his career as general -secretary, a leading member of the famous “International,” -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_236">[Pg 236]</span><a id="FNanchor_374" href="#Footnote_374" class="fnanchor">[374]</a> -and an energetic promoter of the Labour Representation -League, the National Education League, and various philanthropic -and political associations. Political reformers -became eager to secure his adhesion to their projects: he -was, for instance, specially invited to attend the important -conferences of the National Education League at Birmingham -as the special representative of the working classes; -and it was owing to his reputation as a social reformer that -he was in 1870 selected to sit on the Royal Commission -upon the Contagious Diseases Acts, thus becoming the first -working man to be styled by his Sovereign “Our Trusty -and Well-beloved.” Open-minded, alert, and conciliatory, -he formed an ideal representative of the English Labour -Movement in the political world. -<a id="FNanchor_375" href="#Footnote_375" class="fnanchor">[375]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_237">[Pg 237]</span></p> - -<p>The permanent officials of the Ironfounders and the -London Bricklayers were men of less originality than Allan -or Applegarth. Guile was a man of attractive personality -and winning manner, gifted with a certain rugged eloquence. -Coulson is described by an opponent as being “stolid and -obstinate,” and again as “bricky and stodgy”; but the -expansion, under his influence, of the little London Society -of Bricklayers into a powerful Union of national scope, -proves him to have possessed administrative ability of no -mean order. The special distinction of all four alike was -their business capacity, shown by the persistency and -success with which they pursued, each in his own trade, -the policy originated by Newton and Allan, of basing Trade -Union organisation upon an insurance company of national -extent. George Odger brought to the Junta quite other -qualities than the cautious industry of Allan or the lawyer-like -capacity of Applegarth. Of the five men we have mentioned -he was the only one who continued to work at his -trade, and who retained to the last the full flavour of a -working-class leader. An orator of remarkable power, he -swayed popular meetings at his will, and was the idol of -Metropolitan Radicalism. But he was no mere demagogue. -Beneath his brilliant rhetoric and emotional fervour there -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_238">[Pg 238]</span> -lay a large measure of political shrewdness, and he shared -with his colleagues the capacity for deliberately concerted -action and personal subordination. His dilatory and unbusinesslike -habits made him incapable of building up a -great organisation. Had he stood alone, he would have -added little to the strength of Trade Unionism; as the loyal -adherent of the great officials and their popular mouth-piece -to the working-class world, Unionist and non-Unionist -alike, he gave the movement a wider basis, and attracted -into its ranks every ardent reformer belonging to the artisan -class. -<a id="FNanchor_376" href="#Footnote_376" class="fnanchor">[376]</a></p> - -<p>It is difficult to-day to convey any adequate idea of the -extraordinary personal influence exercised by these five -men, not only on their immediate associates, but also as -interpreters of the Trade Union Movement, upon the public -and the governing classes. For the first time in the century -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_239">[Pg 239]</span> -the working-class movement came under the direction, not -of middle and upper class sympathisers like Place, Owen, -Roberts, O’Connor, or Duncombe, but of genuine workmen -specially trained for the position. For the first time, moreover, -the leaders of working-class politics stood together -in a compact group, united by a close personal friendship, -and absolutely free from any trace of that suspiciousness -or disloyalty which have so often marred popular movements. -They brought to their task, it is true, no consistent -economic theory or political philosophy. They subscribed -with equal satisfaction to the crude Collectivism of -the “International,” and the dogmatic industrial Individualism -of the English Radicals. This absence of a definite -basis to their political activity accounts, we think, for the -drying up of Trade Union politics after their withdrawal. -We shall have occasion hereafter to notice other “defects -of their qualities,” and the way in which these subsequently -stunted the further development of their own movement. -But it was largely their very limitations which made them, -at this particular crisis, such valuable representatives of -the Trade Union Movement. They accepted, with perfect -good faith, the economic Individualism of their middle-class -opponents, and claimed only that freedom to combine -which the more enlightened members of that class were -willing to concede to them. Their genuine if somewhat -restrained enthusiasm for political and industrial freedom -gave them a persistency and determination which no check -could discourage. Their understanding of the middle-class -point of view, and their appreciation of the practical difficulties -of the situation, saved them from being mere demagogues. -For the next ten years, when it was all-important -to obtain a legal status for trade societies and to obliterate -the unfortunate impression created by the Sheffield outrages, -their qualities exactly suited the emergency. The possession -of good manners, though it may seem a trivial detail, -was not the least of their advantages. To perfect self-respect -and integrity they added correctness of expression, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_240">[Pg 240]</span> -habits of personal propriety, and a remarkable freedom -from all that savoured of the tap-room. In Allan and Applegarth, -Guile, Coulson, and Odger, the traducers of Trade -Unionism found themselves confronted with a combination -of high personal character, exceptional business capacity, -and a large share of that official decorum which the English -middle class find so impressive.</p> - -<p>Round these central personalities grouped themselves in -London a number of men of like temperament and aims. -We have already had occasion to mention T. J. Dunning, -of the Bookbinders, grown old in the service of Trade -Unionism. The building trades contributed a younger -generation, John Prior, George Howell, Henry Broadhurst, -and George Shipton. The whole group were in touch with -certain provincial leaders, who adhered to the new views, -and acted in close concert with the Junta. Of these, the -most noteworthy were Alexander Macdonald, then busily -organising the Miners’ National Union, John Kane,<a id="FNanchor_377" href="#Footnote_377" class="fnanchor">[377]</a> of the -North of England Ironworkers, William Dronfield, the -Sheffield compositor, and Alexander Campbell, the leading -spirit of the Glasgow Trades Council.</p> - -<p>The distinctive policy of the Junta was the combination -of extreme caution in trade matters and energetic -agitation for political reforms. It is indeed somewhat -doubtful how far Allan and Applegarth, Coulson and Guile -shared the popular belief that trade combinations could -effect a general rise of wages or resist a general reduction -in a falling market. They had more faith in the moral -force of great reserve funds, by the aid of which, dispensed -in liberal out-of-work donations, one capitalist, or even a -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_241">[Pg 241]</span> -whole group of capitalists, might be effectually prevented -from obtaining labour at anything but the standard conditions. -Their trade policy was, in fact, restricted to securing -for every workman those terms which the best employers -were willing voluntarily to grant. For this reason they were -constantly accused of apathy by those hotter spirits whose -idea of successful Trade Unionism was a series of general -strikes for advances or against reductions. The Junta were -really looking in another direction for the emancipation of -the worker. They believed that a levelling down of all -political privileges, and the opening out of educational and -social opportunities to all classes of the community, would -bring in its train a large measure of economic equality. -Under the influence of these leaders the London Unions, -and eventually those of the provinces, were drawn into a -whole series of political agitations, for the Franchise, for -amendment of the Master and Servant law, for new Mines -Regulation Acts, for National Education, and finally for the -full legalisation of Trade Unions themselves.</p> - -<p>Practical difficulties hampered the complete execution -of the Junta’s policy. The use of the Trade Union organisation -for Parliamentary agitation, on which Macdonald, -Applegarth, and Odger based all their expectations of -progress, came as a new idea to the Trade Union world. -The rank and file of Trade Unionists, still excluded from -the franchise, took practically no interest in any social or -political reform, and regarded their trade combinations -exclusively as means of extorting a rise of wages or of compelling -their fellow-workmen to join their clubs. This was -especially the case with the provincial organisations, where -the officials usually shared the obscurantism of their -members. The “Manchester Order” of Bricklayers and the -General Union of Carpenters (headquarters, Manchester) -were, like the Midland Brickmakers and the Sheffield Cutlers, -still wedded to the old ideas of secrecy and coercion, whilst -the powerful society of Masons, then centred at Leeds, held -aloof from the general movement. But this resistance was -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_242">[Pg 242]</span> -not confined to the older societies, nor to those of any particular -locality. All the Unions of that time, even those of -the Metropolis, retained a strong traditional repugnance to -political action. In many cases the rules expressly forbade -all mention of politics in their meetings. And although the -societies could be occasionally induced to take joint action -of a political character in defence of Trade Unionism itself, -not even the great influence of the Junta upon their own -Unions sufficed to persuade the members to turn their -organisations to account for legislative reform. The Junta -turned, therefore, to the newly established Trades Councils -and made these the political organs of the Trade Union -world.</p> - -<p>The formation between 1858 and 1867 of permanent -Trades Councils in the leading industrial centres was an -important step in the consolidation of the Trade Union -Movement. Local delegate meetings, summoned to deal -with particular emergencies, had been a feature of Trade -Union organisation, at any rate since the beginning of -the nineteenth century. In early times every important -strike had its committee of sympathisers from other trade -societies, who collected subscriptions and rendered what -personal aid they could. But the most notable of these -committees were those which started up in all the centres -of Trade Unionism when the movement was threatened -by some particular legal or Parliamentary danger. Such -joint committees had in 1825 contributed powerfully to -defeat the re-enactment of the Combination Laws, in 1834 -to arouse public feeling in the case of the Dorchester -labourers, and in 1838 to conduct the Trade Union case -before the Parliamentary Committee of that year. But -these earlier committees were formed only for particular -emergencies, and had, so far as we know, no continuous -existence. By 1860 permanent councils were in existence -in Glasgow, Sheffield, Liverpool, and Edinburgh, and their -example was, in 1861, followed by the London trades. -<a id="FNanchor_378" href="#Footnote_378" class="fnanchor">[378]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_243">[Pg 243]</span></p> - -<p>Like many provincial organisations, the London Trades -Council originated in a “Strike Committee.” During the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_244">[Pg 244]</span> -winter of 1859-60 weekly meetings of delegates from the -Metropolitan trades had been held to support the Building -Operatives in their resistance to the “document.” “At -the termination of that memorable struggle,” states the -Second Annual Report of the London Trades Council, “it -was felt that something should be done to establish a general -trades committee so as to be able on emergency to call the -trades together with despatch for the purpose of rendering -each other advice or assistance as the circumstances -required.”<a id="FNanchor_379" href="#Footnote_379" class="fnanchor">[379]</a> In March 1860 the provisional committee -formed with this object issued an “Address” to the trades, -which resulted, on July 10, 1860, in the first meeting of -the present London Trades Council.</p> - -<p>It is interesting to notice that the Council, at the outset, -was composed mainly of the representatives of the smaller -societies. The Executive Committee elected at its first -meeting included no delegates from the engineers, compositors, -masons, bricklayers, or ironfounders, who were -then the most influential of the London Trade Societies. -The first action of the young Council affords a significant -indication of the feeling of isolation which led to its formation. -In order to facilitate communications with other -trade societies throughout the kingdom it resolved to -compile a <i>General Trades Union Directory</i>, containing the -names and addresses of all Trade Union secretaries. This -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_245">[Pg 245]</span> -praiseworthy enterprise took up all the attention of the -new body for the first year, and the printing of two thousand -copies of the result of its work crippled its finances for long -afterwards. For, unfortunately, the <i>General Trades Union -Directory</i>, published at one shilling per copy, did not sell -and was, we fear, soon consigned to the pulping mill, as we -have, after exhaustive search, been able to discover only two -copies in existence. -<a id="FNanchor_380" href="#Footnote_380" class="fnanchor">[380]</a></p> - -<p>But the direction of the Council was falling into abler -hands. In 1861 George Howell became secretary, to be -succeeded in the following year by George Odger, who for -the next ten years remained its most prominent member. -The Amalgamated Society of Engineers joined in 1861, and -the veteran Dunning brought over the old-established -Union of Bookbinders. By 1864, at any rate, the new -organisation was entirely dominated by the Junta. The -two “amalgamated” societies of Engineers and Carpenters -supplied, in some years, half its income. The great trade -friendly society of Ironfounders and the growing “London -Order” of Bricklayers sent their general secretaries to its -meetings. The Council became, in effect, a joint committee -of the officers of the large national societies. In the meetings -at the old Bell Inn, under the shadow of Newgate, we have -the beginnings of an informal cabinet of the Trade Union -world.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile war had again broken out between the master -builders and their operatives, caused partly by a renewed -agitation for the Nine Hours Day, and partly by the -employers’ desire to substitute payment by the hour for -the previous custom of payment by the day.<a id="FNanchor_381" href="#Footnote_381" class="fnanchor">[381]</a> For the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_246">[Pg 246]</span> -historian of the general movement the dispute is chiefly -important as furnishing the occasion of the first intervention -of the talented group of young barristers and literary -men who, from this time forth, became the trusted legal -experts and political advisers of the leaders of the Trade -Union Movement. The workmen had totally failed to -make clear their objection to the Hour System, or even to -obtain a hearing of their case. Their position was, for the -first time, intelligibly explained in two brilliant letters -addressed to the newspapers by eight Positivists and Christian -Socialists, which did much to bring about the tacit -compromise in which the struggle ended. -<a id="FNanchor_382" href="#Footnote_382" class="fnanchor">[382]</a></p> - -<p>Of more immediate interest to us is the action taken by -the newly formed London Trades Council. Among the -building operations suspended by the dispute was the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_247">[Pg 247]</span> -construction, by a large contractor, of the new Chelsea -barracks. The War Department saw no harm in permitting -him to engage the sappers of the Royal Engineers -to take the place of the men on strike. A similar course -had been taken by the Government in strikes of 1825 and -1834. But the Trade Unions were now too powerful to -allow of any such interference in their battles. A delegate -meeting of the London trades, comprising representatives -of fifty industries and fifty thousand operatives, sent a -deputation to the War Office. Sir George Cornwall Lewis -returned at first an equivocal answer, but the new Trades -Council proved the efficacy of Parliamentary agitation by -getting questions put to the Minister in the House of -Commons, and stirring up enough feeling to compel him to -withdraw the troops.</p> - -<p>The minute-books of the London Trades Council from -1860 to 1867 present a mirror of the Trade Union history -of this period. Odger had the fare gift of making his -minutes interesting, and he describes, in his terse but -graphic English, all the varied events of the Labour Movement -as they were brought before the Council. In 1861-62, -for instance, we see the Council trying vainly to settle the -difficult problem of “overlap” between the trades of the -shipwrights and the iron-shipbuilders; we notice the -shadow cast by the Lancashire cotton famine, and we read -indignant resolutions condemning the Sheffield outrages of -those years. But the special interest of these minutes lies -in their unconscious revelation of the way in which the -Council became the instrument of the new policy of participation -in general politics. Under Odger’s influence the -Council took a prominent part in organising the popular -welcome to Garibaldi, and in 1862 it held a great meeting -in St. James’s Hall in support of the struggle of the Northern -States against negro slavery, at which John Bright was -the principal speaker. In 1864 the Junta placed itself -definitely in opposition to the “Old Unionists,” who -objected to all connection between the Government and the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_248">[Pg 248]</span> -concerns of working men. W. E. Gladstone, who was then -Chancellor of the Exchequer, had introduced a Bill enabling -the Post Office to sell Government Annuities for small -amounts. Against this harmless project George Potter, the -leading opponent of the Junta, summoned great public -meetings of the London trades, enlisted on his side the -Operative Stonemasons and other provincial organisations, -and vehemently denounced the Bill as an insidious attempt -to divert the savings of working men from their Trade -Unions and benefit societies into an exchequer controlled -by the governing classes. The London Trades Council sent -an influential deputation to Gladstone publicly to disavow -the action of Potter, and to welcome the proposal of the -Government to utilise the administrative organisation for -the advantage of the working class. Of more significance -was the alteration of the Council’s policy with regard to -political reform. The early members had set themselves -against the introduction of politics in any guise whatsoever, -and during the years 1861-62 Howell and Odger strove -in vain to enlist the Council in the agitation for a new -Reform Bill. But in 1866, under the influence of Odger -and Applegarth, Allan and Coulson, the Council enthusiastically -threw itself into the demonstration in favour of -the Reform Bill brought in by the Liberal Government, -and took a leading part in the agitation which resulted in -the enfranchisement of the town artisan.<a id="FNanchor_383" href="#Footnote_383" class="fnanchor">[383]</a> In the same -year the Council agreed to co-operate with the “International” -in demanding Democratic Reform from all -European Governments.</p> - -<p>The widely advertised public action of the London -Trades Council excited considerable interest in provincial -centres of Trade Unionism. We see the Council in frequent -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_249">[Pg 249]</span> -correspondence with similar bodies at Glasgow, Nottingham, -Sheffield, and other provincial towns, and often exercising -a kind of informal leadership in general movements. But -it would be unfair to ascribe the whole initiative in legislative -reform to the London officials. Under the brilliant -leadership of Alexander Macdonald, whose work we shall -hereafter describe, the force of the coal-miners was -being marshalled for Parliamentary agitation; and Macdonald’s -friend, Alexander Campbell, was bringing the -Glasgow Trades Council round to the new policy. -And it was Campbell and Macdonald, working through -these organisations, who carried through the most -important Trade Union achievement of the next few -years, the amendment of the law relating to master and -servant.</p> - -<p>It is difficult in these days, when equality of treatment -before the law has become an axiom, to understand how -the flagrant injustice of the old Master and Servant Acts -seemed justifiable even to a middle-class Parliament. If -an employer broke a contract of service, even wilfully and -without excuse, he was liable only to be sued for damages, -or, in the case of wages under £10, to be summoned before -a court of summary jurisdiction, which could order payment -of the amount due. The workman, on the other hand, who -wilfully broke his contract of service, either by absenting -himself from his employment, or by leaving his work, was -liable to be proceeded against for a criminal offence, and -punished by three months’ imprisonment. This inequality -of treatment was, moreover, aggravated by various other -anomalies. It followed by the general law of evidence that, -whilst a master sued by a servant could be witness in his -own favour, the servant prosecuted by his employer could -not give evidence on his own behalf; and it frequently -happened that no other evidence than the employer’s could -be produced. It was in the power of a single justice of the -peace, on an information on oath, to issue a warrant for the -summary arrest of the workman, who thus found himself, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_250">[Pg 250]</span> -when a dispute occurred, suddenly seized, even in his bed,<a id="FNanchor_384" href="#Footnote_384" class="fnanchor">[384]</a> -and haled to prison at the discretion of a magistrate, who -was in many cases himself an employer of labour. The -case was heard before a single justice of the peace, and the -hearing might take place at his private house. The only -punishment that could be inflicted was imprisonment, the -law not allowing the alternative of a fine or the payment -of damages. From the decision of the justice, however -arbitrary, there was no appeal. Finally, it must be added, -the sentence of imprisonment was no discharge for a debt, -so that a workman was liable to be imprisoned over and -over again for the same breach of contract. -<a id="FNanchor_385" href="#Footnote_385" class="fnanchor">[385]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_251">[Pg 251]</span></p> - -<p>Early in 1863 Alexander Campbell<a id="FNanchor_386" href="#Footnote_386" class="fnanchor">[386]</a> brought the Master -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_252">[Pg 252]</span> -and Servant Law under the notice of the Glasgow Trades -Council. A Parliamentary Return was obtained showing -that the enormous number of 10,339 cases of breach of -contract of service came before the courts in a single year. -A committee was formed to agitate for the amendment of -the law, and communication was opened up, not only with -the London leaders, but also with sympathisers in other -provincial towns. The Trades Councils of London, Bristol, -Sheffield, Nottingham, Newcastle, and Edinburgh were -formally invited to unite in a combined movement. In -Leeds and elsewhere local Trades Councils were established -for the express purpose of forwarding the agitation; and -15,000 copies of a “Memorial of Information intended for -the use of such workmen as fall under the provisions of the -Statute 4 Geo. IV. c. 34”<a id="FNanchor_387" href="#Footnote_387" class="fnanchor">[387]</a> were circulated to all the leading -workmen throughout the country. At the instance of -Campbell and Macdonald, the Glasgow Trades Council convened -a conference of Trade Union representatives to consider -how the object of the agitation could best be secured. -This Conference, which was held in London during four -days of May 1864, marks an epoch in Trade Union history. -For the first time a national meeting of Trade Union -delegates was spontaneously convened by a Trade Union -organisation to discuss a purely workman’s question, in -the presence of working men alone. The number of delegates -did not exceed twenty, but these included the leading -officials of all the great national and amalgamated Unions. -<a id="FNanchor_388" href="#Footnote_388" class="fnanchor">[388]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_253">[Pg 253]</span></p> - -<p>The transactions of the Conference were thoroughly -businesslike. Three members of the Government were -asked to receive deputations; a large number of members -of Parliament were “lobbied” on the subject of an immediate -amending Bill; and finally a successful meeting -of legislators was held in the “tea-room” of the House -of Commons itself, at which the delegates impressed their -desires upon all the friendly members. The terms of the -draft Bill were settled; Cobbett agreed to introduce it in -the House of Commons, and the Glasgow Trades’ Committee -was authorised to support it by an agitation on -behalf of all the Trade Unions of the kingdom.</p> - -<p>The Bill introduced by Cobbett never became law; but -a vigorous agitation kept the matter under the notice of -Parliament, and in 1866 a Select Committee was appointed -to inquire into the subject. Upon its report Lord Elcho<a id="FNanchor_389" href="#Footnote_389" class="fnanchor">[389]</a> -succeeded, in 1867, in carrying through Parliament a Bill -which remedied the grossest injustice of the law. The -Master and Servant Act of 1867 (30 & 31 Vic. c. 141), -the first positive success of the Trade Unions in the legislative -field, did much to increase their confidence in Parliamentary -agitation.</p> - -<p>But whilst the Junta and their allies were, by the -capture of the Trades Councils, using the Trade Union -organisation for an active political campaign, their steady -discouragement of aggressive strikes was bringing down -upon them the wrath of the “Old Unionists” of the time. -It was one of the principal functions of the London Trades -Council to grant “credentials” to trade societies having -disputes on hand, recommending them for the support of -workmen in other trades. As these credentials were not -confined to London disputes, the custom placed the Council -under the invidious necessity of either giving its sanction -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_254">[Pg 254]</span> -to, or withholding approval from, practically every important -strike in the kingdom—an arrangement which quickly -brought the Council into conflict with the more aggressive -societies. In two cases especially the divergence of policy -raised serious and heated discussions. A building trades -strike had broken out in the Midlands at the beginning of -1864, initiated by the old Friendly Society (now styled the -General Union) of Operative Carpenters. The men’s action -was strongly disapproved by Applegarth and the Executive -of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters. The London -Trades Council unhesitatingly took Applegarth’s view, -thereby alienating whole sections of the building trades, -whose local trade clubs and provincial societies had retained -much of the spirit of the Builders’ Union of 1834. But the -internal dissension arising from the carpenters’ dispute fell -far short of that brought about by the strike of the Staffordshire -puddlers. It is unnecessary to go into the details of -this angry struggle against a 10 per cent reduction. The -conduct of the men in refusing the arbitration offered by -the Earl of Lichfield met with the disapproval of the London -Trades Council. The hotter spirits were greatly incensed -at the Council’s moderation. George Potter, in particular, -distinguished himself by addressing excited meetings of the -men on strike, advising them to stand firm.</p> - -<p>Potter, who figures largely in the newspapers of this -time, was in fact endeavouring to work up a formidable -opposition to the policy of the Junta. After the building -trades disputes of 1859-60, in which he had taken a leading -part, he had started the <i>Beehive</i>, a weekly organ of the Trade -Union world. Himself a member of a tiny trade club of -London carpenters, he was bitterly opposed to Applegarth -and the Amalgamated Society, and from 1864 onward we -find him at the head of every outbreak of disaffection. An -expert in the arts of agitation and of advertisement, Potter -occasionally cut a remarkable figure, so that the unwary -reader, not of the <i>Beehive</i> only, but also of the <i>Times</i>, -might easily believe him to have been the most influential -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_255">[Pg 255]</span> -leader of the working-class movement. As a matter of -fact, he at no time represented any genuine trade organisation, -the “Working Men’s Association,” of which he was -president, being an unimportant society of nondescript -persons. However, from 1864 to 1867 we find him calling -frequent meetings of delegates of the London trades to -denounce the Junta, and their instrument, the London Trades -Council. The minutes of the latter body contain abundant -evidence of the bitter feelings caused by these attacks, -and make clear the essential difference between the two -policies. At a special meeting called to condemn Potter’s -action, Howell, Allan, Coulson, and Applegarth enlarged -upon the evil consequences of irresponsible agitation in -trade disputes; and Danter, the outspoken president of -the Amalgamated Engineers, emphatically declared that -Potter “had become the aider and abettor of strikes. He -thought of nothing else; he followed no other business; -strikes were his bread-and-cheese; in short, he was a strike-jobber, -and he made the <i>Beehive</i> newspaper his instrument -for pushing his nose into every unfortunate dispute that -sprang up.” -<a id="FNanchor_390" href="#Footnote_390" class="fnanchor">[390]</a></p> - -<p>Responsible and cautious leadership of the Trade Union -Movement was becoming increasingly necessary. The -growth of the great national Unions, alike in wealth and -in membership, and the manner in which they subscribed -in aid of each other’s battles, had aroused the active enmity -of the employers. To counteract the men’s renewed -strength, the employers once more banded themselves -into powerful associations, and made use of a new weapon. -The old expedient of the “document” had, since its failure -to break down the Amalgamated Engineers in 1852, and -to subdue the building operatives in 1859, fallen somewhat -into discredit. It was now reinforced by the general -“lock-out” of all the men in a particular industry, even -those who accepted the employer’s terms, in order to -reduce to subjection the recalcitrant employees of one or -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_256">[Pg 256]</span> -two firms only.<a id="FNanchor_391" href="#Footnote_391" class="fnanchor">[391]</a> The South Yorkshire coal-owners especially -distinguished themselves during those years by their frequent -use of the “lock-out.” One Yorkshire miner complained -in 1866 that he had been “locked out about twenty-four -months in six years.”<a id="FNanchor_392" href="#Footnote_392" class="fnanchor">[392]</a> During the year 1865 it seemed as -if the lock-outs were about to become a feature of every -large industry, the most notable instances being those of -the Staffordshire ironworkers, to which we have already -alluded, and the shipbuilding operatives on the Clyde. In -both these cases large sections of the men were willing to -work at the employers’ terms, but were either known to -belong to a Union or suspected of contributing to the men -on strike. But though this practice of “locking out” -created great excitement among working men, it did not -achieve the employers’ aim of breaking up the Unions. -Nothing but absolute suppression by law appeared open to -those who regarded trade combinations as “a poisonous -plant” and an “anomalous anachronism,” and who were -vainly looking to “the happy period,” both for masters and -men, when the questions, “What is the price of a quarter -of wheat?” and “What is the price of a workman’s day -wage?” shall be settled on the same principles. -<a id="FNanchor_393" href="#Footnote_393" class="fnanchor">[393]</a></p> - -<p>Nor were the employers the only people who began to -talk once more of putting down Trade Unions by law. -The industrial dislocation which the lock-outs, far more than -the strikes, produced occasioned widespread loss and public -inconvenience. The quarrels of employer and employed -came to be vaguely regarded as matters of more than -private concern. Unfortunately a handle was given to the -enemies of Trade Unionism by the continuance of outrages, -committed in the interest of Trade Unions, which began to -be widely advertised by the press. Isolated cases of violence -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_257">[Pg 257]</span> -and intimidation, restricted, as we shall hereafter see, to -certain trades and localities, were magnified by press -rumours into a systematic attempt on the part of the -Trade Unions generally to obtain their ends by deliberate -physical violence. In the general fear and disapproval the -public failed to discriminate between the petty trade clubs -of Sheffield and such great associations as the Amalgamated -Engineers and Carpenters. The commercial objection to -industrial disputes became confused with the feeling of -abhorrence created by the idea of vast combinations of -men sticking at neither violence nor murder to achieve -their ends. The “terrorism of Trade Unions” became a -nightmare. “On one side,” says a writer who represents -the public feeling of the time, “is arrayed the great mass -of the talent, knowledge, virtue, and wealth of the country, -and, on the other, a number of unscrupulous men, leading -a half-idle life, and feeding on the contributions of their -dupes, and on a tax levied on such of the intelligent artisans -as are forced into their ranks, but who would be only too -happy to throw off their thraldom and join the supporters -of law and justice, did these but offer them adequate -protection.” -<a id="FNanchor_394" href="#Footnote_394" class="fnanchor">[394]</a></p> - -<p>The Trade Unions world seems to have been quite -unconscious of the gathering storm. In June 1866 138 -delegates, representing all the great Unions, and a total -membership of about 200,000, met at Sheffield to devise -some defence against the constant use of the lock-out. The -student of the proceedings of this conference will contrast -with wonder the actual conduct of the Trade Union leaders -with the denunciations to which these “few unscrupulous -men” were at this time exposed. Nothing could be more -worthy, even from the middle-class point of view, than the -discussions of these representative workmen, who denounced -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_258">[Pg 258]</span> -with equal energy the readiness with which their impetuous -followers came out on strike and the arbitrary lock-out of -the masters, and whose resolutions express their desire for -the establishment of Councils of Conciliation and the general -resort to arbitration in industrial disputes.<a id="FNanchor_395" href="#Footnote_395" class="fnanchor">[395]</a> Meanwhile, in -order to meet the great federations of employers, they -formed “The United Kingdom Alliance of Organised -Trades,” to support the members of any trade who should -find themselves “locked out” by their employers.<a id="FNanchor_396" href="#Footnote_396" class="fnanchor">[396]</a> Unfortunately -the conference utterly failed to decide what -constituted a “lock-out,” as distinguished from a strike; -and the “Judicial Council” of the Alliance, consisting of -one delegate from each of the nine districts into which the -kingdom was divided, found itself continually at issue with -its constituents as to the disputes to be supported. This -friction co-operated with the increasing depression of trade -in causing the calls for funds to be very unwillingly responded -to; and the Executive Committee, sitting at Sheffield, had -seldom any cash at its command. The Alliance lingered on -until about the end of 1870, when the defection of its last -important Unions brought it absolutely to an end.<a id="FNanchor_397" href="#Footnote_397" class="fnanchor">[397]</a> In -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_259">[Pg 259]</span> -1866, however, the Alliance was young and hopeful. It -received its first blow in October of this year, when it and -the Trade Union Conference were forgotten in the sensation -produced by the explosion of a can of gunpowder in a -workman’s house in New Hereford Street, Sheffield.</p> - -<p>This outrage was only one of a class of crimes for -which Sheffield was already notorious. But in the state -of public irritation against Trade Unionism, which had -been growing during the past few years of lock-outs and -strikes, the news served to precipitate events. On all sides -there arose a cry for a searching investigation into Trade -Unionism. The Trade Unions themselves joined in the -demand. As no clue to the perpetrators of the last crime -could be discovered by the local police, the leaders of the -Sheffield trade clubs united with the Town Council and the -local Employers’ Association in pressing for a Government -inquiry. The London Trades Council and the Executive -of the Amalgamated Engineers sent a joint deputation to -Sheffield to investigate the case. The deputation discovered -no more than the local police had done about the perpetrators -of the crime, and therefore innocently reported that -there was no evidence of Trade Union complicity; but -they accompanied this report by a strong condemnation of -“the abominable practice of rattening, which is calculated -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_260">[Pg 260]</span> -to demoralise those who are concerned in it, and to bring -disgrace on all trade combinations.”<a id="FNanchor_398" href="#Footnote_398" class="fnanchor">[398]</a> Public meetings of -Trade Unionists were held throughout the country, at -which the leaders expressed their indignation both at the -outrage itself and at the common assumption that it was a -usual and necessary incident of Trade Unionism. These -meetings invariably concluded with a demand on behalf of -the Trade Unionists to be allowed an opportunity of refuting -the accusations of the enemies of the movement. Robert -Applegarth saw the Home Secretary on the subject, and -suggested a Commission of Inquiry. The appointment of -a Royal Commission of Inquiry was officially announced in -the Queen’s Speech of February 1867. That the Government -meant business was proved by the prompt introduction -of a Bill empowering the Commission to pursue its -investigations by exceptional means. The inquiry was to -extend to all outrages during the past ten years, whether -in Sheffield or elsewhere. Not only were accomplices in -criminal acts promised an indemnity, provided that they -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_261">[Pg 261]</span> -gave evidence, but the same privilege was extended to the -actual perpetrators of the crimes. The investigation, moreover, -was not restricted to the supposed criminal practices -of particular trade clubs, but was to embrace the whole -subject of Trade Unionism and its effects.</p> - -<p>The Trade Union movement thus found itself for the -third time at the bar of a Parliamentary inquiry at a moment -when public opinion, as well as the enmity of employers, -had been strongly excited against it. At the very height -of this crisis, which had been brought about by the violence -of some of the old-fashioned Unions, the new Amalgamated -Societies themselves received a serious check from a decision -of the Court of Queen’s Bench.</p> - -<p>The formation of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, -with its large accumulated funds, had renewed the anxiety -of the Trade Union officials as to the extent to which a -trade society enjoyed the protection of the law. Although -the Act of 1825 had made trade societies, as such, no longer -unlawful, nothing had been done to give them any legal -status, or to enable them to take proceedings as corporate -entities. But in 1855 a “Metropolitan Trades Committee” -succeeded in getting a clause intended to relate to Trade -Unions inserted in the Friendly Societies Act of that year. -By the 44th section of this Act it was provided that a -society established for any purpose not illegal might, by -depositing its rules with the Registrar of Friendly Societies, -enjoy the privilege of having disputes among its own members -summarily dealt with by the magistrates. Under this -provision several of the larger societies had deposited their -rules, believing, with the concurrence of the Registrar, that -this secured to them the power to proceed summarily -against any member who should, in his capacity of secretary -or treasurer, detain or make away with the society’s funds.<a id="FNanchor_399" href="#Footnote_399" class="fnanchor">[399]</a> -So thoroughly has the legality of their position been accepted -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_262">[Pg 262]</span> -by all concerned, that on the establishment by Gladstone -of the Post Office Savings Banks in 1861, he had, at the -request of the Trade Union leaders, expressly conceded to -the Unions, equally with the Friendly Societies, the privilege -of making use of the new banks.</p> - -<p>This feeling of security was, in 1867, completely shattered. -The Boilermakers’ Society had occasion to proceed against -the treasurer of their Bradford branch for wrongfully withholding -the sum of £24; but the magistrates, to the general -surprise of all concerned, held that the society could not -proceed under the Friendly Societies Act, being, as a Trade -Union, outside the scope of that measure. The case was -thereupon carried to the Court of Queen’s Bench, where -four judges, headed by the Lord Chief Justice, confirmed -the decision, giving the additional reason that the objects -of the Union, if not, since 1825, actually criminal, were yet -so far in restraint of trade as to render the society an illegal -association. Thus the officers of the great national Trade -Unions found their societies deprived of the legal status -which they imagined they had acquired, and saw themselves -once more destitute of any legal protection for their -accumulated funds.</p> - -<p>The grounds of the decision went a great deal further -than the decision itself. As was pointed out to the workmen -by Frederic Harrison, “the judgement lays down not -merely that certain societies have failed to bring themselves -within the letter of a certain Act, but that Trade Unions, -of whatever sort, are in their nature contrary to public -policy, and that their object in itself will vitiate every -association and every transaction into which it enters.... -In a word, Unionism becomes (if not according to the -suggestion of the learned judge—criminal) at any rate -something like betting and gambling, public nuisances and -immoral considerations—things condemned and suppressed -by the law.” -<a id="FNanchor_400" href="#Footnote_400" class="fnanchor">[400]</a></p> - -<p>Trade Unionism was now at bay, assailed on both sides. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_263">[Pg 263]</span> -It was easy to foresee that the employers and their allies -would make a determined attempt to use the Royal Commission -and the Sheffield outrages to suppress Trade -Unionism by the criminal law. On the other hand, the -hard-earned accumulations of the larger societies, by this -time amounting to an aggregate of over a quarter of a million -sterling, were at the mercy of their whole army of branch -secretaries and treasurers, any one of whom might embezzle -the funds with impunity.</p> - -<p>The crisis was too serious to be dealt with by the -excited delegate meetings of the London Trades Council. -For over four years we hear of only occasional and purely -formal meetings of this body. Immediately on the publication -of the decision of the judges in January 1867 -Applegarth convened what was called a “Conference of -Amalgamated Trades,” but what consisted in reality of -weekly private meetings of the five leaders and a few other -friends. From 1867 to 1871 this “conference” acted as -the effective cabinet of the Trade Union Movement. Its -private minute-book, kept by Applegarth, reveals to the -student the whole political life of the Trade Union world.</p> - -<p>The first action of the Junta was to call to their councils -those middle-class allies upon whose assistance and advice -they had learned to rely. We have already noticed the -adhesion of the “Christian Socialists” to the Amalgamated -Engineers in 1852, and the intervention of the Positivists in -the Building Trades disputes of 1859-61. Frederic Harrison -and E. S. Beesly were now rendering specially valuable -services as the apologists for Trade Unionism in the public -press. “Tom Hughes” was in Parliament, almost the only -spokesman of the men’s whole claim. Henry Crompton -was bringing his acute judgement and his detailed experience -of the actual working of the law to bear upon the dangers -which beset the Unions in the Courts of Justice. Applegarth’s -minutes show how frequently all four were ready to -spend hours in private conference at the Engineers’ office -in Stamford Street, and how unreservedly they, in this -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_264">[Pg 264]</span> -crisis, placed their professional skill at the disposal of the -Trade Union leaders. It would be difficult to exaggerate -the zeal and patient devotion of these friends of Trade -Unionism, or the service which they rendered to the cause -in its hour of trial. -<a id="FNanchor_401" href="#Footnote_401" class="fnanchor">[401]</a></p> - -<p>It is obvious from the private transactions of the conference -that the main object of the Junta was to gain for -Trade Unionism that legal status which was necessary alike -to the security of the funds and to the recognition of the -Trade Union organisation as a constituent part of the State. -But the first thing to be done was to defeat the employers -in their endeavour to use the Royal Commission as an -instrument for suppressing Trade Unionism by direct penal -enactment. The Junta had therefore not only to dissociate -themselves from the ignorant turbulence of the old-fashioned -Unions, but also to prove that the bulk of their own members -were enlightened and respectable. It was, moreover, of the -utmost importance to persuade the public that the Junta -and their friends, not the strike-jobbers or the outrage-mongers, -were the authorised and typical representatives of -the Trade Union Movement. All this it was necessary to -bring out in the inquiry by the Royal Commission before -which Trade Unionism was presently to stand on its defence. -The composition of the Commission was accordingly a matter -of the greatest concern for the Junta. The Government -had resolved to select, as Commissioners, not representatives -of each view, but persons presumably impartial, with -Sir William Erle, who had lately retired from the Lord -Chief Justiceship of the Common Pleas, as their chairman. -In this arrangement representatives of the employers were -to be excluded; and the appointment of working men was -not dreamed of. The Commission was to be made up -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_265">[Pg 265]</span> -chiefly from the ranks of high officials, with four members -from the two Houses of Parliament, and the chairman of -a great industrial undertaking. The active part which -Thomas Hughes had taken in the debates secured him a -seat on the Commission, though he felt that single-handed -he could do little for his friends. All possible pressure -was accordingly brought to bear on the Government with -a view to the appointment of a Trade Unionist member; -but the idea of a working-man Royal Commissioner was -inconsistent with official traditions. The utmost that could -be obtained was that the workmen and the employers -should each suggest a special representative to be added. -For the workmen a wise and extremely fortunate choice -was made in the person of Frederic Harrison, the Junta -obtaining also permission for representative Trade Unionists -to be present during the examination of the witnesses. -<a id="FNanchor_402" href="#Footnote_402" class="fnanchor">[402]</a></p> - -<p>The actual conduct of the Trade Unionist case was undertaken -by Harrison and Hughes, in consultation with Applegarth, -whom the Junta deputed to attend the sittings on -their behalf. The ground of defence was chosen with considerable -shrewdness. The policy of the Junta and their -allies was to focus the attention of the Commissioners upon -the great trade friendly societies in contradistinction to the -innumerable little local trade clubs of the old type. The -evidence of Applegarth, who was the first witness examined, -did much to dispel the grosser prejudices against the Unions. -The General Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of -Carpenters was able to show that his society, then standing -third in financial magnitude in the Trade Union world, far -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_266">[Pg 266]</span> -from fomenting strikes, was mainly occupied in the work -of an insurance company. He was in a position to lay -effective stress on the total absence of secrecy or coercion -in its proceedings. He disclaimed, on behalf of its members, -all objection to machinery, foreign imports, piecework, -overtime, or the free employment of apprentices. The -fundamental position upon which he entrenched his Trade -Unionism was the maintenance, at all hazards, of the -Standard Rate of Wages and the Standard Hours of Labour, -to be secured by the accumulation of such a fund as would -enable every member of the Union effectually to set a reserve-price -on his labour. William Allan, who came up on the -third day, followed Applegarth’s lead, though with some -reservations; and the evidence of these two officers of what -were primarily national friendly societies made a marked -impression on the Commission.</p> - -<p>The employers were not as well served as the men. It -is true that they succeeded, in spite of Applegarth’s disclaimers, -in persuading the Commission that some of the -most powerful Unions strenuously objected to piecework -and sub-contract in any form whatsoever, and in some -instances even to machinery. In other cases it was proved -that attempts were made to enforce a rigid limitation of -apprentices. Owing to the energy of the Central Association -of Master Builders, the restrictive policy of the older -Unions in the building trades was brought well to the -front; and this fact accounts, even to-day, for most of the -current impression of Trade Unionism among the middle -and upper classes. But the employers did not discriminate -in their attack. Almost with one accord they objected to -the whole principle of Trade Unionism. They reiterated -with a curious impenetrability the old argument of the -“individual bargain,” and protested against any kind of -industrial organisation on the part of their employees. All -attempts by the men to claim collectively any share in -regulating the conditions of labour were denounced as “unwarrantable -encroachments on their rights as employers.” -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_267">[Pg 267]</span> -The number of apprentices, like indeed the whole administration -of industry, was claimed as of private concern, the -settlement of which “exclusively belongs to the employer -himself; a matter in which no other party, much less the -operatives, have got anything to do.” And they objected -even more to the centrally administered national society -with extensive reserve funds than to the isolated local clubs -whose spasmodic outbursts they could afford to disregard. -But the confusion between the small local bodies with -their narrow policy of outrage and violence, and the amalgamated -societies with their far-reaching power and accumulated -wealth, effective as it had been in alarming the public, -proved disastrous to the employers when their case was subjected -to the acute cross-examination of Frederic Harrison. -The masters, by directing their attack mainly on the great -Amalgamated Societies and the newly-formed local Trades -Councils, played, in fact, directly into the hands of the -Junta. It was easy for Allan and Applegarth to show -that the influence of central Executive Councils and the -formation of a public opinion among trade societies tended -to restrain the more aggressive action of men embittered by -a local quarrel. The combination of friendly benefits with -trade objects was destined to be hotly attacked twenty -years later by the more ardent spirits in the Trade Union -world, as leading to inertia and supineness in respect of -wages, hours, and conditions of labour. The evidence -adduced in 1867-8, read in the light of later events, reveals -that this tendency had already begun; and it was impossible -for the Commissioners to resist the conclusion that -they had, in the Amalgamated Engineers and Carpenters, -types of a far less aggressive Trade Unionism than such -survivals as the purely trade societies of the brickmakers -or the Sheffield industries.</p> - -<p>Foiled in this attempt the employers fell back upon an -indictment of the Amalgamated Unions considered as -friendly societies. The leading actuaries were called to -prove that neither the Amalgamated Engineers nor the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_268">[Pg 268]</span> -Amalgamated Carpenters could possibly meet their accumulating -liabilities, and that these must, in a few years, inevitably -bring both societies to bankruptcy. The whole of -this evidence is a striking instance of the untrustworthiness -of expert witnesses off their own ground. Neither Finlaison -nor Tucker, who were called as actuaries on behalf of the -employers, ever realised that a Trade Union, unlike a -Friendly Society, possesses and constantly exercises an unlimited -power to raise funds by special levies, or by increased -contributions, whenever it may seem good to the -majority of the members. But even had the actuarial indictment -been completely warranted, it was a mistake in -tactics on the part of the employers. The Commissioners -found themselves shunted into an inquiry, not into the -results of Trade Unionism upon the common weal, but into -the arithmetical soundness of the financial arrangements -which particular groups of workmen chose to make among -themselves.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile the primary business of the Commission, the -investigation into the Sheffield outrages, had been remitted -to special “examiners,” whose local inquiry attracted far -less attention than the proceedings of the main body. At -first the investigation elicited little that was new; but in -June 1867 the country was startled by dramatic confessions -on the part of Broadhead and other members of the grinders’ -trade clubs, unravelling a series of savage crimes instigated -by them, and paid for out of Club funds. For a short time -it looked as if all the vague accusations hurled at Trade -Unionism at large were about to be justified; but the -examiners reported that four-fifths of the societies even of -the Sheffield trades were free from outrages, and that these -had been most prevalent from 1839 to 1861, and had since -declined. The only other place in which the Commissioners -thought it necessary to make inquiry into outrages was -Manchester, where the Brickmakers’ Union had committed -many crimes, but where no complicity on the part of other -trades was shown. It was made evident to all candid -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_269">[Pg 269]</span> -students that these criminal acts were not chargeable to -Trade Unionism as a whole. They represented, in fact, -the survival among such rough and isolated trades as the -brickmakers and grinders of the barbarous usages of a -time when working men felt themselves outside the law, -and oppressed by tyranny. -<a id="FNanchor_403" href="#Footnote_403" class="fnanchor">[403]</a></p> - -<p>The success with which the case of the Trade Unionists -had been presented to the Commission was reflected in a -changed attitude on the part of the governing class, a change -expressly attributed to the “greater knowledge and wider -experience” of Trade Unions which had been gained through -the Royal Commission. “True statesmanship,” declared -the <i>Times</i>, “will seek neither to augment nor to reduce -their influence, but, accepting it as a fact, will give it free -scope for legitimate development.”<a id="FNanchor_404" href="#Footnote_404" class="fnanchor">[404]</a> Thus the official -report of the Commission, from which the enemies of -Trade Unionism had hoped so much, contained no recommendation -which would have made the position of any -single Union worse than it was before. An inconclusive -and somewhat inconsistent document, it argued that trade -combination could be of no real economic advantage to the -workman, but nevertheless recommended the legalisation of -the Unions under certain conditions. Whereas the Act -of 1825 had excepted from the common illegality only -combinations in respect of wages or hours of labour, the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_270">[Pg 270]</span> -Commissioners recommended that no combination should -henceforth be liable to prosecution for restraint of trade, -except those formed “to do acts which involved breach of -contract,” and to refuse to work with any particular person. -But the privilege of registration, carrying with it the power -to obtain legal protection for the society’s funds, was to be -conferred only on Unions whose rules were free from certain -restrictive clauses, such as the limitation of apprentices or -of the use of machinery, and the prohibition of piecework -and sub-contract. The employers’ influence on the Commission -was further shown in a special refusal of the privilege -of registration to societies whose rules authorised the support -of the disputes of other trades.</p> - -<p>So far the result of the Commission was purely negative. -No hostile legislation was even suggested. On the other -hand, it was obvious that no Trade Union would accept -“legalisation” on the proposed conditions. But Harrison -and Hughes had not restricted themselves to casting out -all dangerous proposals from the majority report. Their -minority report, which was signed also by the Earl of -Lichfield, exposed in terse paragraphs the futility of the -suggestions made by the majority, and laid down in general -terms the principles upon which all future legislation should -proceed. It advocated the removal of all special legislation -relating to labour contracts, on the principle, first, that no -act should be illegal if committed by a workman unless it -was equally illegal if committed by any other person; and -secondly, that no act by a combination of men should be -regarded as criminal if it would not have been criminal in -a single person. To this was appended a detailed statement, -drafted by Frederic Harrison, in which the character -and objects of Trade Unionism, as revealed in the voluminous -evidence taken by the Commission, were explained and defended -with consummate skill. What was perhaps of even -greater service to the Trade Union world was a precise and -detailed exposition of the various amendments required to -bring the law into accordance with the general principles -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_271">[Pg 271]</span> -referred to. We have here a striking instance of the advantage -to a Labour Movement of expert professional advice. -The Junta had been demanding the complete legalisation of -their Unions in the same manner as ordinary Friendly -Societies. They had failed to realise that such a legalisation -would have exposed the Amalgamated Society of Engineers -to be sued by one of its members who might be excluded -for “blacklegging,” or otherwise working contrary to the -interests of the trade. The whole efficacy, from a Trade -Union point of view, of the amalgamation of trade and -friendly benefits would have been destroyed. The bare -legalisation would have brought the Trades Unions under the -general law, and subjected them to constant and harassing -interference by Courts of Justice. They had grown up -in despite of the law and the lawyers; which as regards -the spirit of the one and the prejudices of the other were, -and still are, alien and hostile to the purposes and collective -action of the Trades Societies. The danger of any member -having power to take legal proceedings, to worry them by -litigation and cripple them by legal expenses, or to bring a -society within the scope of the insolvency and bankruptcy -law, became very apparent. The Junta easily realised, when -their advisers explained the position, that mere legalisation -would place the most formidable weapon in the hands of -unscrupulous employers. To avoid this difficulty Harrison -proposed the ingenious plan of bringing the Trade Union -under the Friendly Societies Acts, so far as regards the -protection of its funds against theft or fraud, whilst retaining -to the full the exceptional legal privilege of being -incapable of being sued or otherwise proceeded against as a -corporate entity. Had a Trade Union official been selected -as the sole representative of the Unions on the Commission, -such detailed and ingenious amendments of the law would -not have been devised and made part of an authoritative -official report. The complete charter of Trade Union liberty, -which Harrison and his friends had elaborated, became for -seven years the political programme of the Trade Unionists. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_272">[Pg 272]</span> -And it is a part of the curious irony of English party politics -that whilst the formation of this programme, and the -agitation by which it was pressed on successive Parliaments, -were both of them exclusively the work of a group of Radicals -it was, as we shall see, a Conservative Cabinet which eventually -passed it into law. -<a id="FNanchor_405" href="#Footnote_405" class="fnanchor">[405]</a></p> - -<p>The effective though informal leadership of the movement -which the Junta had assumed during the sittings of -the Royal Commission had not gone entirely unquestioned. -Those who are interested in the cross-currents of personal -intrigues and jealousies which detract from the force of -popular movements can read in the pages of the <i>Beehive</i> -full accounts of the machinations of George Potter. The -<i>Beehive</i> summoned a Trade Union Conference at St. Martin’s -Hall in March 1867, which was attended by over one -hundred delegates from provincial societies, Trades Councils, -and the minor London clubs.<a id="FNanchor_406" href="#Footnote_406" class="fnanchor">[406]</a> The Junta, perhaps rather -unwisely, refused to have anything to do with a meeting -held under Potter’s auspices. But many of their provincial -allies came up without any suspicion of the sectional character -of the conference, and found themselves in the -anomalous position of countenancing what was really an -attempt to seduce the London Trades from their allegiance -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_273">[Pg 273]</span> -to the Junta and the London Trades Council. The Conference -sat for four days, and made, owing to Potter’s energy, no -little stir. A committee was appointed to conduct the Trade -Union case before the Commission, and Conolly, the President -of the Operative Stonemasons, was deputed to attend the -sittings. But although special prominence was given by -the <i>Beehive</i> to all the proceedings of this committee, we -have failed to discover with what it actually concerned itself. -An indiscreet speech by Conolly quickly led to his exclusion -from the sittings of the Commission; and the management -of the Trade Union case remained in the hands of Applegarth -and the Junta.</p> - -<p>Apart, however, from jealousy and personal intrigue, -there was some genuine opposition to the policy of the Junta. -The great mass of Trade Unionists were not yet converted -to the necessity of obtaining for their societies a recognised -legal status. There were even many experienced officials, -especially in the provincial organisations of the older type, -who deprecated the action that was being taken by the -London leaders, on the express ground that they objected -to legalisation. “The less working men have to do with -the law in any shape the better,” was the constant note of -the old Unionists. This view found abundant expression -at the Congresses convened in 1868 by the Manchester -Trades Council, and in 1869 by that of Birmingham. But -in spite of the absence of the Junta from the Manchester -Congress, their friend, John Kane, of the North of England -Ironworkers’ Association, succeeded in inducing the delegates -to pass a resolution expressing full confidence in the -policy and action of the Conference of Amalgamated Trades.<a id="FNanchor_407" href="#Footnote_407" class="fnanchor">[407]</a> -And at the Congress of 1869, Odger and Howell, as representatives -of the Junta, managed to get adopted a series -of resolutions embodying Frederic Harrison’s proposals. -<a id="FNanchor_408" href="#Footnote_408" class="fnanchor">[408]</a></p> - -<p>Meanwhile a change had come over the political situation. -At the outset of the crisis Frederic Harrison had -urged upon the Trade Union world the necessity of turning -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_274">[Pg 274]</span> -to the polling booth for redress. “Nothing,” he writes in -January, 1867, “will force the governing classes to recognise -[the workmen’s] claims and judge them fairly, until -they find them wresting into their own hands real political -power. Unionists who, till now, have been content with -their Unions, and have shrunk from political action, may -see the pass to which this abstinence from political movements -has brought them.”<a id="FNanchor_409" href="#Footnote_409" class="fnanchor">[409]</a> Within a few months of this -advice the Reform Bill of 1867 had enfranchised the working -man in the boroughs. The Trade Union leaders were not -slow to use the advantage thus given to them. The Junta, -under the convenient cloak of the Conference of Amalgamated -Trades, issued, in July, 1868, a circular urging upon -Trade Unionists the importance of registering their names -as electors, and of pressing on every candidate the question -in which they were primarily interested. The Trades -Councils throughout the country followed suit; and we -find the Junta’s electoral tactics adopted even by societies -which were traditionally opposed to all political action. -The Central Committee of the Stonemasons, for instance, -strongly urged their members to vote at the ensuing -election only for candidates who would support Trade -Union demands. -<a id="FNanchor_410" href="#Footnote_410" class="fnanchor">[410]</a></p> - -<p>By the beginning of 1869 Frederic Harrison had drafted -a comprehensive Bill, embodying all the legislative proposals -of his minority report. This was introduced by -Mundella and Hughes, and although its provisions were -received with denunciations by the employers,<a id="FNanchor_411" href="#Footnote_411" class="fnanchor">[411]</a> it gained -some support among the newly elected members, and was -strongly backed up outside the House. The Liberal Government -of that day, and nearly all the members of the House -of Commons, were still covertly hostile to the very principles -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_275">[Pg 275]</span> -of Trade Unionism, and every attempt was made to burke -the measure.<a id="FNanchor_412" href="#Footnote_412" class="fnanchor">[412]</a> But the Junta were determined to make felt -their new political power. From every part of the country -pressure was put upon members of Parliament. A great -demonstration of workmen was held at Exeter Hall, at -which Mundella and Hughes declared their intention of -forcing the House and the Ministry to vote upon the hated -measure. Finding evasion no longer possible, the Government -abandoned its attitude of hostility and agreed to a -formal second reading, upon the understanding that the -Cabinet would next year bring in a Bill of its own. A -provisional measure giving temporary protection to Trade -Union funds was accordingly hurried through Parliament -at the end of the session pending the introduction of a -complete Bill.<a id="FNanchor_413" href="#Footnote_413" class="fnanchor">[413]</a> The Junta had gained the first victory of -their political campaign.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_276">[Pg 276]</span></p> - -<p>The next session found the Government reluctant to -fulfil its promise in the matter. But the Trade Unionists -were not disposed to let the question sleep, and after much -pressure Henry Bruce (afterwards Lord Aberdare), who was -then Home Secretary, produced, in 1871, a Bill which was -eagerly scanned by the Trade Union world. The Government -proposed to concede all the points on which it had -been specially pressed by the Junta. No Trade Union, -however wide its objects, was henceforth to be illegal merely -because it was “in restraint of trade.” Every Union was -to be entitled to be registered, if its rules were not expressly -in contravention of the criminal law. And, finally, the -registration which gave the Unions complete protection for -their funds was so devised as to leave untouched their -internal organisation and arrangements, and to prevent -their being sued or proceeded against in a court of law.</p> - -<p>The employers vehemently attacked the Government -for conceding, as they said, practically all the Trade Union -demands.<a id="FNanchor_414" href="#Footnote_414" class="fnanchor">[414]</a> But from the men’s point of view this “complete -charter legalising Unions” had a serious drawback. The -Bill, as was complained, “while repealing the Combination -Laws, substituted another penal law against workmen” -as such. A lengthy clause provided that any violent -threat or molestation for the purpose of coercing either -employers or employed should be severely punished. All -the terms of the old Combination Laws, “molest,” “obstruct,” -“threaten,” “intimidate,” and so forth, were used -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_277">[Pg 277]</span> -without any definition or limitation, and picketing, moreover, -was expressly included in molestation or obstruction -by a comprehensive prohibition of “persistently following” -any person, or “watching or besetting” the premises in -which he was, or the approach to such premises. The Act -of 1859, which had expressly legalised peaceful persuasion -to join legal combinations, was repealed.<a id="FNanchor_415" href="#Footnote_415" class="fnanchor">[415]</a> It seemed only -too probable that the Government measure would make it -a criminal offence for two Trade Unionists to stand quietly -in the street opposite the works of an employer against -whom they had struck, in order to communicate peacefully -the fact of the strike to any workmen who might be ignorant -of it.</p> - -<p>It does not appear that Bruce’s fiercely resented “Third -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_278">[Pg 278]</span> -Clause” was intended to effect any alteration in the law. -Its comprehensive prohibition of violence, threats, intimidation, -molestation, and obstruction did no more than sum -up and codify the various judicial decisions of past years -under which the Trade Unionists had suffered. But the -law had hitherto been obscure and conflicting; both the -statutes and the judicial decisions had proceeded largely -from a presumption against the very existence of Trade -Unionism which was now passing away; and the workmen -and their advisers not unreasonably feared the consequences -of an explicit re-enactment of provisions which practically -made criminal all the usual methods of trade combination. -A recent decision had brought the danger home to the minds -of the Trade Union leaders and their legal friends. In -July 1867 a great strike had broken out among the London -tailors, in which the masters’ shops had been carefully -“picketed.”<a id="FNanchor_416" href="#Footnote_416" class="fnanchor">[416]</a> Druitt, Shorrocks, and other officers of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_279">[Pg 279]</span> -Union were thereupon indicted, not for personal violence -or actual molestation, but for the vague crime of conspiracy. -The Judge (Baron, afterwards Lord, Bramwell) held that -pickets, if acting in combination, were guilty of “molestation” -if they gave annoyance only by black looks, or even -by their presence in large numbers, without any acts or -gestures of violence, and that if two or more persons combined -to do anything unpleasant and annoying to another -person they were guilty of a common law offence. The -Tailors’ officers and committeemen were found guilty merely -of organising peaceful picketing, and it became evident -that, if the elastic law of conspiracy could thus be brought -to bear on Trade Union disputes, practically every incident -of strike management might become a crime.<a id="FNanchor_417" href="#Footnote_417" class="fnanchor">[417]</a> Nor did -Druitt’s case stand alone. Within the memory of the Junta -men had been sent to prison for the simple act of striking, -or even for a simple agreement to strike.<a id="FNanchor_418" href="#Footnote_418" class="fnanchor">[418]</a> Indeed, merely -giving notice of a projected strike, even in the most courteous -and peaceful manner, had frequently been held to be -an act of intimidation punishable as a crime.<a id="FNanchor_419" href="#Footnote_419" class="fnanchor">[419]</a> In 1851 the -posting up of placards announcing a strike was held to be -intimidation of the employers.<a id="FNanchor_420" href="#Footnote_420" class="fnanchor">[420]</a> The Government Bill, far -from accepting Frederic Harrison’s proposed repeal of all -criminal legislation specially applying to workmen, left these -judicial decisions untouched, and, by re-enacting them in -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_280">[Pg 280]</span> -a codified form, proposed even to make their operation more -uniform and effectual.</p> - -<p>There was, accordingly, some ground for the assertion -of the Trade Unionists that the Government was withdrawing -with one hand what it was giving with the other. -It seemed of little use to declare the existence of trade -societies to be legal if the criminal law was so stretched as -to include the ordinary peaceful methods by which these -societies attained their ends. Above all, the Trade Unionists -angrily resented the idea that any act should be made -criminal if done by them, or in furtherance of their Unions, -that was not equally a crime if committed by any other -person, or in pursuance of the objects of any other kind -of association.</p> - -<p>A storm of indignation arose in the Trade Union world. -The Junta sat in anxious consultation with their legal -advisers, who all counselled the utmost resistance to this -most dangerous re-enactment of the law. A delegate -meeting of the London trades was summoned to protest -against the criminal clauses of Bruce’s Bill. But it was -necessary to attack the House of Commons from a wider -area than the Metropolis. With this view the Junta determined -to follow the example set by the Manchester and -Birmingham Trades Councils in 1868 and 1869 by calling -together a national Trade Union Congress. -<a id="FNanchor_421" href="#Footnote_421" class="fnanchor">[421]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_281">[Pg 281]</span></p> - -<p>The meeting of the Congress was fixed for March 1871, -by which time it was rightly calculated that the obnoxious -Bill would be actually under discussion in the House of -Commons. The delegates spent most of their time in -denouncing the criminal clauses of the Bill, and came -very near to opposing the whole measure. But it was -ultimately agreed to accept the legalising part of the Bill, -whilst using every effort to throw out the Third Section. -A deputation was sent to the Home Secretary. Protest -after protest was despatched to the legislators, and the -Congress adjourned at half-past four each day, in order, -as it was expressly declared, that delegates might “devote -the evening to waiting upon Members of Parliament.” -But neither the Government nor the House of Commons -was disposed to show any favour to Trade Union action -in restraint of that “free competition” and individual -bargaining which had so long been the creed of the employers. -The utmost concession that could be obtained was that the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_282">[Pg 282]</span> -Bill should be divided into two, so that the law legalising -the existence of trade societies might stand by itself, whilst -the criminal clauses restraining their action were embodied -in a separate “Criminal Law Amendment Bill.” This illusory -concession sufficed to detach from the opposition many -of those who had at the General Election professed friendship -to the Unions. In the main debate Thomas Hughes -and A. J. Mundella stood almost alone in pressing the Trade -Unionists’ full demands; and though a few other members -were inclined to help to some extent, the second reading -was agreed to without a division. The other stages were -rapidly run through without serious opposition. In the -House of Lords the provisions against picketing were made -even more stringent, “watching and besetting” by a single -individual being made as criminal as “watching and -besetting” by a multitude. In this unsatisfactory shape -the two Bills passed into law.<a id="FNanchor_422" href="#Footnote_422" class="fnanchor">[422]</a> Trade Societies became, -for the first time, legally recognised and fully protected -associations; whilst, on the other hand, the legislative -prohibition of Trade Union action was expressly reaffirmed, -and even increased in stringency.</p> - -<p>In the eyes of the Trade Unions this result amounted -to a defeat; and the conduct of the Government caused -the bitterest resentment.<a id="FNanchor_423" href="#Footnote_423" class="fnanchor">[423]</a> The Secretaries of the Amalgamated -Societies, especially Allan and Applegarth, had, -indeed, attained the object which they personally had most -at heart. The great organisations for mutual succour, -which had been built up by their patient sagacity, were -now, for the first time, assured of complete legal protection. -A number of the larger societies promptly availed themselves -of the Trade Union Act, by registering their rules -in accordance with its provisions;<a id="FNanchor_424" href="#Footnote_424" class="fnanchor">[424]</a> and in September -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_283">[Pg 283]</span> -1871 the Conference of Amalgamated Trades “having,” -as its final minutes declared, “discharged the duties for -which it was organised,” formally dissolved itself.</p> - -<p>The wider issue which remained to be fought required -a more representative organisation. In struggling for legal -recognition the Junta had, as we have seen, represented -the more enlightened of the Trade Unionists rather than -the whole movement. But, by the Criminal Law Amendment -Act, the Government had deliberately struck a blow -against the methods of all trade societies at all periods. -The growing strength of the organisations of the coalminers -and cotton-spinners, and the rapid expansion of -Trade Unionism which marked this period of commercial -prosperity, had for some time been tending towards the -development of the informal meetings of the Junta into -a more representative executive. The dissolution of the -Conference of Amalgamated Trades left the field open; and -the leadership of the Trade Union Movement was assumed -by the Parliamentary Committee which had been appointed -at the Trades Union Congress in the previous March, and -which included all the principal leaders of the chief -metropolitan and provincial societies of the time.</p> - -<p>The agitation which was immediately begun to secure -the repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act became -during the next four years the most significant feature of -the Trade Union world. Throughout all the various struggles -of these years the Trade Union leaders kept steadily in -view the definite aim of getting rid of a law which they -regarded, not only as hampering their efforts for better -conditions of employment, but also as an indignity and an -insult to the hundreds of thousands of intelligent artisans -whom they represented. The whole history of this agitation -proves how completely the governing classes were out of -touch with the recently enfranchised artisans. The legislation -of 1871 was regarded by the Government and the -House of Commons as the full and final solution of a -long-standing problem. “The judges, however, declared,” -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_284">[Pg 284]</span> -as Henry Crompton points out, “that the only effect of the -legislation of 1871 was to make the trade object of the strike -not illegal. A strike was perfectly legal; but if the means -employed were calculated to coerce the employer they were -illegal means, and a combination to do a legal act by illegal -means was a criminal conspiracy. In other words, a strike -was lawful, but anything done in pursuance of a strike was -criminal. Thus the judges tore up the remedial statute, -and each fresh decision went further and developed new -dangers.”<a id="FNanchor_425" href="#Footnote_425" class="fnanchor">[425]</a> But Gladstone’s Cabinet steadfastly refused, -right down to its fall in 1874, even to consider the -possibility of altering the Criminal Law Amendment Act. -It was in vain that deputation after deputation pointed out -that men were being sent to prison under this law for such -acts as peacefully accosting a workman in the street. In -1871 seven women were imprisoned in South Wales merely -for saying “Bah” to one blackleg. Innumerable convictions -took place for the use of bad language. Almost any -action taken by Trade Unionists to induce a man not to -accept employment at a struck shop resulted, under the -new Act, in imprisonment with hard labour. The intolerable -injustice of this state of things was made more glaring -by the freedom allowed to the employers to make all possible -use of “black-lists” and “character notes,” by which -obnoxious men were prevented from getting work. No -prosecution ever took place for this form of molestation or -obstruction. No employer was ever placed in the dock -under the law which professedly applied to both parties. -In short, boycotting by the employers was freely permitted; -boycotting by the men was put down by the police.</p> - -<p>The irritation caused by these petty prosecutions was, -in December 1872, deepened into anger by the sentence -of twelve months’ imprisonment passed upon the London -gas-stokers. These men were found guilty of “conspiracy” -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_285">[Pg 285]</span> -to coerce or molest their employers by merely preparing -for a simultaneous withdrawal of their labour. The vindictive -sentence inflicted by Lord Justice Brett was justified -by the governing classes on the ground of the danger to the -community which a strike of gas-stokers might involve; -and the Home Secretary refused to listen to any appeal on -behalf of the men.<a id="FNanchor_426" href="#Footnote_426" class="fnanchor">[426]</a> The Trade Union leaders did not fail -to perceive that no legal distinction could, under the law -as it then stood, be drawn between a gas-stoker and any -other workmen. If preparing for a strike was punishable, -under “the elastic and inexplicable law of conspiracy,” by -twelve months’ imprisonment, it was obvious that the -whole fabric of Trade Unionism might be overthrown by -any band of employers who chose to put the law in force. -The London Trades Council accordingly summoned a delegate -meeting “to consider the critical legal position of all -trade societies and their officers consequent upon the recent -conviction of the London gas-stokers.” Representation -after representation was made to the Government and to -members of Parliament; and the movement for the repeal -of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871 was widened -into a determined attempt to get rid of all penal legislation -bearing on trade disputes. -<a id="FNanchor_427" href="#Footnote_427" class="fnanchor">[427]</a></p> - -<p>Rarely has political agitation been begun in such apparently -unpromising circumstances, and carried so rapidly -to a triumphant issue. The Liberal administration of -these years, like the majority of both parties in the House -of Commons, was entirely dominated by the antagonism -felt by the manufacturers to any effective collective -bargaining on the part of the men. The representations -of the Parliamentary Committee found no sympathy either -with Henry Bruce or with Robert Lowe, who succeeded -him as Home Secretary. Gladstone, as Prime Minister, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_286">[Pg 286]</span> -refused in 1872 to admit that there was any necessity for -further legislation, and utterly declined to take the matter -up;<a id="FNanchor_428" href="#Footnote_428" class="fnanchor">[428]</a> and during that session the Parliamentary Committee -were unable to find any member willing to introduce a Bill -for the repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.</p> - -<p>The Trade Union leaders, however, did not relax their -efforts. Allan, Guile, Odger, and Howell were strongly -reinforced by the representatives of the miners, cotton-spinners, -and ironworkers. Alexander Macdonald and John -Kane, themselves men of remarkable ability, had behind -them thousands of sturdy politicians in all the industrial -centres. The agitation was fanned by the publication of -details of the prosecutions under the new Act. Effective -<i>Tracts for Trade Unionists</i> were written by Henry Crompton -and Frederic Harrison. Congresses at Nottingham in 1872, -at Leeds in 1873, at Sheffield in 1874 kept up the fire, -and passed judgment on those members of Parliament who -treated the Parliamentary Committee with contumely. As -the time of the General Election drew near, the pressure -on the two great political parties was increased. Lists -of questions to candidates were prepared embodying the -legislative claims of labour; and it was made clear that -no candidate would receive Trade Union support unless his -answers were satisfactory.</p> - -<p>It will be a question for the historian of English politics -whether the unexpected rout of the Liberal party at the -election of 1874 was not due more to the active hostility -of the Trade Unionists than to the sullen abstention of the -Nonconformists. The time happened to be a high-water -mark of Trade Unionism. In these years of good trade -every society had been rapidly increasing its membership. -The miners, the agricultural labourers, and the textile -operatives in particular had swarmed into organisation in -a manner which recalls the rush of 1834. The Trades -Union Congress at Sheffield, held just before the General -Election of 1874, claimed to represent over 1,100,000 -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_287">[Pg 287]</span> -organised workmen, including a quarter of a million of coal-miners, -as many cotton operatives, and a hundred thousand -agricultural labourers. The proceedings of this Congress -reveal the feeling of bitter anger which had been created -by the obtuseness to the claims of labour of the Liberal -leaders of that day. Not content with turning a deaf ear -to all the representatives of the workmen, they had, with -blundering ignorance, retained as Secretary of the Liberal -Association of the City of London the Sidney Smith who -had, since 1851, been the principal officer of the various -associations of employers in the engineering and iron trades.<a id="FNanchor_429" href="#Footnote_429" class="fnanchor">[429]</a> -As such he had proved himself a bitter and implacable enemy -of Trade Unionism. We may imagine what would be the -result to-day if either political party were to face a General -Election with Mr. Laws, the organiser of the Shipping -Federation, as its chief of the staff. And whilst the Liberal -party was treating the new electorate with contumely, -the Conservative candidates were listening blandly to the -workmen’s claims, and pledging themselves to repeal the -obnoxious law.</p> - -<p>Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the -old idea of Trade Union abstention from politics gave way -to a determined attempt at organised political action. -Nor were the Trade Unionists content with merely pressing -the organised political parties in the House of Commons. -The running of independent Labour candidates against -both parties alike was a most significant symptom of the -new feeling in Labour politics. The Labour Representation -League, composed mainly of prominent Trade Unionists, -had for some years been endeavouring to secure the election -of working men to the House of Commons; and the -independent candidatures of George Odger during 1869 and -1870 had provoked considerable feeling.<a id="FNanchor_430" href="#Footnote_430" class="fnanchor">[430]</a> At a bye-election -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_288">[Pg 288]</span> -at Greenwich in 1873, a third candidate was run with -working-class support against both the great parties, with -the result that Boord, the Conservative, gained the seat. In -what spirit this was regarded by the organised workmen -and their trusted advisers may be judged from the following -leading article which Professor E. S. Beesly wrote for the -<i>Beehive</i>, then at the height of its influence: “The result -of the Greenwich election is highly satisfactory.... The -workman has at length come to the conclusion that the -difference between Liberal and Tory is pretty much that -between upper and nether millstone. The quality of the -two is essentially the same. They are sections of the wealth-possessing -class, and on all Parliamentary questions affecting -the interests of labour they play into one another’s hands so -systematically and imperturbably that one would suppose -they thought workmen never read a newspaper or hear -a speech.... The last hours of the Session were marked -by the failure of two Bills about which workmen cared -infinitely more than about all the measures put together -for which Mr. Gladstone takes credit since his accession -to office—I mean Mr. Harcourt’s Conspiracy Bill and Mr. -Mundella’s Nine Hours Bill. As for Mr. Mundella’s Bill for -repealing the Criminal Law Amendment Act, it has never -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_289">[Pg 289]</span> -had a chance. For the failure of all these Bills the Ministry -must be held responsible....</p> - -<p>“This being the case, it is simply silly for Liberal -newspapers to mourn over the Greenwich Election as an -unfortunate mistake.... There was no mistake at all at -Greenwich. There was a ‘third party’ in the field knowing -perfectly well what it wanted, and regarding Mr. Boord -and Mr. Angerstein with impartial hostility. I trust that -such a third party will appear in every large town in England -at the next General Election, even though the result should -be a Parliament of six hundred and fifty Boords. Everything -must have a beginning, and workmen have waited so -long for justice that seven years of Tory government will -seem a trifling addition to the sum total of their endurance -if it is a necessary preliminary to an enforcement of their -claims.” -<a id="FNanchor_431" href="#Footnote_431" class="fnanchor">[431]</a></p> - -<p>The movement for direct electoral action remained -without official support from Trade Unions as such until -at the 1874 Congress Broadhurst was able to report that -the miners, ironworkers, and some other societies had -actually voted money for Parliamentary candidatures. At -the General Election which ensued no fewer than thirteen -“Labour candidates” went to the poll. In most cases -both Liberal and Conservative candidates were run against -them, with the result that the Conservatives gained the -seats.<a id="FNanchor_432" href="#Footnote_432" class="fnanchor">[432]</a> But at Stafford and Morpeth the official Liberals -accepted what they were powerless to prevent; and -Alexander Macdonald and Thomas Burt, the two leading -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_290">[Pg 290]</span> -officials of the National Union of Miners, became the first -“Labour members” of the House of Commons.</p> - -<p>It is significant of the electioneering attitude of the -Conservative leaders that, with the advent of the new -Conservative Government, the Trade Unionists appear to -have assumed that the Criminal Law Amendment Act would -be instantly repealed. Great was the disappointment when it -was announced that a Royal Commission was to be appointed -to inquire into the operation of the whole of the so-called -“Labour Laws.” This was regarded as nothing more than -a device for shelving the question, and the Trade Union -leaders refused either to become members of the Commission -or to give evidence before it. Thomas Burt absolutely refused -a seat on the Commission. It needed the most specific -assurances by the Home Secretary that the Government -really intended the earliest possible legislation to induce -any working man to have anything to do with the Commission. -Ultimately Alexander Macdonald, M.P., allowed -himself to be persuaded to serve, together with Tom Hughes; -and George Shipton, the Secretary of the London Trades -Council, Andrew Boa, the Secretary of the Glasgow Trades -Council, and a prominent Birmingham Trade Unionist -gave evidence. The investigation of the Commission was -perfunctory, and the report inconclusive. But the Government -were too fully alive to the new-found political power -of the Unions to attempt to play with the question. At -the beginning of 1875 the imprisonment of five cabinetmakers -employed at Messrs. Jackson & Graham, a well-known -London firm, roused considerable public feeling, -and led to many questions in Parliament.<a id="FNanchor_433" href="#Footnote_433" class="fnanchor">[433]</a> In June the -Home Secretary, in an appreciative and conciliatory speech, -introduced two Bills for altering respectively the civil and -criminal law. As amended in Committee by the efforts -of Mundella and others, these measures resulted in Acts -which completely satisfied the Trade Union demands. The -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_291">[Pg 291]</span> -Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871 was formally and -unconditionally repealed. By the Conspiracy and Protection -of Property Act (38 and 39 Vic. c. 86), definite and reasonable -limits were set to the application of the law of conspiracy -to trade disputes. The Master and Servant Act of 1867 -was replaced by an Employers and Workmen Act (38 and -39 Vic. c. 90), a change of nomenclature which expressed -a fundamental revolution in the law. Henceforth master -and servant became, as employer and employee, two equal -parties to a civil contract. Imprisonment for breach of -engagement was abolished. The legalisation of Trade -Unions was completed by the legal recognition of their -methods. Peaceful picketing was expressly permitted. The -old words “coerce” and “molest,” which had, in the hands -of prejudiced magistrates, proved such instruments of oppression, -were omitted from the new law, and violence and -intimidation were dealt with as part of the general criminal -code. No act committed by a group of workmen was henceforth -to be punishable unless the same act by an individual -was itself a criminal offence. Collective bargaining, in short, -with all its necessary accompaniments, was, after fifty years of -legislative struggle, finally recognised by the law of the land. -<a id="FNanchor_434" href="#Footnote_434" class="fnanchor">[434]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_292">[Pg 292]</span></p> - -<p>The paramount importance of the legal and Parliamentary -struggle from 1867 to 1875 has compelled us to -relegate to the next chapter all mention of striking contemporary -events in Trade Union history. The sustained -efforts of this decade, too often ignored by a younger generation -of Trade Unionists, are even now referred to by the -survivors as constituting the finest period of Trade Union -activity. For over eight years the Unions had been subjected -to the strain of a prolonged and acute crisis, during -which their very existence was at stake. Out of this crisis -they emerged, as we have seen, triumphantly successful, -“liberated,” to use George Howell’s words, “from the last -vestige of the criminal laws specially appertaining to -labour.” -<a id="FNanchor_435" href="#Footnote_435" class="fnanchor">[435]</a></p> - -<p>This tangible victory was not the only result of the -struggle. In order to gain their immediate end the Trade -Union leaders had adopted the arguments of their opponents, -and had been led to take up a position which, whilst it -departed from the Trade Union traditions of the past, proved -in the future a serious impediment to their further theoretic -progress. To understand the intellectual attitude of the -Junta and their friends, we must consider in some detail the -position which they had to attack. From the very beginning -of the century the employers had persistently asserted their -right to make any kind of bargain with the individual -workman, irrespective of its effect on the Standard of Life. -They had, accordingly, adopted the principle, as against -both the Trade Unionists and the Factory Act philanthropists, -of perfect freedom of contract and complete competition -between both workers and employers. In order to -secure absolute freedom of competition between individuals -it was necessary to penalise any attempt on the part of the -workmen to regulate, by combination, the conditions of the -bargain. But this involved, in reality, a departure from -the principle of legal freedom of contract. One form of -contract, that of the collective bargain, was, in effect, made -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_293">[Pg 293]</span> -a criminal offence, on the plea that, however beneficial it -might seem to the workmen, it cut at the root of national -prosperity. It will be obvious that in urging this contention -the employers were taking up an inconsistent position. -Their pecuniary interest in complete competition outweighed, -in fact, their faith in freedom of contract.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile the astute workmen who led the movement -were gradually concentrating their forces upon the only -position from which they could hope to be victorious. -They had, it must be remembered, no means of imposing -their own view upon the community. Even after 1867 -their followers formed but a small minority of the electorate, -whilst the whole machinery of politics was in the hands of -the middle class. Powerless to coerce or even to intimidate -the governing classes, they could win only by persuasion. -It was, however, hopeless to dream of converting the middle -class to the essential principle of Trade Unionism, the compulsory -maintenance of the Standard of Life. In the then -state of Political Economy the Trade Unionists saw against -them, on this point, the whole mass of educated opinion in -the country. John Bright, for instance, did but express the -common view of the progressive party of that time when he -solemnly assured the working man that “combinations, in -the long run, must be as injurious to himself as to the -employer against whom he is contending.”<a id="FNanchor_436" href="#Footnote_436" class="fnanchor">[436]</a> Lord Shaftesbury, -the lifelong advocate of factory legislation, was -praying that “the working people may be emancipated -from the tightest thraldom they have ever yet endured. -All the single despots, and all the aristocracies that ever -were or ever will be, are as puffs of wind compared with -these tornadoes, the Trade Unions.”<a id="FNanchor_437" href="#Footnote_437" class="fnanchor">[437]</a> The Sheffield and -other outrages, the rumours of constant persecution of -non-Unionists, the hand-workers’ perpetual objection to -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_294">[Pg 294]</span> -machinery, the restrictions on piecework and apprenticeship—all -these real and fancied crimes had created a -mass of prejudice against which it was hopeless for the -Trade Unionists to struggle.</p> - -<p>The Union leaders, therefore, wisely left this part of -their case in the background. They avoided arguing -whether Trade Unionism was, in principle, useful or detrimental, -right or wrong. They insisted only on the right -of every Englishman to bargain for the sale of his labour -in the manner he thought most conducive to his own -interests. What they demanded was perfect freedom for a -workman to substitute collective for individual bargaining, -if he imagined such a course to be for his own advantage. -Freedom of association in matters of contract became, -therefore, their rejoinder to the employers’ cry of freedom -of competition.</p> - -<p>It is clear that the Trade Unionists had the best of the -argument. It was manifestly unreasonable for the employers -to insist on the principle of non-interference of the -State in industry whenever they were pushed by the advocates -of factory legislation, and at the same time to clamour -for the assistance of the police to put down peaceful and -voluntary combinations of their workmen. The capitalists -were, in short, committed to the principle of <i>laissez-faire</i> in -every phase of industrial life, from “Free Trade in Corn” to -the unlimited use of labour of either sex at any age and -under any conditions; and what the workmen demanded -was only the application of this principle to the wage contract. -“The Trade Union question,” writes, in 1869, their -chosen representative and most powerful advocate, “is -another and the latest example of the truth, that the sphere -of legislation is strictly and curiously limited. After legislating -about labour for centuries, each change producing -its own evils, we have slowly come to see the truth, that we -must cease to legislate for it at all. The public mind has -been of late conscious of serious embarrassment, and eagerly -expecting some legislative solution, some heaven-born discoverer -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_295">[Pg 295]</span> -to arise, with a new Parliamentary nostrum. As -usual in such cases, it now turns out that there is no legislative -solution at all; and that the true solution requires, -as its condition, the removal of the mischievous meddling -of the past.”<a id="FNanchor_438" href="#Footnote_438" class="fnanchor">[438]</a> This doctrine “that all men may lawfully -agree to work or not to work, to employ or not to employ, -on any terms that they think fit,” forms the whole burden -of the speeches and petitions of the Trade Union leaders -throughout this controversy. “We do not,” say the official -representatives of Trade Unionism in their memorial to the -Home Secretary in April 1875, “seek to interfere with the -free competition of the individual in the exercise of his craft -in his own way; but we reserve to ourselves the right -either to work for, or to refuse to work for, an employer -according to the circumstances of the case, just as the -master has the right to discharge a workman, or workmen; -and we deny that the individual right is in any way interfered -with when it is done in concert.”</p> - -<p>The working men had, in fact, picked up the weapon of -their opponents and left these without defence. But in so -doing the leading Trade Unionists of the time drifted into -a position no less inconsistent than that of the employers. -When they contended that the Union should be as free to -bargain as the individual, they had not the slightest intention -of permitting the individual to bargain freely if they -could prevent him. Though Allan and Applegarth were -able conscientiously to inform the Royal Commission that -the members of their societies did not refuse to work with -non-society men, they must have been perfectly aware that -this convenient fact was only true in those places and at -those periods in which society men were not in a sufficiently -large majority to do otherwise. The trades to which -Henry Broadhurst and George Howell belonged were notorious -for the success with which the Unions had maintained -their practice of excluding non-society men from their jobs. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_296">[Pg 296]</span> -The coal-miners of Northumberland and Durham habitually -refused to descend the shaft in company with a non-Unionist. -<a id="FNanchor_439" href="#Footnote_439" class="fnanchor">[439]</a></p> - -<p>We have shown, in our <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, that this -universal aspiration of Trade Unionism—the enforcement -of membership—stands, in our opinion, on the same footing -as the enforcement of citizenship. But, however this -may be, it is evident that the refusal of the Northumberland -miners to “ride” with non-society men is, in effect, as -coercive on the dissentient minority as the Mines Regulation -Act or an Eight Hours Bill. The insistence upon the -Englishman’s right to freedom of contract was, in fact, in -the mouths of staunch Trade Unionists, perilously near cant; -and we find Frederic Harrison himself, when dealing with -other legislation, warning them that it would be suicidal -for working men to adopt as their own the capitalist cry of -“non-interference.”<a id="FNanchor_440" href="#Footnote_440" class="fnanchor">[440]</a> The force of this caution must have -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_297">[Pg 297]</span> -been evident to the Junta, who had had too much experience -of the workings of modern industry not to realise the need for -a compulsory maintenance of the Standard of Life. No -Trade Unionist can deny that, without some method of -enforcing the decision of the majority, effective trade combination -is impossible.</p> - -<p>It must not be inferred from the above criticism of the -theoretic position taken by the men who steered the Trade -Union Movement through its great crisis that they were -conscious of their inconsistency with regard to State intervention, -or that they deliberately set to work to win their -case upon false premises. No one can study the history of -their leadership without being impressed by their devotion, -sagacity, and high personal worth. We must regard their -inconsistency as a striking instance of the danger which -besets a party formed without any clear idea of the social -state at which it is aiming. In the struggle of these years -we watch the English Trade Unionists driven from their -Utopian aspirations into an inconsistent opportunism, from -which they drifted during the next generation into the crude -“self-help” of an “aristocracy of labour.” During the -whole of this process there was no moment at which the -incompatibility of their Individualist and Collectivist views -was perceived. Applegarth and Odger, for instance, saw no -inconsistency in becoming leading officials of the “International” -on a programme drafted by Karl Marx, and at -the same time supporting the current Radical demand for -a widespread peasant proprietorship. But it was inevitable -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_298">[Pg 298]</span> -that the exclusive insistence upon the Individualist arguments, -through which alone the victory of 1875 could be -won, should impress the Individualist ideal upon the minds -of those who stood round the leaders. Other influences, -moreover, promoted the acceptance by the Trade Unionists -of the economic shibboleths of the middle class. The failure -of the crude experiments of Owen and O’Connor, the striking -success of the policy of Free Trade, the growing participation -of working men in the Liberal politics of the time, and, -above all, the close intimacy which many of them enjoyed -with able and fertile thinkers of the middle class, all tended -to create a new school of Trade Unionists. In a subsequent -chapter we shall describe the results of this intellectual -conversion upon the Trade Union Movement. First, however, -we must turn to the internal development of these -years, which our description of the Parliamentary struggles -of 1867-75 has forced us temporarily to ignore. -<a id="FNanchor_441" href="#Footnote_441" class="fnanchor">[441]</a></p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_373" href="#FNanchor_373" class="label">[373]</a>William Allan was born of Scotch parents at Carrickfergus, Ulster, -in 1813. His father, who was manager of a cotton-spinning mill, removed -to a mill near Glasgow, and William became in 1825 a piecer in -a cotton factory at Gateside. Three years later he left the mill to be -bound apprentice to Messrs. Holdsworth, a large engineering firm at -Anderston, Glasgow. At the age of nineteen, before his apprenticeship -was completed, he married the niece of one of the partners. In 1835 he -went to work as a journeyman engineer at Liverpool, moving thence, -with the railway works, to their new centre at Crewe, where he joined -his Union. On the imprisonment of Selsby, in 1847, he became its general -secretary, retaining this office when, in 1851, the society became merged -in the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. For over twenty years he -was annually re-elected secretary of this vast organisation, dying at last -in office in 1874.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_374" href="#FNanchor_374" class="label">[374]</a>The celebrated “International Association of Working Men,” which -loomed so large in the eyes of Governments and the governing classes -about 1869-70, had arisen out of the visit of two French delegates to -London in 1863, to concert joint action on behalf of Poland. It was -formally established at a meeting in London on September 28, 1864, at -which an address prepared by Karl Marx was read. Its fundamental -aim was the union of working men of all countries for the emancipation -of labour; and its principles went on to declare that “the subjection of -the man of labour to the man of capital lies at the bottom of all servitude, -all social misery, and all political dependence.” Between 1864 and 1870, -branches were established in nearly all European countries, as well as in -the United States, the majority of trade societies in some European -countries joining in a body. The central administration was entrusted -to a General Council of fifty-five members sitting in London, which was -composed of London residents of various nationalities, elected by the -branches in the countries to which they belonged. The General Council -had, however, no legislative or other control over the branches, and in -practice served as little more than a means of communication between -them, each country managing its own affairs in its own way. The principles -and programme of the Association underwent a steady development -in the succession of annual international congresses attended by delegates -from the various branches. The extent to which English working men -really participated in its fundamental objects is not clear. In 1870 -Odger was president and Applegarth chairman of the General Council, -which included Benjamin Lucraft, afterwards a member of the London -School Board, and other well-known working-men politicians. But few -English Trade Unions (among them being the Bootmakers and Curriers) -joined in their corporate capacity; and when, in October 1866, the -General Council invited the London Trades Council to join, or, that -failing, to give permission for a representative of the International to -attend its meetings, with a view of promptly reporting all Continental -strikes, the Council’s minutes show that both requests were refused. The -London Trades Council declined indeed to recognise the International -even as the authorised medium of communication with trade societies -abroad, and decided to communicate with these directly. Applegarth -attended several of the Continental congresses as a delegate from England, -and elaborately explained the aims and principles of the Association in -an interview published in the <i>New York World</i> of May 21 1870. After -the suppression of the Commune the branches in France were crushed -out of existence; and the membership in England and other countries -fell away. The annual Congress held in 1872 at The Hague decided to -transfer the General Council to New York, and the “International” -ceased to play any part in the English Labour Movement. An interesting -account of its Trade Unionist action appeared in the <i>Fortnightly -Review</i> for November 1870, by Professor E. S. Beesly.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_375" href="#FNanchor_375" class="label">[375]</a>Robert Applegarth, the son of a quartermaster in the Royal Navy, -was born at Hull on January 23, 1833. At the age of eleven he went -to work as errand boy, eventually drifting into the shop of a joiner and -cabinetmaker, where, unapprenticed, he picked up the trade as best he -could. In 1852 he moved to Sheffield; but in 1855, on the death of -his parents, he emigrated to the United States, returning to Sheffield in -the following year, as the health of his wife did not allow her to follow -him to the land of promise. Joining the local Carpenters’ Union, he -quickly became its most prominent member, and brought it over in a -body when the formation in 1861 of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters -and Joiners offered a prospect of more efficient trade action. -Elected general secretary in 1862, he retained the office until 1871, when, -in consequence of various personal disputes in the society, he voluntarily -resigned. In 1870, on the formation of the London School Board, he -stood as a candidate for the Lambeth division, but was unsuccessful, -though he received 7600 votes. In the same year he was invited to -become a candidate for Parliament for the borough of Maidstone, but he -retired in favour of Sir John Lubbock. In 1871 he was appointed a member -of the Royal Commission on the Contagious Diseases Act. On resigning -his secretaryship he turned for a time to journalism, and acted as war -correspondent in France for an American newspaper. Shortly afterwards -he became foreman to a firm of manufacturers of engineering and diving -apparatus, eventually becoming the proprietor of this flourishing business -and retiring with a small competence. Mr. Applegarth, who is -(1920) the sole survivor of the “Junta” of 1867-71, still retains his -membership of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and his interest -in Trade Unionism, about which he has given us valuable documents and -reminiscences. See <i>The Life of Robert Applegarth</i>, by A. W. Humphrey, -1915.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_376" href="#FNanchor_376" class="label">[376]</a>Daniel Guile was born at Liverpool, October 21, 1814, the son of a -shoemaker. Bound apprentice to an ironfounder in 1827, he joined the -Union in June 1834. In 1863 he became its corresponding secretary, a -position he retained until his retirement at the end of 1881. He was a -member of the Parliamentary Committee, 1871-5, and died December 7, 1883.</p> - -<p>George Odger, the son of a Cornish miner, was born in 1820, at -Rouborough, near Tavistock, South Devon, and became a shoemaker at -an early age. Tramping about the country, as was then customary, he -eventually settled in London, becoming a prominent member of the -Ladies’ Shoemakers’ Society. His first important public action was in -connection with the meetings of delegates of London trades on the building -trades lock-out in 1859. On the formation of the London Trades -Council in 1860 he became one of its leading members, and from 1862 -until the reconstruction of the Council in 1872 he acted as its secretary. -As one of the leaders of London working-class Radicalism he made five -attempts to get into Parliament, but was each time baulked by the opposition -of the official Liberal party. At Chelsea in 1868, at Stratford in -1869, and at Bristol in 1870 he retired rather than split the vote, but at -Southwark in 1870 he went to the poll, and failed of success only by -304 votes, the official Liberal, Sir Sidney Waterlow, being at the bottom -with 2966 votes as against 4382 given for Odger. At the General Election -of 1874 he again stood, to be once more opposed by both Liberals and -Conservatives with the same result as before. He died in 1877, his -funeral, which was attended by Professor E. Beesly, Professor Fawcett, -and Sir Charles Dilke, being made the occasion of a remarkable demonstration -by the London working men. An eulogy of him by Professor Beesly -appeared in the <i>Weekly Despatch</i>, March 11, 1877. A brief biographical -sketch was published under the title of <i>The Life and Labour of George -Odger</i>, 1877.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_377" href="#FNanchor_377" class="label">[377]</a>John Kane was born at Alnwick, Northumberland, in 1819. Sent -to work at seven, he served in various capacities until the age of fifteen, -when he moved to Newcastle-on-Tyne, and entered the ironworks of -Messrs. Hawke at Gateshead. Here he took part in the Chartist and -other progressive movements, making a vain attempt in 1842 to form a -Union in his trade. Not until 1863 was a durable society established, -and when in 1868 the Amalgamated Ironworkers’ Association was formed -on a national basis, John Kane became general secretary, a position he -retained until his death in March 1876.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_378" href="#FNanchor_378" class="label">[378]</a>The first permanent committee of the nature of a Trades Council -appears to have been, according to our information, the Liverpool “Trades -Guardian Association,” which was established in 1848 with the object of -protecting Trade Unions from suppression by the employers’ use of the -criminal law. From its printed report and balance sheet for 1848, and -the references in the <i>Fortnightly Circular</i> of the Stonemasons’ Society for -November 23, 1848, we gather that it took vigorous action to protect the -Sheffield razor-grinders from malicious prosecution, and to help the Liverpool -masons who had been indicted for conspiracy. Of its activity from -1850 to 1857 we possess no records, but in August 1857 it subscribed -£400 in aid of the Liverpool cabinetmakers, and in 1861 it was assisting -the London bricklayers’ strike. In July of that year it was merged in a -“United Trades Protection Association,” formed upon the model of the -newly established London Trades Council. In Glasgow there appears to -have been, since 1825, an almost continuous series of joint committees of -delegates for particular purposes. An attempt was made in 1851 to place -these on a permanent footing, but the trades soon ceased to send delegates. -A renewed attempt in 1858, made at the instance of Alexander Campbell, -met with greater success; and the Council then established, composed -principally of the building trades, was in 1860 enjoying a vigorous life. -Sheffield, too, had long had ephemeral federations of the local trades, -which came near having a continuous existence. One of these, the “Association -of Organised Trades,” established in 1857 with the special object -of assisting the Sheffield Typographical Society in defending a libel action, -became the permanent Trades Council. Other towns, such as Dublin -and Bristol, had almost constantly some kind of Council of the local -trades. An appeal of the Trade Defence Association of Manchester, -signed by representatives of nine thousand operatives on behalf of the -dyers’ strike, occurs in the <i>Stonemasons’ Fortnightly Circular</i> for 1854. -In London, as may be gathered from George Odger’s evidence before the -Master and Servant Law Committee in 1867, the meetings of “Metropolitan -Trades Delegates” had been particularly frequent since 1848. -In 1852, for instance, as we discover from the <i>Bookbinders’ Trade Circular</i> -(November 1853), a committee of the London trades took the case of -the Wolverhampton tinplate workers out of the hands of the somewhat -decrepit National Association of United Trades, and bore the whole cost -of these expensive legal proceedings. No sooner had the task of this -committee been completed, when another committed was formed to assist -the strike of the Preston cotton operatives. It was to this committee, -sitting at the Bell Inn, Old Bailey, the historic meeting-place of London -Trade Unionism, that Lloyd Jones, in March 1855, communicated his -fears that a certain Friendly Societies’ Bill, then before the House of -Commons, would make the legal position of trade societies even more -equivocal than it then was. A “Metropolitan Trades Committee on the -Friendly Societies’ Bill” was accordingly formed, the printed report of -which is reviewed by Dunning in his <i>Circular</i> for December 1855. From -this we learn that it was presided over by William Allan, and that it -included his old friend William Newton, as well as the general secretaries -of the Stonemasons’ and Bricklayers’ Societies, and representatives of the -Compositors and Bookbinders. It was supported by eighty-seven different -Trade Unions with forty-eight thousand members, who contributed a -halfpenny per member to cover the expenses. Its Parliamentary action -seems, to have been vigorous and effective. The objectionable clauses -were, by skilful Parliamentary lobbying, dropped out of the Bill, and -what seemed at the time to be an important step towards the legislation -of trade societies was, through the help of Thomas Hughes and Lord -Goderich, secured. Between 1858 and 1867 Trades Councils were established -in about a dozen of the largest towns. The Trade Union expansion -of 1870-73 saw their number doubled. But their great increase was -one of the effects of the great wave of Trade Union organisation which -swept over the country in 1889-91, when over sixty new councils were -established, and those already in existence were reorganised and greatly -increased in membership.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_379" href="#FNanchor_379" class="label">[379]</a>Second Annual Report of London Trades Council, March 31, 1862.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_380" href="#FNanchor_380" class="label">[380]</a>No copy is preserved in the British Museum nor among the archives -of the Trades Council itself. Mr. Robert Applegarth kindly presented us -with a copy, which is now in the British Library of Political Science at -the London School of Economics. The only other one known to us is in -the Goldsmiths’ Library at the University of London.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_381" href="#FNanchor_381" class="label">[381]</a>On receipt of a memorial from the operatives asking for the introduction -of the Nine Hours Day, three of the principal London builders -gave notice that henceforth they would engage their workmen, not by -the day, but by the hour. “This arrangement,” they added, “of payment -by the hour will enable any workman employed by us to work any -number of hours he may think proper.” This specious proposal involved -a total abandonment of the principle of Collective Bargaining. What -the master builders proposed was, in effect, to do away with the very -conception of a normal day, and to revert, as far as the hours were concerned, -to separate contracts with each individual workman. The workmen -realised, what they failed clearly to explain, that the proffered freedom -was illusory. In the modern organisation of industry on a large -scale there can be no freedom for the individual workman to drop his -tools at whatever moment he chooses. Without a concerted normal day, -each workman must inevitably find his task continue as long as the -engines are going or the works are open. The real question at issue was -how the common hours of labour should be fixed. The master builders -of 1861 rightly calculated that if each man was really free to earn as -many hours’ wages in the day as they chose to offer him, the hours during -which the whole body would work would, in effect, be governed, not by -the general convenience, but by the desire and capacity of those willing -to work the longest day. On this, the essential issue, the men maintained -their position. The normal day in the London building trades was -tacitly fixed according to the prevailing custom, and has since been -repeatedly regulated and reduced by formal collective agreement until -the average working week throughout the year consists of less than 48 -hours. The minor point of the unit of remuneration was gradually conceded -by the men, and the Hour System, guarded by strict limitation of -the working day, has come to be preferred by both parties.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_382" href="#FNanchor_382" class="label">[382]</a>The letters were drawn up by Frederic Harrison and Godfrey Lushington, -after personal investigation and inquiry, and were signed also by -T. Hughes, J. M. Ludlow, E. S. Beesly, R. H. Hutton, R. B Litchfield, -and T. R. Bennett. They appeared in July 1861.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_383" href="#FNanchor_383" class="label">[383]</a>Many of the local Birmingham Trade Unions became directly affiliated -to the National Reform League. But with the exception of two small -clubs at Wolverhampton, and the West End Cabinetmakers (London), -no other Trade Union appears to have joined the League in a corporate -capacity, though its Council included Allan, Applegarth, Coulson, Cremer, -Odger, Potter, and Conolly.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_384" href="#FNanchor_384" class="label">[384]</a>The obligation to proceed by warrant was at first universal, as the -Act of 1824, 4 Geo. IV. c. 34, gave the magistrate no discretion. By -that act the master was to be served with a summons at the instance of -the workman, whilst the workman was to be arrested on a warrant on -the complaint upon oath of the master. But, in 1848, Jervis’s Act, 11 -& 12 Vic. c. 43, gave justices power in all cases to issue a summons in -the first instance. The practice was accordingly gradually introduced in -England of summoning the workman; and the issue of a warrant was in -general confined to cases in which the workman had gone away, or had -failed to appear to a summons. Jervis’s Act, however, did not apply to -Scotland, so that summary arrests of workmen on warrants continued -until 1867; and this was one of the principal grievances adduced by the -Glasgow representatives. Even in England warrants were occasionally -granted by vindictive magistrates. In 1863 a dispute took place at a -Durham colliery, and the employer proceeded against the miners under -the Master and Servant Law. “In the middle of the next night twelve -of them were taken out of their beds by the police and lodged in Durham -lock-up, on the charge of deserting their work without notice” (Letter -by Professor E. S. Beesly in <i>Spectator</i>, December 12, 1863).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_385" href="#FNanchor_385" class="label">[385]</a>See Question 864, Master and Servant Law Select Committee, 1866; -Unwin <i>v.</i> Clarke, 1 Law Reports, Queen’s Bench, p. 417; and Second -Report of Labour Laws Commission, c. 1157 (1875), p. 7.</p> - -<p>The enactments rendering the workman liable to imprisonment for -simple breach of a contract of service are historically to be traced to the -period when the law denied to the labourer the right to withhold his -service or to bargain as to his wages. Any neglect or abandonment of -his work was, therefore, like a simple refusal to work at all, a breach, -not so much of contract, as of a duty arising out of status and enforced -by statute. The law on the subject dates, indeed, back to the celebrated -Statute of Labourers of 1349 (23 Ed. III.), the primary object of which -was to enforce service at the rates of hiring that existed prior to the -Black Death. The second section of this law enacts that if a workman -or servant depart from service before the time agreed upon he shall be -imprisoned. The same principle was asserted in the Statute of Apprentices -in 1563 (5 Eliz. c. 4), which consolidated the law relating to all -artificers and labourers, and expressly applied it to workers by the piece, -who were rendered liable to imprisonment if they left before completing -their job. During the eighteenth century, which abounded, as we have -seen, in enactments dealing with particular trades, a long series of statutes -made the provisions of law more definite and stringent in the industries -in question. The principal English Acts were 7 Geo. I. st. 1, c. 13 -(tailors); 9 Geo. I. c. 27 (shoemakers); 13 Geo. II. c. 8 (all leather trades); -20 Geo. II. c. 19; 27 Geo. II. c. 6; 31 Geo. II. c. 11 (various trades); -6 Geo. III. c. 25 (agreements for a term); 17 Geo. III. c. 56 (textiles, -etc.); 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 77 (coal and iron); 4 Geo. IV. c. 34 (all trades); -10 Geo. IV. c. 52 (general); 6 & 7 Vic. c. 40 (textiles).</p> - -<p>The intolerable oppression which these laws enabled unscrupulous -employers to commit was, at the beginning of the century, scarcely inferior -to that brought about by the Combination Laws. This was strongly -urged by the authors of <i>A few Remarks on the State of the Laws at present -in existence for regulating Masters and Workpeople</i>(preserved among the -Place MSS. 27804), which George White, the prompter of Peter Moore, -M.P., published in 1823. The pieceworker clause of the Statute of -Apprentices was particularly oppressive. “This clause,” says White, -“has been much abused, as in many businesses they never finish their -work, as the nature of the employment is such that they are compelled -to begin one before they finish another, as wheelwrights, japanners, and -an infinite number of trades; therefore if any dispute ariseth respecting -the amount of wages, and a strike or turn-out commences, or men leave -their work, having words, the master prosecutes them for leaving their -work unfinished. Very few prosecutions have been made to effect under -the Combination Acts, but hundreds have been made under this law, -and the labourer or workman can never be free, unless this law is modified. -The Combination Act is nothing: it is the law which regards the finishing -of work which masters employ to harass and keep down the wages of -their workpeople; unless this is modified nothing is done, and by repealing -the Combination Acts you leave the workman in ninety-nine -cases out of a hundred in the same state you found him—at the mercy -of his master” (p. 51). But, in spite of this somewhat exaggerated -protest, neither Place nor Hume took up the amendment of the law -relating to contracts of service. Their paramount concern was to secure -for the workman freedom to enter into a contract, and oppressive punishment -for its breach attracted, for the moment, little attention.</p> - -<p>Besides White’s Manual, the following may be referred to for the -history of the law, and of its amendment: <i>Report of Conference on the -Law of Master and Workman under the Contract of Service</i>(Glasgow, -1864); the Reports of the Select Committee on the Law of Master and -Servant, 1866, and of the Royal Commission on the Labour Laws, 1875; -<i>The Labour Laws</i>, by James Edward Davis (1875); and Stephen’s <i>History -of the Criminal Law</i>, vol. iii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_386" href="#FNanchor_386" class="label">[386]</a>Alexander Campbell, who had been a prominent disciple of Robert -Owen, and whom we have already seen as secretary to the little Glasgow -Carpenters’ Union of 1834, was, in 1863, editing the <i>Glasgow Sentinel</i>, -which became the chief organ of Macdonald and his National Association -of Miners. Campbell is described as having been, in 1858, the virtual -founder of the Glasgow Trades Council.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_387" href="#FNanchor_387" class="label">[387]</a>The Memorial, which contains an exact statement of the law and -suggestions for its amendment, is preserved in the <i>Flint Glass Makers’ -Magazine</i>, December 1863.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_388" href="#FNanchor_388" class="label">[388]</a>Among those present were Robert Applegarth, George Odger, -Daniel Guile, T. J. Dunning, Alexander Macdonald, William Dronfield, -Alexander Campbell, Edwin Coulson, and George Potter. The societies -represented included the London Trades Council, Glasgow Trades Committee, -Sheffield Association of Organised Trades, Liverpool United Trades -Protection Society, Nottingham Association of Organised Trades, and the -Northumberland and Durham United Trades and Labourers; the Amalgamated -Societies of Engineers and Carpenters, the National Societies of -Bricklayers, Masons, Ironfounders, Miners, and Bookbinders, the London -Society of Compositors, the Scottish Bakers, Sheffield Sawmakers, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_389" href="#FNanchor_389" class="label">[389]</a>Afterwards Earl of Wemyss.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_390" href="#FNanchor_390" class="label">[390]</a>Minutes of meeting of London Trades Council, March 1864.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_391" href="#FNanchor_391" class="label">[391]</a>It must not be supposed that the lock-out was a new invention. -Place describes its use by the master breeches-makers at the end of the -last century: <i>Life of Francis Place</i>, by Professor Graham Wallas (1918).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_392" href="#FNanchor_392" class="label">[392]</a><i>Report of Conference of Trade Delegates at Sheffield</i>(June 1866), p. 22.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_393" href="#FNanchor_393" class="label">[393]</a>“An Ironmaster’s View of Strikes,” by W. R. Hopper, <i>Fortnightly -Review</i>(August 1, 1865).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_394" href="#FNanchor_394" class="label">[394]</a>“Measures for Putting an End to the Abuses of Trades Unions,” -by Frederic Hill, Barrister-at-Law: Paper in Sessional Proceedings of -the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, 1867-68, -p. 24. The popular middle-class sentiment is reflected in Charles Reade’s -novel, <i>Put Yourself in his Place</i>(1871).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_395" href="#FNanchor_395" class="label">[395]</a>See, for instance, the speech of George Newton, the secretary of the -Glasgow Trades Committee: “A great many strikes, and perhaps lock-outs, -too, have arisen from a stubborn refusal on the part of both sides -to look the question honestly and fairly in the face.... Let us examine -ourselves and see if there be any wicked way in us that contributes to -this unsatisfactory state of things, and if we discover that we are not -blameless, then we ought, first of all, to set our own house in order.... -Then let us examine the opposite side of the camp and see how they -stand, and if we find that they have not done all that they ought to have -done with a view to prevent these serious evils, let us undisguisedly and -in plain language point out where we consider they have erred, and by -increasing public opinion in a healthy way against tyranny—some people -call it, but perhaps a milder word would be better—against the unwise -policy used, it will do much to repress it in future” (<i>Conference Report</i>, -Sheffield, 1866).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_396" href="#FNanchor_396" class="label">[396]</a>Rules adopted at Manchester Conference, 1867 (Sheffield, 1867, -12 pp.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_397" href="#FNanchor_397" class="label">[397]</a>The Alliance was always administered by an executive elected by -the Sheffield trades, the leading men amongst which had been active in -its formation. The veteran secretary of the Typographical Society, -William Dronfield, was the first general secretary. Among the trades -represented were the South Yorkshire and Nottingham Miners, the Amalgamated -Tailors, Boilermakers, Cotton-spinners, Scottish Associated -Carpenters, Yorkshire Glass-bottle Makers, North of England Ironworkers, -and the trades of Wolverhampton. The minute books from -1867 to 1870, and its printed <i>Monthly Statement</i>, show that the Alliance -at first supported the men in numerous lock-outs, especially among the -tailors, miners, and ironworkers, but that there were constant complaints -of unpaid levies. Dronfield informed us that the Judicial Committee and -the Executive experienced great difficulties from the absence of any -control over the constituent Unions, and the impossibility of accurately -defining a lock-out. The first conference of the Alliance was held at -Manchester from the 1st to the 4th of January 1867, when fifty-three -trades had been enrolled, numbering 59,750 members. The “Rules” -adopted at this conference contain an interesting address by Dronfield -upon the principles and objects of the federation. The next conference -was at Preston in September 1867, when the membership had fallen to -23,580, in forty-seven trades, the Boilermakers, among others, formally -withdrawing (<i>Minutes of Conference at Preston</i>, Sheffield, 1867, 16 pp.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_398" href="#FNanchor_398" class="label">[398]</a>The town of Sheffield had long been noted for the custom of “rattening,” -that is, the temporary abstraction of the wheelbands or tools of a -workman whose subscription to his club was in arrear. This had become -the recognised method of enforcing, not merely the payment of contributions, -but also compliance with the trade regulations of the club. The -lawless summary jurisdiction thus usurped by the Sheffield clubs easily -passed into more serious acts of lynch law if mere rattening proved ineffectual. -Recalcitrant workmen were terrorised by explosions of cans -of gunpowder in the troughs of their grinding wheels, or thrown down -their chimneys; and in some cases these explosions caused serious injury. -The various Grinders’ Unions (saw, file, sickle, fork, and fender) enjoyed -an unhappy notoriety for outrages of this nature, which had, from time -to time, aroused the spasmodic indignation of the local press, notably in -1843-4. An attempt, in 1861, to blow up a small warehouse in Acorn -Street provoked a special outburst of public disapproval; and the -minutes of the London Trades Council record that already on this occasion -the Council publicly expressed its abhorrence of such criminal violence. -After this date there was for three or four years a diminution in the -number of serious acts of violence committed; but the years 1865-6 saw -a renewal of the evil practices, especially in connection with the Saw-Grinders’ -Union. The explosion in New Hereford Street in October -1866 was afterwards proved to have been instigated by this Union in -order to terrorise a certain Thomas Fernehough, who had twice deserted -the society, and was at the time working for a firm against whom the -saw-handle makers, as well as the saw-grinders, had struck.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_399" href="#FNanchor_399" class="label">[399]</a>Among other societies, the Amalgamated Engineers and Carpenters -and the national Unions of Boilermakers and Ironfounders appear to have -deposited their rules.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_400" href="#FNanchor_400" class="label">[400]</a><i>Beehive</i>, January 26, 1867.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_401" href="#FNanchor_401" class="label">[401]</a>Along with these, in helping and advising the Trade Unions at this -time, were Vernon Lushington, Godfrey Lushington (afterwards Permanent -Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department), J. M. -Ludlow (afterwards Registrar of Friendly Societies), Neate (formerly -Professor of Political Economy and then M.P. for Oxford), Sir T. Fowell -Buxton, M.P., and A. J. Mundella.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_402" href="#FNanchor_402" class="label">[402]</a>The Junta did not, however, confine its efforts to action before the -Commission. One of the taunts constantly thrown by the press at the -Trade Union leaders was that they did not themselves know what they -wanted. Partly as a reply to this, but also as a manifesto to consolidate -the Unionist forces, in the autumn of 1867 a Bill was prepared by Henry -Crompton and laid before the Junta, and after considerable discussion -adopted by them and by a delegate meeting of Trades held at the Bell -Inn. It was introduced into the House of Commons early in the following -session, and served as basis of the Trade Union demand at some of -the elections in 1868, notably that of Sheffield when A. J. Mundella first -was candidate.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_403" href="#FNanchor_403" class="label">[403]</a>The Broadhead disclosures created a great stir, and Professor Beesly, -who had ventured to point out “that a trades union murder was neither -better nor worse than any other murder,” was denounced as an apologist -for crime, and nearly lost his professorship at University College, London, -for his sturdy defence of the principle of Trade Unionism. See his -pamphlet, <i>The Sheffield Outrages and the Meeting at Exeter Hall</i>, 1867, -16 pp.; and that by Richard Congreve, <i>Mr. Broadhead and the Anonymous -Press</i>, 1867, 16 pp.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_404" href="#FNanchor_404" class="label">[404]</a><i>Times</i> leader, July 8, 1869. The occasion was the epoch-marking -speech of Mr. (afterwards Lord) Brassey, in which, speaking as the son -of a great contractor, he declared himself on the side of the Trade Unions, -and asserted that, by exercising a beneficial influence on the character of -the workmen, they tended to lower rather than to raise the cost of labour -(Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, July 7, 1869). The speech was afterwards -republished, with some additions, under the title of <i>Trade Unions -and the Cost of Labour</i>, by T. Brassey, 1870, 64 pp.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_405" href="#FNanchor_405" class="label">[405]</a>The Sheffield Outrages and the Royal Commission produced a large -crop of literature, most of which is of little value. The Commission -itself presented no fewer than eleven reports, with voluminous evidence -and appendices. The Examiners appointed to investigate the outrages -at Sheffield and Manchester presented separate reports, which were laid -before Parliament. The mass of detailed information about strikes and -other proceedings of Trade Societies contained in these reports has been -the main source of all subsequent writings on the subject. <i>The Trade -Unions of England</i>, by the Comte de Paris, 1869, 246 pp., and <i>The Trade -Unions</i>, by Robert Somers (Edinburgh, 1876, 232 pp.), are, for instance, -little better than summaries, the former friendly, the latter unfriendly, -of the evidence before the Commission. The chapters relating to Trade -Unionism in W. T. Thornton’s work <i>On Labour</i>, 1870, which made so -permanent an impression on the economic world, are entirely based upon -the same testimony. Among other publications may be mentioned <i>Trades -Unions Defended</i>, by W. R. Callender (Manchester, 1870, 16 pp.); and -<i>Measures for Putting an End to the Abuses of Trades Unions</i>, by Frederic -Hill, 1868, 16 pp.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_406" href="#FNanchor_406" class="label">[406]</a><i>Report of the Trades Conference</i>, 1867, 32 pp.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_407" href="#FNanchor_407" class="label">[407]</a><i>Beehive</i>, June 13, 1868.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_408" href="#FNanchor_408" class="label">[408]</a><i>Ibid.</i>, August 28, 1869.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_409" href="#FNanchor_409" class="label">[409]</a><i>Beehive</i>, January 26, 1867.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_410" href="#FNanchor_410" class="label">[410]</a><i>Fortnightly Circular</i>, June 1868.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_411" href="#FNanchor_411" class="label">[411]</a>See, for instance, <i>Some opinions on Trade Unions and the Bill of -1869</i>, by Edmund Potter, M.P., 1869, 45 pp.; also the <i>Observations upon -the Law of Combinations and Trades Unions, and upon the Trades Unions -Bill</i>, by a Barrister, 1869, 64 pp.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_412" href="#FNanchor_412" class="label">[412]</a>In his <i>Letters to the Working Classes</i>, 1870, Professor Beesly gives a -graphic account of the shuffling of the Government, and advises political -action. The annual report of the General Union of House Painters (the -“Manchester Alliance”) for 1871 shows how eagerly the advice was -received: “Away with the cry of no politics in our Unions; this foolish -neutrality has left us without power or influence.” See also, for the -whole episode, <i>Robert Applegarth</i>, by A. W. Humphrey, 1912, pp. 138-170; -<i>Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and Labour Leaders</i>, by G. Howell, -1902, pp. 156-172.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_413" href="#FNanchor_413" class="label">[413]</a>32 and 33 Vic. c. 61 (1869). This provisional measure was bitterly -opposed in the House of Lords by Earl Cairns, who argued that its universal -protection of the funds of all Unions alike, without requiring the -abandonment of their objectionable rules, was in direct opposition to the -majority report of the Royal Commission. No such surrender to the -Trade Unions was, in his opinion, necessary, as their funds had, in the -previous year, been incidentally protected by an “Act to amend the law -relating to larceny and embezzlement” (31 and 32 Vic. c. 116), passed -at the instance of Russell Gurney, the Recorder of London. This act -had no reference to Trade Unions as such, but it enabled members of a -co-partnership to be convicted for stealing or embezzling the funds of -their co-partnership. Its possible application to defaulting Trade Union -officials was perceived by Messrs. Shaen, Roscoe & Co., who have for three -generations acted as solicitors of the leading Unions. At their instance -a case was submitted to the Attorney-General of the time (Sir John -Karslake), who advised that a Trade Union could now prosecute in its -character of a partnership. Criminal proceedings were accordingly taken -by the Operative Bricklayers’ Society against a defaulting officer who had -set the Executive at defiance, with the result that the prisoner was, in -December 1868, sentenced to six months’ hard labour. This successful -prosecution was widely advertised throughout the Trade Union world, -and was frequently quoted as showing that no further legislation was -needed. But, as was forcibly pointed out by Frederic Harrison and other -advisers of the Junta, Russell Gurney’s Act, though it enabled Trade -Unions to put defaulting officials in prison, gave them no power to recover -the sums due, or to take any civil proceedings whatever, and did not -remove the illegality of any combinations of workmen “in restraint of -trade.” See Harrison’s article, “The Trades Union Bill,” in <i>Fortnightly -Review</i>, July 1, 1869, and the leaflet published by the Amalgamated -Society of Engineers, on Russell Gurney’s Act, December, 1868.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_414" href="#FNanchor_414" class="label">[414]</a>See, for instance, the report of the Leeds meeting of the Master -Builders’ Association to object to the Bill, <i>Beehive</i>, March 11, 1871.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_415" href="#FNanchor_415" class="label">[415]</a>A short Act had been passed in 1859 (22 Vic. c. 34) which excluded -from the definition of “molestation” or “obstruction” the mere agreement -to obtain an alteration of wages or hours, and also the peaceful -persuasion of others without threat or intimidation to cease or abstain -from work in order to obtain the wages or hours aimed at. The Act -was passed without discussion or comment, probably with reference to -some recent judicial decisions, but its actual origin is not clear. The -Stonemasons’ Society refused to have anything to do with it, and referred -sneeringly to its promoters as busybodies. Alexander Macdonald -alluded to it in his speech on the Employers and Workmen Bill on June 28, -1875 (Hansard, vol. 225, pp. 66-7), as having been enacted at the instance -of himself and others in order to permit men to persuade others to join -combinations, and that it had had a most beneficial effect. An obscure -pamphlet, entitled <i>Letters to the Trades Unionists and the Working Classes</i>, -by Charles Sturgeon, 1868, 8 pp., gives the only account of its origin that -we have seen. “Some of the judges had decided that the liberty to -combine was only during the period he was not in the employ of any -master (<i>i.e.</i> while on tramp). So obvious a misreading, under which the -working men were getting imprisoned, while their masters combined at -their pleasure, created numerous petitions for relief, which lay as usual on -the table; however, the Executive of the National Association of United -Trades assembled in my rooms in Abingdon Street, and we drew a little -Bill of nine lines in length to explain to the judges how they had failed -to explain the views of the legislator.... I introduced our friends to -the late Henry Drummond, Thomas Duncombe, and Joseph Hume, two -Radicals and an honest Tory, and, strange to say, they worked well -together when in pursuit of justice. After fighting hard against the -great Liberal Party for four or five years, we passed our little Bill (22 -Vic. c. 34), to the great joy of the working classes and chagrin of the -Manchester Radicals.” But the decision of the R. <i>v.</i> Druitt and -R. <i>v.</i> Bailey in 1867 showed that it did not serve to protect pickets from -prosecution.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_416" href="#FNanchor_416" class="label">[416]</a>Henry Crompton gives the following account of the practice of -picketing:—“Picketing is generally much misunderstood. It occurs in -a strike when war has begun. The struggle, of course, consists in the -employer trying to get fresh men, and the men on strike trying to prevent -this. They naturally do their best to induce all others to join them. -Very often the country is scoured by the employers, and men brought -long distances who never would have come if they had known there was -a strike. Men do not wish to undersell their fellows. A man is posted -as a picket, to give information of the grievances complained of, and to -urge the fresh comers not to defeat the strike that is going on.</p> - -<p>“Not only is this justifiable, but it is far better that this should be -legal and practised in full publicity than that it should be illegal and done -secretly, for, if done secretly, then bad practices are sure to arise. No -doubt it is done with a view to coerce the employers, just as the lock-out -is with a view to coerce the employed.</p> - -<p>“Picketing has other uses and effects. It enables those on strike to -know whether the employers are getting men, and what probability there -is of the strike being successful, to check any fraudulent claims for strike -pay. Besides this, the publicity which the system of picketing gives -does, doubtless, exercise a considerable influence upon men’s conduct. -Those on strike naturally regard any one acting contrary to the general -interests of the trade with disfavour, just as an unpatriotic man is condemned -by those imbued with a higher sense of national duty. Picketing -is justified on these grounds by the workmen, but all physical molestation -or intimidation is condemned. The workmen have never urged that -such proceedings should not be repressed by penal law.” (See <i>The Labour -Law Commission</i>, by Henry Crompton, adopted and published by the -Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_417" href="#FNanchor_417" class="label">[417]</a>Baron Bramwell’s view of the law excited much animadversion even -among lawyers. See Stephen’s <i>History of the Criminal Law</i>, vol. iii. -pp. 221-2. R. <i>v.</i> Druitt is reported in 10 Cox, 600.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_418" href="#FNanchor_418" class="label">[418]</a>R. <i>v.</i> Hewitt, 5 Cox, 162 (1851). Compare also the observations -of Mr. Justice Hannam as to the mere act of striking being in itself -sometimes criminal, in Farrer <i>v.</i> Close, 4 L.R.Q.B. 612 (1869).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_419" href="#FNanchor_419" class="label">[419]</a>R. <i>v.</i> Hewitt, 5 Cox, C.C. 163 (1851).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_420" href="#FNanchor_420" class="label">[420]</a>See Walsby <i>v.</i> Anley, 30 L.J.M.C. 121 (1861); Skinner <i>v.</i> Kitch, -10 Cox, 493 (1867); O’Neil <i>v.</i> Kruger, 4 Best and Smith, 389 (1863); -Wood <i>v.</i> Bowron, 2 Law Report, Q.B. 21 (1866); R. <i>v.</i> Rowlands, 5 Cox, -C.C. 493 (1851).</p> - -<p>Compare on the whole subject the Appendix to our <i>Industrial -Democracy</i>, 1897; <i>The Law of Criminal Conspiracies and Agreements</i>, by -R. S. (afterwards Mr. Justice) Wright (1873); Sir William Erle’s <i>Law -Relating to Trade Unions</i>(1873); and Stephen’s <i>History of the Criminal -Law</i>, vol. iii. chap. xxx.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_421" href="#FNanchor_421" class="label">[421]</a>Whilst the constant meetings of the Junta, the informal cabinet of -the movement, grew out of the great Amalgamated Societies, the Trades -Union Congress, or “Parliament of Labour,” took its rise in the Trades -Councils. We have already described the special Conference held in -London in 1864, on the Master and Servant Law, which was convened by -the Glasgow Trades Council, and its successor, summoned by the Sheffield -Trades Council in 1867 to concert measures of defence against lock-outs. -But the credit of initiating the idea of an Annual Conference to deal with -all subjects of interest to the Trade Union world belongs to the Manchester -and Salford Trades Council, who issued in April 1868 a circular (fortunately -preserved in the <i>Ironworkers’ Journal</i> for May 1868, and printed -at the end of this volume) convening a Congress to be held in Manchester -during Whit-week, 1868. This Congress was attended by thirty-four -delegates, who claimed to represent about 118,000 Trade Unionists. The -place of meeting of the next Congress was fixed at Birmingham, and the -delegates were in due course convened by the Birmingham Trades Council. -This second Congress, which met in August 1869, included forty-eight -delegates from forty separate societies, having, it was said, 250,000 members. -But although these general congresses were attended by some of -the most prominent of the provincial Trade Unionists, they were rather -frowned on by the London Junta. The thirty-four delegates at the Manchester -Congress included indeed hardly any Metropolitan delegates other -than George Potter. Half a dozen representatives from London societies -went to the Birmingham Congress, including Odger and George Howell, -but when a Parliamentary Committee was appointed Odger refused to -serve upon it, regarding it apparently as an unnecessary rival of the -Conference of Amalgamated Trades. The next Congress was appointed -for London in 1870, but the London leaders took no steps to convene it, -until it became necessary, as we have seen, to call up all forces to oppose -the projected legislation of 1871. The London Congress of March 1871 -was, in fact, the first in which the real leaders of the movement took -part, and the Parliamentary Committee which it appointed, acting at -first in conjunction with Applegarth’s Conference, naturally took the -place of this on its dissolution. The 1872 Congress at Nottingham was -attended by seventy-seven delegates, representing 375,000 members. -Reports of the earliest four congresses must be sought in the <i>Beehive</i> and -(as regards those of Manchester, Birmingham, and Nottingham) in the -contemporary local newspapers. From 1873 onward the Congress has -issued an authorised report of its proceedings. A useful chronological -record has now been published by W. J. Davis, entitled <i>A History of the -British Trades Union Congress</i>, vol. i. 1910; vol. ii. 1916.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_422" href="#FNanchor_422" class="label">[422]</a>34 and 35 Vic. c. 31 (Trade Union Act), and 34 and 35 Vic. c. 32 -(Criminal Law Amendment Act).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_423" href="#FNanchor_423" class="label">[423]</a>See, for instance, the article by Henry Crompton in the <i>Beehive</i>, -September 2, 1871.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_424" href="#FNanchor_424" class="label">[424]</a>The Operative Bricklayers’ Society (London), of which Coulson was -general secretary, stands No. 1 on the Register.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_425" href="#FNanchor_425" class="label">[425]</a><i>Digest of the Labour Laws</i>, signed by F. Harrison and H. Crompton, -and issued by the Trades Union Congress Parliamentary Committees, -September 1875.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_426" href="#FNanchor_426" class="label">[426]</a>They were, however, eventually released after a few months’ imprisonment; -see <i>Henry Broadhurst, the Story of His Life</i>, by himself, 1901, -pp. 59-64; <i>Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and Labour Leaders</i>, by -G. Howell, 1902, pp. 237-53.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_427" href="#FNanchor_427" class="label">[427]</a>See letter to <i>Beehive</i>, January 11, 1873.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_428" href="#FNanchor_428" class="label">[428]</a>Hansard, vol. 212, p. 1132, July 15, 1872.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_429" href="#FNanchor_429" class="label">[429]</a>This formed the subject of bitter comment in the <i>Beehive</i>, January -1874, just before the General Election.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_430" href="#FNanchor_430" class="label">[430]</a>The following letter, addressed to Odger by John Stuart Mill, will be -of interest in connection with the perennial question of the expediency of -“independent” candidatures. It will be found in the <i>Beehive</i> for February -13, 1875:—</p> - -<p> -“<span class="smcap">Avignon</span>, <i>February 19, 1871</i>. -</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Dear Mr. Odger</span>,—Although you have not been successful, I congratulate -you on the result of the polling in Southwark, as it proves that -you have the majority of the Liberal party with you, and that you have -called out an increased amount of political feeling in the borough. It is -plain that the Whigs intend to monopolise political power as long as they -can without coalescing in any degree with the Radicals. The working men -are quite right in allowing Tories to get into the House to defeat this -exclusive feeling of the Whigs, and may do it without sacrificing any principle. -The working men’s policy is to insist upon their own representation, -and in default of success to permit Tories to be sent into the House until the -Whig majority is seriously threatened, when, of course, the Whigs will be -happy to compromise, and allow a few working men representatives in the -House.</p> - -<p class="right"> -<span class="smcap">John Stuart Mill.</span>” -</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_431" href="#FNanchor_431" class="label">[431]</a><i>Beehive</i>, August 9, 1873; see also that of August 30.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_432" href="#FNanchor_432" class="label">[432]</a>Halliday, the Secretary of the Amalgamated Association of Miners, -offered himself as Labour candidate for Merthyr Tydvil. A fortnight -before the polling day he was indicted at Burnley for conspiracy in connection -with a local miners’ strike, but nevertheless went to the poll, receiving -the large total of 4912 votes (<i>Beehive</i>, January 31, 1874). Among the -other “third candidates” were Broadhurst (Wycombe), Howell (Aylesbury), -Cremer (Warwick), Lucraft (Finsbury), Potter (Peterborough), -Bradlaugh (Northampton), Kane (Middlesborough), Odger (Southwark), -Mottershead (Preston), and Walton (Stoke). See <i>History of Labour Representation</i>, -by A. W. Humphrey, 1912.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_433" href="#FNanchor_433" class="label">[433]</a>See House of Commons Returns, No. 237 of the 2nd, and No. 273 -of the 23rd of June 1875.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_434" href="#FNanchor_434" class="label">[434]</a>It is not surprising that this sweeping Parliamentary triumph evoked -great enthusiasm in the Trade Union ranks. At the Trade Union Congress -in October 1875, such ardent Radicals as Odger, Guile, and George Howell -joined in the warmest eulogies of J. K. (afterwards Viscount) Cross, whose -sympathetic attitude had surpassed their utmost hopes. “The best -friends they had in Parliament,” said Howell, “with one or two exceptions, -never declared for the repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. He, -with some friends, was under the gallery of the House of Commons when -the measure was under discussion, and they could scarcely believe their -ears when they heard Mr. Cross declare for the total repeal of the Act.” -And Odger paid testimony to the “immense singleness of purpose” with -which the Home Secretary “had attended to every proposition that had -been placed before him,” and accorded them “the greatest boon ever -given to the sons of toil.” An amendment deprecating such “fulsome -recognition of the action of the Conservative party” received only four -votes (Report of Glasgow Congress, 1875). Some minor amendments of -the law relating to the registration and friendly benefits of Trade Unions -were embodied in the Trade Union Act Amendment Act of 1876 (39 and 40 -Vic. c. 22). See the <i>Handybook of the Labour Laws</i>, by George Howell, -1876, and his <i>Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and Labour Leaders</i>, -1902, pp. 156-72.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_435" href="#FNanchor_435" class="label">[435]</a>Speech at Trades Union Congress, Glasgow, October 1875.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_436" href="#FNanchor_436" class="label">[436]</a>In his letter to a Blackburn millowner, November 3, 1860. <i>Public -Letters of John Bright</i>, collected and edited by H. J. Leech, 1885, p. 80.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_437" href="#FNanchor_437" class="label">[437]</a>Letter to Colonel Maude, quoted by Professor Beesly in his address -to the London Trades Council, 1869, reported in <i>Bricklayers’ Circular</i>, -March 1870.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_438" href="#FNanchor_438" class="label">[438]</a><i>Fortnightly Review</i>, July 1, 1869. “The Trades Union Bill,” by -Frederic Harrison.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_439" href="#FNanchor_439" class="label">[439]</a>William Crawford, the trusted leader of the Durham miners, and a -steadfast opponent of the Eight Hours Bill, in a well-known letter of later -date (of which we have had a copy), emphatically urges the complete -ostracism of non-society men. “You should at least be consistent. In -numberless cases you refuse to descend and ascend with non-Unionists. -The right or wrong of such action I will not now discuss; but what is the -actual state of things found in many parts of the country? While you -refuse to descend and ascend with these men, you walk to and from the pit, -walk in and out bye with them—nay, sometimes work with them. You -mingle with them at home over your glass of beer, in your chapels, and side -by side you pray with them in your prayer meeting. The time has come -when there must be plain speaking on this matter. It is no use playing at -shuttlecock in this important portion of our social life. Either mingle -with these men in the shaft, as you do in every other place, or let them -be ostracised at all times and in every place. Regard them as unfit -companions for yourselves and your sons, and unfit husbands for your -daughters. Let them be branded, as it were, with the curse of Cain, as -unfit to mingle in ordinary, honest, and respectable society. Until you -make up your minds to thus completely and absolutely ostracise these -goats of mankind, cease to complain as to any results that may arise -from their action.” Compare <i>A Great Labour Leader</i>[Thomas Burt], -by Aaron Watson, 1908.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_440" href="#FNanchor_440" class="label">[440]</a>See his letter on the Government Annuities Bill, 1864: “Lastly, we -are told of Government dictation and interference. I cannot believe men -of sense will say this twice seriously.... Leave it to the political economists -to complain.... Let working men remember that whenever a -measure in their interest is proposed to Parliament, or suggested in the -country—whether it be to limit excessive hours of labour, to protect -women and children, to regulate unhealthy labour, to provide them with -the means of health, cleanliness, or recreation, to save them from the -exactions of unscrupulous employers—it is universally met with opposition -from one quarter, that of unrestricted competition; and opposed on -one ground, that of absolute freedom of private enterprise. We all know—at -least, we all explain—how selfish and shallow this cry is in the mouth -of unscrupulous capitalists who resist the Truck System Bill or the Ten -Hours Bill. Is it not suicidal in working men to raise a cry which has -ever been, and still will be, the great resource of those who strive to set -obstacles to their welfare? The next time working men promote a Short -Time Bill of any kind they will be told to stick to their principle of non-interference -with private capital” (<i>Beehive</i>, March 19, 1864).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_441" href="#FNanchor_441" class="label">[441]</a>From 1861 to 1877 the principal working-class organ was the <i>Beehive</i>, -established by a group of Trade Unionists who formed a company in -which over a hundred Unions are said to have taken shares. The editor -and virtual proprietor during its whole life appears to have been George -Potter, who was assisted by a Consulting Committee, on which appeared, -at some time or another, the names of all the leading London Trade -Unionists. Potter, as we have already mentioned, was a man of equivocal -character and conduct, who at no time held any important position in -the Trade Union world, though his London Working Men’s Association -made a useful start of the movement for Trade Union representation in -the House of Commons. Under his editorship the <i>Beehive</i> became the -best Labour newspaper which has yet appeared. This was due to the -persistent support of Frederic Harrison, Henry Crompton, E. S. Beesly, -Lloyd Jones, and other friends of Trade Unionism who, for fifteen years, -contributed innumerable articles, whilst such Trade Union leaders as -Applegarth, Howell, and Shipton frequently appeared in its columns. -These contributions make it of the greatest possible value to the student -of Trade Union history. Unfortunately, the most complete file in any -public library—that in the British Museum—begins only in 1869. Mr. -John Burns possesses a unique set beginning in 1863, which he kindly -placed at our disposal. In 1877 it was converted into the <i>Industrial -Review</i>, which came to an end in 1879.</p> - -<p>The place of the <i>Beehive</i> was, in 1881, to some extent taken by the -<i>Labour Standard</i>, a penny weekly established by George Shipton, the -Secretary of the London Trades Council. It ran from May 7, 1881, to -April 29, 1882, and contained articles by Henry Crompton and Professor -E. S. Beesly, together with much Trade Union information.</p> - -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_299">[Pg 299]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI</h2> -</div> - -<p class="h2sub">SECTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS<br /> -[1863-1885]</p> - -<p>From 1851 to 1863 all the effective forces in the Trade Union -Movement were centred in London. Between 1863 and -1867, as we described in the course of the last chapter, -provincial organisations, such as the Glasgow and Sheffield -Trades Councils, and provincial leaders such as Alexander -Macdonald and John Kane, began to play an important -part in the general movement. The dramatic crisis of 1867, -and the subsequent political struggle, compelled us to break -off our description of the growth of the movement in order -to follow the Parliamentary action of the London leaders. -But whilst the Junta and their allies were winning their -great victories at Westminster, the centre of gravity of the -Trade Union world was being insensibly shifted from London -to the industrial districts north of the Humber. This was -primarily due to the rapid growth of two great provincial -organisations, the federations of Coal-miners and Cotton -Operatives.</p> - -<p>The Miners, now one of the most powerful contingents -of the Trade Union forces, were, until 1863, without any -effective organisation. The Miners’ Association of Great -Britain, which, as we have seen, sprang in 1841-43 into a -vigorous existence, collapsed in 1848. An energetic attempt -made by Martin Jude to re-establish a National Association -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_300">[Pg 300]</span> -in 1850, when a conference was held at Newcastle, was, in -consequence of the continued depression in the coal trade, -entirely unsuccessful. For the next few years “the fragments -of union that existed got less by degrees and more -minute till, at the close of 1855, it might be said that union -among the miners in the whole country had almost died -out.”<a id="FNanchor_442" href="#Footnote_442" class="fnanchor">[442]</a> The revival which took place between 1858 and -1863 was due, in the main, to the persistent work of the -able man who became for fifteen years their trusted leader.</p> - -<p>Alexander Macdonald, to whose lifelong devotion the -miners owe their present position in the Trade Union world, -stands, like William Newton, midway between the casual -and amateur leaders of the old Trade Unionism and the -paid officials of the new type. Himself originally a miner -and the son of a miner, the education and independent -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_301">[Pg 301]</span> -means which he had acquired enabled him, from 1857 -onwards, to apply himself continuously to the miners’ -cause. A florid style, and somewhat flashy personality, -did him no harm with the rough and uneducated workmen -whom he had to marshal. The main source of his effectiveness -lay, however, neither in his oratory nor in his powers -of organisation, but in his exact appreciation of the particular -changes that would remedy the miners’ grievances, -and in the tactical skill with which he embodied these -changes in legislative form. Like his friends, Allan and -Applegarth, he relied almost exclusively on Parliamentary -agitation as a means for securing his ends. But whilst the -Junta were contenting themselves with securing political -freedom for Trade Unionists, Macdonald from the first -persistently pressed for the legislative regulation of the -conditions of labour. And though, like his London allies, -he consorted largely with the middle-class friends of Trade -Unionism, and freely utilised their help in the House of -Commons, he proved his superior originality and tenacity -of mind by never in the slightest degree abandoning the -fundamental principle of Trade Unionism—the compulsory -maintenance of the workman’s Standard of Life.</p> - -<p>“It was in 1856,” said Macdonald on a later occasion, -“that I crossed the Border first to advocate a better Mines -Act, true weighing, the education of the young, the restriction -of the age till twelve years, the reduction of the working -hours to eight in every twenty-four, the training of managers, -the payment of wages weekly in the current coin of the realm, -no truck, and many other useful things too numerous to -mention here. Shortly after that, bone began to come to -bone, and by 1858 we were in full action for better laws.”<a id="FNanchor_443" href="#Footnote_443" class="fnanchor">[443]</a> -The pit clubs and informal committees that pressed these -demands upon the legislature became centres of local -organisation, with which Macdonald kept up an incessant -correspondence. An arbitrary lock-out of several thousand -men by the South Yorkshire coal-owners in 1858 welded -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_302">[Pg 302]</span> -the miners of that coalfield into a compact district association, -and enabled Macdonald, in the same year, to get -together a national conference at Ashton-under-Lyne, at -which, however, the delegates could claim to represent only -four thousand men in union. In 1860, when the Mines -Regulation Act was being passed into law, Macdonald was -able to score a success in the “checkweigher” clause, to -which we shall again refer. Not until the end of 1863, however, -can the Miners’ National Union be said to have been -effectively established; and the proceedings of the Leeds -Conference of that year strike the note of the policy which -Macdonald, to the day of his death, never ceased to press -upon the miners, and to which the great majority of them -have now, after a temporary digression, once more returned.</p> - -<p>The Miners’ Conference at Leeds was in many respects -a notable gathering. Instead of the formless interchange of -talk which had marked the previous conference, Macdonald -induced the fifty-one delegates who sat from the 9th to the -14th of November 1863 at the People’s Co-operative Hall -to organise their meeting on the model of the National Association -for the Promotion of Social Science, and divide -themselves into three sections, on Law, on Grievances, and -on Social Organisation, each of which reported to the whole -conference.<a id="FNanchor_444" href="#Footnote_444" class="fnanchor">[444]</a> The proceedings of the day were opened with -prayer by the “Chaplain to the Conference,” the Rev. -Joseph Rayner Stephens, celebrated as the opponent of -the New Poor Law and the advocate of factory legislation -and Chartism.<a id="FNanchor_445" href="#Footnote_445" class="fnanchor">[445]</a> In the reports of the sections and the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_303">[Pg 303]</span> -numerous resolutions of the conference we find all the points -of Macdonald’s programme. The paramount importance of -securing the Standard of Life by means of legislative regulation -of the conditions of work is embodied in a lengthy -series of proposals which have nearly all since been inserted -in the detailed code of mining law. In contradistinction -to the view which would make wages depend upon prices, -the principle of controlling industry in such a way as to -prevent encroachments on the workman’s standard maintenance -is clearly foreshadowed. “Overtoil,” says the -report, “produces over-supply; low prices and low wages -follow; bad habits and bad health follow, of course; and -then diminished production and profits are inevitable. Reduction -of toil, and consequent improved bodily health, -increases production in the sense of profit; and limits it -so as to avoid overstocking; better wages induce better -habits, and economy of working follows.... The evil of -overtoil and over-supply upon wages, and upon the labourer, -is therefore a fair subject of complaint; and, we submit, -as far as these are human by conventional arrangements, -are a fair and proper subject of regulation. Regulations -must, of course, be twofold. Part can be legislated for -by compulsory laws; but the principle (<i>sic</i>) must be -the subject of voluntary agreement.”<a id="FNanchor_446" href="#Footnote_446" class="fnanchor">[446]</a> The restriction of -labour in mines to a maximum of eight hours per day was -strongly urged; but at Macdonald’s instance it was astutely -resolved not to ask for a legal regulation of the hours of -adult men, but to confine the Parliamentary proposal to a -Bill for boys. And it is interesting to observe already at -this time the beginning of the deep cleavage between the -miners of Northumberland and Durham and their fellow-workers -elsewhere. The close connection between the legal -regulation of the hours of boys and the fixing of the men’s -day is brought out by William Crawford; the future leader -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_304">[Pg 304]</span> -of the Durham men. The general feeling of the conference -was in favour of a drastic legal prohibition of boys being -kept in the mine for more than eight hours, but Crawford -declared that “an eight hours bill could not be carried out -in his district. He wanted the boys to work ten hours a day, -and the men six hours.”<a id="FNanchor_447" href="#Footnote_447" class="fnanchor">[447]</a> He therefore proposed a legal Ten -Hours Day for the boys. The conference, however, declined -to depart from the principle of Eight Hours; and the Bill -drafted in this sense was eventually adopted without dissent.</p> - -<p>Another reform advocated by Macdonald has had far-reaching -though unforeseen effect upon the miners’ organisation. -The arbitrary confiscation of the miners’ pay for -any tubs or hutches which were declared to be improperly -filled had long been a source of extreme irritation. It -had become a regular practice of unscrupulous coal-owners -to condemn a considerable percentage of the men’s hutches, -and thus escape payment for part of the coal hewn. The -grievance was aggravated by the absolute dependence of -the miner, working underground, upon the honesty and -accuracy of the agent of the employer on the surface, who -recorded the amount of his work. A demand was accordingly -made by the men for permission to have their own -representative at the pit-bank, who should check the weight -to be paid for. During the year 1859 great contests took -place in South Yorkshire, in which, after embittered resistance, -the employers in several collieries conceded this boon. -A determined attempt was then made by the South Yorkshire -Miners’ Union, aided by Macdonald, to insert a clause -in the Mines Regulation Bill, making it compulsory to weigh -the coal, and to allow a representative of the men to check -the weight. A great Parliamentary fight took place on the -men’s amendment, with the result that the Act of 1860 -empowered the miners of each pit to appoint a checkweigher, -but confined their choice to persons actually in employment -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_305">[Pg 305]</span> -at the particular mine.<a id="FNanchor_448" href="#Footnote_448" class="fnanchor">[448]</a> This important victory was long -rendered nugatory by the evasions of the coal-owners. At -Barnsley, for instance, Normansell, appointed checkweigher, -was promptly dismissed from employment and refused -access to the pit’s mouth. When the employer was fined -for this breach of the law he appealed to the Queen’s Bench; -and it cost the Union two years of costly litigation to -enforce the reinstatement of the men’s agent.<a id="FNanchor_449" href="#Footnote_449" class="fnanchor">[449]</a> The next -twenty years are full of attempts by coal-owners to avoid -compliance with this law. Where the men could not be -persuaded or terrified into forgoing their right to appoint -a checkweigher, every device was used to hamper his work. -Sometimes he was excluded from close access to the weighing-machine. -In other pits the weights were fenced up so that -he could not clearly see them. His calculations were hotly -disputed, and his interference bitterly resented. The -Miners’ Unions, however, steadily fought their way to perfect -independence for the checkweigher. The Mines Regulation -Act of 1872 slightly strengthened his position. Finally -the Act of 1887, confirmed by that of 1911, made clear the -right of the men, by a decision of the majority of those -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_306">[Pg 306]</span> -employed in any pit, to have, at the expense of the whole -pit, a checkweigher with full power to keep an accurate -and independent record of each man’s work.</p> - -<p>It would be interesting to trace to what extent the -special characteristics of the miners’ organisations are due -to the influence of this one legislative reform. Its recognition -and promotion of collective action by the men has -been a direct incitement to combination. The compulsory -levy, upon the whole pit, of the cost of maintaining the -agent whom a bare majority could decide to appoint has -practically found, for each colliery, a branch secretary -free of expense to the Union. But the result upon the -character of the officials has been even more important. -The checkweigher has to be a man of character insensible -to the bullying or blandishments of manager or employers. -He must be of strictly regular habits, accurate and business-like -in mind, and quick at figures. The ranks of the checkweighers -serve thus as an admirable recruiting ground from -which a practically inexhaustible supply of efficient Trade -Union secretaries or labour representatives can be drawn.</p> - -<p>The Leeds Conference of 1863 was the first of a series -of yearly or half-yearly gatherings of miners’ delegates -which did much to consolidate their organisation. The -powerful aid brought by Macdonald to the movement for -the Master and Servant Act of 1867 has already been described. -But between 1864 and 1869 the almost uninterrupted -succession of strikes and lock-outs, in one county or -another, prevented the National Association from taking a -firm hold on the men in the less organised districts. In -1869 a rival federation, called the Amalgamated Association -of Miners, was formed by the men of some Lancashire pits, -to secure more systematic support of local strikes. This -split only increased the number of miners in union, which -in a few years reached the unprecedented total of two -hundred thousand.</p> - -<p>It is easy to understand how much this army of miners, -marshalled by an expert Parliamentary tactician, added to -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_307">[Pg 307]</span> -the political weight of the Trade Union leaders. Though -only partially enfranchised, their influence at the General -Election of 1868 was marked; and when, in 1871, the -Trades Union Congress appointed a Parliamentary Committee -Macdonald became its chairman. Next year he succeeded -in getting embodied in the new Mines Regulation Act many -of the minor amendments of the law for which he had been -pressing; and in 1874 he and his colleague, Thomas Burt, -became, as we have seen, the first working-men members of -the House of Commons.</p> - -<p>Not less important than the somewhat scattered hosts -of the Coal-miners was the compact body of the Lancashire -Cotton Operatives, who, from 1869 onward, began to be -reckoned as an integral part of the Trade Union world. -The Lancashire textile workers, who had, in the early part -of the century, played such a prominent part in the Trade -Union Movement, and whose energetic “Short Time Committees” -had, in 1847, obtained the Ten Hours Act, appear -to have fallen, during the subsequent years, into a state of -disorganisation and disunion. In 1853, it is true, the -present Amalgamated Association of Cotton-spinners was -established; but this federal Union was weakened, until -1869, by the abstention or lukewarmness of the local -organisations of such important districts as Oldham and -Bolton. The cotton-weavers were in a somewhat similar -condition. The Blackburn Association, established in 1853, -was gradually overshadowed by the North-East Lancashire -Association, a federation of the local weavers’ societies in the -smaller towns, established in 1858. This association, growing -out of a secession from the Blackburn organisation, had -for its special object the combined support of a skilled -calculator of prices, able to defend the operatives’ interests -in the constant discussions which arose upon the complicated -lists of piecework rates which characterise the -English cotton industry. -<a id="FNanchor_450" href="#Footnote_450" class="fnanchor">[450]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_308">[Pg 308]</span></p> - -<p>It is difficult to convey to the general reader any adequate -idea of the important effect which these elaborate “Lists” -have had upon the Trade Union Movement in Lancashire. -The universal satisfaction with, and even preference for, -the piecework system among the Lancashire cotton operatives -is entirely due to the existence of these definitely -fixed and published statements. An even more important -result has been the creation of a peculiar type of Trade -Union official. For although the lists are elaborately worked -out in detail—the Bolton Spinning List, for instance, comprising -eighty-five pages closely filled with figures<a id="FNanchor_451" href="#Footnote_451" class="fnanchor">[451]</a>—the -intricacy of the calculations is such as to be beyond the comprehension -not only of the ordinary operative or manufacturer, -but even of the investigating mathematician without -a very minute knowledge of the technical detail. Yet the -week’s earnings of every one of the tens of thousands of -operatives are computed by an exact and often a separate -calculation under these lists. And when an alteration of -the list is in question, the standard wage of a whole district -may depend upon the quickness and accuracy with which -the operatives’ negotiator apprehends the precise effect of -each projected change in any of the numerous factors in the -calculation. It will be obvious that for work of this nature -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_309">[Pg 309]</span> -the successful organiser or “born orator” was frequently -quite unfit. There grew up, therefore, both among the -weavers and the spinners, a system of selection of new secretaries -by competitive examination, which has gradually -been perfected as the examiners—that is, the existing -officials—have themselves become more skilled. The first -secretary to undergo this ordeal was Thomas Birtwistle,<a id="FNanchor_452" href="#Footnote_452" class="fnanchor">[452]</a> -who in 1861 began his thirty years’ honourable and successful -service of the Lancashire Weavers. Within a few years he -was reinforced by other officials selected for the same -characteristics. From 1871 onwards the counsels of the -Trade Union Movement were strengthened by the introduction -of “the cotton men,” a body of keen, astute, and -alert-minded officials—a combination, in the Trade Union -world, of the accountant and the lawyer.</p> - -<p>Under such guidance the Lancashire cotton operatives -achieved extraordinary success. Their first task was in all -districts to obtain and perfect the lists. The rate and -method of remuneration being in this way secured, their -energy was devoted to improving the other conditions of -their labour by means of appropriate legislation. Ever -since 1830 the Lancashire operatives, especially the spinners, -have strongly supported the legislative regulation of the -hours and other conditions of their industry. In 1867 a -delegate meeting of the Lancashire textile operatives, under -the presidency of the Rev. J. R. Stephens, had resolved -“to agitate for such a measure of legislative restriction as -shall secure a uniform Eight Hours Bill in factories, exclusive -of meal-times, for adults, females, and young persons, and -that such Eight Hours Bill have for its foundation a restriction -on the moving power.”<a id="FNanchor_453" href="#Footnote_453" class="fnanchor">[453]</a> On the improvement of trade -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_310">[Pg 310]</span> -and the revival of Trade Union strength in 1871-72 this policy -was again resorted to. The Oldham spinners tried, indeed, -in 1871, to secure a “Twelve-o’clock Saturday” by means -of a strike. But on the failure of this attempt the delegates -of the various local societies, both of spinners and -weavers—usually the officials of the trade—met together -and established, on the 7th of January 1872, the Factory -Acts Reform Association, for the purpose of obtaining -such an amendment of the law as would reduce the hours -of labour from sixty to fifty-four per week.</p> - -<p>The Parliamentary policy of these shrewd tacticians is -only another instance of the practical opportunism of the -English Trade Unionist. The cotton officials demurred in -1872 to an overt alliance with the Parliamentary Committee -of the Trades Union Congress, just then engaged in its heated -agitation for a repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. -“Some members of the Short Time Committee,” states, -without resentment, the Congress report, “thought that even -co-operation with the Congress Committee would be disastrous -rather than useful, ... as Lord Shaftesbury and -others declared they would not undertake a measure proposed -in the interest of the Trades Unions.”<a id="FNanchor_454" href="#Footnote_454" class="fnanchor">[454]</a> So far as -the public and the House of Commons were concerned, the -Bill was accordingly, as we are told, “based upon quite -other grounds.” Its provisions were ostensibly restricted, -like those of the Ten Hours Act, to women and children; -and to the support of Trade Union champions such as -Thomas Hughes and A. J. Mundella was added that of such -philanthropists as Lord Shaftesbury and Samuel Morley. -But it is scarcely necessary to say that it was not entirely, -or even exclusively, for the sake of the women and children -that the skilled leaders of the Lancashire cotton operatives -had diverted their “Short Time Movement” from aggressive -strikes to Parliamentary agitation. The private minutes -of the Factory Acts Reform Association contain no mention -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_311">[Pg 311]</span> -of the woes of the women and the children, but reflect -throughout the demand of the adult male spinners for a -shorter day. And in the circular “to the factory operatives,” -calling the original meeting of the association, we -find the spinners’ secretary combating the fallacy that -“any legislative interference with male adult labour is an -economic error,” and demanding “a legislative enactment -largely curtailing the hours of factory labour,” in order -that his constituents, who were exclusively adult males, -might enjoy “the nine hours per day, or fifty-four hours -per week, so liberally conceded to other branches of workmen.”<a id="FNanchor_455" href="#Footnote_455" class="fnanchor">[455]</a> -It was, however, neither necessary nor expedient -to take this line in public. The experience of a generation -had taught the Lancashire operatives that any effective -limitation of the factory day for women and children could -not fail to bring with it an equivalent shortening of the -hours of the men who worked with them. And in the -state of mind, in 1872, of the House of Commons, and even -of the workmen in other trades, it would have proved as -impossible as it did in 1847 to secure an avowed restriction -of the hours of male adults.</p> - -<p>The Short Time Bill was therefore so drafted as to apply -in express terms only to women and children, whose sufferings -under a ten hours day were made much of on the -platform and in the press. The battle, in fact, was, as one -of the leading combatants has declared,<a id="FNanchor_456" href="#Footnote_456" class="fnanchor">[456]</a>“fought from -behind the women’s petticoats.” But it was a part of the -irony of the situation that, as Broadhurst subsequently -pointed out,<a id="FNanchor_457" href="#Footnote_457" class="fnanchor">[457]</a> the Bill “encountered great opposition from -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_312">[Pg 312]</span> -the female organisations”; and it was, in fact, expressly -in the interests of working women that Professor Fawcett, -in the session of 1873, moved the rejection of the measure.<a id="FNanchor_458" href="#Footnote_458" class="fnanchor">[458]</a> -Even as limited to women and children the proposal encountered -a fierce resistance from the factory owners and -the capitalists of all industries. The opinion of the House -of Commons was averse from any further restriction upon -the employers’ freedom. The Ministry of the day lent it no -assistance. The Bill, introduced in 1872, and again in -1873, made no progress. At length, in 1873, the Government -shelved the question by appointing a Royal Commission -to inquire into the working of the Factory Acts. But a -General Election was now drawing near; and “a Factory -Nine Hours Bill for Women and Children” was incorporated -in the Parliamentary programme pressed upon candidates -by the whole Trade Union world. -<a id="FNanchor_459" href="#Footnote_459" class="fnanchor">[459]</a></p> - -<p>We have already pointed out what an attentive ear the -Conservative party was at this time giving to the Trade -Union demands. It is therefore not surprising that when -Mundella, in the new Parliament, once more introduced his -Bill, the Home Secretary, Mr. (afterwards Viscount) Cross, -announced that the Government would bring forward a -measure of their own. The fact that the Government draft -was euphemistically entitled the “Factories (Health of -Women, etc.) Bill” did not conciliate the opponents of the -shorter factory day which it ensured; but, to the great -satisfaction of the spinners, this opposition was unsuccessful; -and, if not a nine hours day, at any rate a 56½ hours -week became law. This short and successful Parliamentary -campaign brought the cotton operatives into closer contact -with the London leaders; and from 1875 the Lancashire -representatives exercised an important influence in the -Trades Union Congress and its Parliamentary Committee. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_313">[Pg 313]</span> -Henceforth detailed amendments of the Factory Acts, and -increased efficiency in their administration, become almost -standing items in the official Trade Union programme.</p> - -<p>An interesting parallelism might be traced between the -cotton operatives on the one hand and the coal-miners on -the other. To outward seeming no two occupations could -be more unlike. Yet without community of interest, without -official intercourse, and without any traceable imitation, -the organisations of the two trades show striking resemblances -to each other in history, in structural development, -and in characteristics of policy, method, and aims. Many -of these similarities may arise from the remarkable local -aggregation in particular districts, which is common to both -industries. From this local aggregation spring, perhaps, -the possibilities of a strong federation existing without -centralised funds, and of a permanent trade society enduring -without friendly benefits. A further similarity may -be seen in the creation, in each case, of a special class of -Trade Union officials, far more numerous in proportion to -membership than is usual in the engineering or building -trades. But the most noticeable, and perhaps the most -important, of these resemblances is the constancy with -which both the miners and the cotton operatives have -adhered to the legislative protection of the Standard of -Life as a leading principle of their Trade Unionism.</p> - -<p>Whilst these important divisions of the Trade Union -army were aiming at legislative protection, victories in -another field were bringing whole sections of Trade Unionists -to a different conclusion. The successful Nine Hours Movement -of 1871-72—the reduction, by collective bargaining, of -the hours of labour in the engineering and building trades—rivalled -the legislative triumphs of the miners and the -cotton operatives.</p> - -<p>Since the great strikes in the London building trades in -1859-61, the movement in favour of a reduction of the -hours of labour had been dragging on in various parts of -the country. The masons, carpenters, and other building -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_314">[Pg 314]</span> -operatives had in many towns, and after more or less conflict, -secured what was termed the Nine Hours Day. In -1866 an agitation arose among the engineers of Tyneside for -a similar concession; but the sudden depression of trade -put an end to the project. In 1870, when the subject was -discussed at the Newcastle “Central District Committee” -of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, the spirit of -caution prevailed, and no action was taken. Suddenly, at -the beginning of 1871, the Sunderland men took the matter -up, and came out on strike on the 1st of April. After -four weeks’ struggle, almost before the engineers elsewhere -had realised that there was any chance of success, the local -employers gave way, and the Nine Hours Day was won.</p> - -<p>It was evident that the Sunderland movement was -destined to spread to the other engineering centres in the -neighbourhood; and the master engineers of the entire -North-Eastern District promptly assembled at Newcastle -on April 8 to concert a united resistance to the men’s -demands. The operatives had first to form their organisation. -Though Newcastle has since become one of the -best centres of Trade Unionism, the Amalgamated Society -of Engineers could, in 1871, count only five or six hundred -members in the town; the Boilermakers, Steam-Engine -Makers, and Ironfounders were also weak, and probably -two out of three of the men in the engineering trade belonged -to no Union whatsoever. A “Nine Hours League,” -embracing Unionists and non-Unionists alike, was accordingly -formed for the special purpose of the agitation; and -this body was fortunate enough to elect as its President -John Burnett,<a id="FNanchor_460" href="#Footnote_460" class="fnanchor">[460]</a> a leading member of the local branch of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_315">[Pg 315]</span> -the Amalgamated Society, afterwards to become widely -known as the General Secretary of that great organisation. -The “Nine Hours League” became, in fact though not in -name, a temporary Trade Union, its committee conducting -all the negotiations on the men’s behalf, appealing to the -Trade Union world for funds for their support, and managing -all the details of the conflict that ensued. -<a id="FNanchor_461" href="#Footnote_461" class="fnanchor">[461]</a></p> - -<p>The five months’ strike which led up to a signal victory -for the men was, in more than one respect, a notable event -in Trade Union annals. The success with which several -thousands of unorganised workmen, unprovided with any -accumulated funds, were marshalled and disciplined, and -the ability displayed in the whole management of the dispute, -made the name of their leader celebrated throughout -the world of labour. The tactical skill and literary force -with which the men’s case was presented achieved the -unprecedented result of securing for their demands the -support of the <i>Times</i><a id="FNanchor_462" href="#Footnote_462" class="fnanchor">[462]</a> and the <i>Spectator</i>. Money was -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_316">[Pg 316]</span> -subscribed slowly at first, but after three months poured -in from all sides. Joseph Cowen, of the <i>Newcastle Daily -Chronicle</i>, was from the first an ardent supporter of the -men, and assisted them in many ways. The employers in -all parts of the kingdom took alarm; and a kind of levy -of a shilling for each man employed was made upon the -engineering firms in aid of the heavy expenses of the Newcastle -masters. In spite of the active exertions of the -“International,” several hundred foreign workmen were -imported; but many of these were subsequently induced -to desert.<a id="FNanchor_463" href="#Footnote_463" class="fnanchor">[463]</a> Finally the employers conceded the principal -of the men’s demands; and fifty-four hours became the -locally recognised week’s time in all the engineering trades.</p> - -<p>This widely advertised success, coming at a time of -expanding trade, greatly promoted the movement for the -Nine Hours Day. From one end of the kingdom to the -other, every little Trade Union branch discussed the expediency -of sending in notices to the employers. The -engineering trades in London, Manchester, and other great -centres induced their employers to grant their demands -without a strike. The great army of workmen engaged in -the shipbuilding yards on the Clyde even bettered this -example, securing a fifty-one hours week. The building -operatives quickly followed suit. Demands for a diminution -of the working day, with an increased rate of pay per -hour, were handed in by local officials of the Carpenters, -Masons, Bricklayers, Plumbers, and other organisations. -In many cases non-society men took the lead in the movement; -but it was soon found that the immediate success of -the applications depended on the estimate formed by the -employers of the men’s financial resources, and their capacity -to withhold their labour for a time sufficient to cause embarrassment -to business. Wherever the employers were -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_317">[Pg 317]</span> -assured of this fact, they usually gave way without a conflict. -The successes accordingly did much to create, in -the industries in question, a preference for combination -and collective bargaining as a means of improving the -conditions of labour. The prevalence of systematic overtime, -which has since proved so formidable a deduction -from the advantages gained by the Nine Hours Movement, -was either overlooked by sanguine officials, or covertly -welcomed by individual workmen as affording opportunities -for working at a higher rate of remuneration.<a id="FNanchor_464" href="#Footnote_464" class="fnanchor">[464]</a> On the other -hand, it was a patent fact that the mechanic employed in -attending to the machinery of a textile mill was the only -member of his trade who was excluded from participation -in the shortening of hours enjoyed by his fellow-tradesmen; -and that his failure to secure a shorter day was an incidental -consequence of the existence of legislative restrictions. -Thus, at the very time that the textile operatives -and coal-miners were, as we have seen, exhibiting a marked -tendency to look more and more to Parliamentary action -for the protection of the Standard of Life, the facts, as they -presented themselves to the Amalgamated Engineer or -Carpenter, were leading the members of these trades to a -diametrically opposite conclusion.</p> - -<p>But though faith in trade combinations and collective -bargaining was strengthened by the success of the Nine -Hours Movement, the victories of the men did not increase -the prestige of the two great Amalgamated Societies. The -growing adhesion of the Junta to the economic views of -their middle-class friends was marked by the silent abandonment -by Allan, Applegarth, and Guile of all leadership -in trade matters. Already in 1865 we find the Executive -Council of the Amalgamated Engineers explaining that, -although they sympathised with advance movements, they -felt unable to either support them by grants or to advise -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_318">[Pg 318]</span> -their members to vote a special levy.<a id="FNanchor_465" href="#Footnote_465" class="fnanchor">[465]</a> The “backwardness -of the Council of the Engineers” constantly provoked angry -criticism. The chief obstacles to advancement were declared -to be Danter, the President of the Council, and the -General Secretary, whose minds had been narrowed “by -the routine of years of service within certain limits.... -Never, since it effected amalgamation, has the Society -solved one social problem; nor has it now an idea of future -progress. Its money is unprofitably and injudiciously invested—even -with a miser’s care—while its councils are -marked with all the chilly apathy of a worn-out mission.”<a id="FNanchor_466" href="#Footnote_466" class="fnanchor">[466]</a> -What proved to be the greatest trade movement since 1852 -was undertaken in spite of the official disapproval of the -governing body, and was carried to a successful issue -without the provision from headquarters of any leadership -or control. Though the Nine Hours Strike actually began -in Sunderland on April 1, 1871, the London Executive -remained silent on the subject until July. Towards the -end of that month, when the Newcastle men had been out -for seven weeks, a circular was issued inviting the branches -to collect voluntary subscriptions for their struggling -brethren. Ultimately, in September, the “Contingent -Fund,” out of which strike pay is given, was re-established -by vote of the branches; and the strike allowance of -5s. per week, over and above the ordinary out-of-work pay, -was issued, after fourteen weeks’ struggle, to the small -minority of the men on strike who were members of the -Society. An emissary was sent to the Continent, at the -Society’s expense, to defeat the employers’ attempt to bring -over foreign engineers; but with this exception all the -expenses of the struggle were defrayed from the subscriptions -collected by the Nine Hours League.<a id="FNanchor_467" href="#Footnote_467" class="fnanchor">[467]</a> And if we turn -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_319">[Pg 319]</span> -for a moment from the Amalgamated Society of Engineers -to the other great trade and friendly societies of the time, -it is easy, in the minutes of their Executive Councils and -the proceedings of their branches, to watch the same tendency -at work. Whether it is the Masons or the Tailors, -the Ironfounders or the Carpenters, we see the same abandonment -by the Central Executive of any dominant principle -of trade policy, the same absence of initiative in trade -movements, and the same more or less persistent struggle -to check the trade activity of its branches. In the Amalgamated -Society of Carpenters, for example, we find, during -these years, no attempt by headquarters to “level up” the -wages of low-paid districts, or to grapple with the problems -of overtime or piecework. We watch, on the contrary, -the branches defending themselves before the Executive -for their little spurts of local activity, and pleading, in -order to wring from a reluctant treasury the concession -of strike pay, that they have been dragged into the -“Advance Movement” by the more aggressive policy of -the “General Union” (the rival trade society of the old -type), or by irresponsible “strike-committees” of non-society -men.</p> - -<p>Time and growth were, in fact, revealing the drawbacks -of the constitution with which Newton and Allan had -endowed their cherished amalgamation, and which had -been so extensively copied by other trades. The difficulties -arising from the attempt to unite, in one organisation, -men working in the numerous distinct branches of -the engineering trade, demanded constant thought and -attention. The rapid changes in the industry, especially -in connection with the growing use of new machinery, -needed to be met by a well-considered flexibility, dictated -by full knowledge of the facts, and some largeness of view. -To maintain a harmonious yet progressive trade policy in -all the hundreds of branches would, of itself, have taxed -the skill of a body of experts free from other preoccupations. -All these duties were, however, cast upon a single -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_320">[Pg 320]</span> -salaried officer,<a id="FNanchor_468" href="#Footnote_468" class="fnanchor">[468]</a> working under a committee of artisans -who met in the evening after an exhausting day of physical -toil.</p> - -<p>The result might have been foreseen. The rapid growth -of the society brought with it a huge volume of detailed -business. Every grant of accident benefit or superannuation -allowance was made by the Executive Council. Every -week this body had to decide on scores of separate applications -for gifts from the Benevolent Fund. Every time -any of the tens of thousands of members failed to get what -he wanted from his branch, he appealed to the Executive -Council. Every month an extensive trade report had to -be issued. Every quarter the branch accounts had to be -examined, dissected, and embodied in an elaborate summary, -itself absorbing no small amount of labour and -thought. The hundreds of branch secretaries and treasurers -had to be constantly supervised, checked by special audits, -and perpetually admonished for negligent or accidental -breaches of the complicated code by which the Society was -governed. The Executive Council became, in fact, absorbed -in purely “treasury” work, and spent a large part of its -time in protecting the funds of the Society from extravagance, -laxity of administration, or misappropriation. The -quantity of routine soon became enormous; and the whole -attention of the General Secretary was given to coping with -the mass of details which poured in upon him by every -post.</p> - -<p>This huge friendly society business brought with it, too, -its special bias. Allan grew more and more devoted to -the accumulating fund, which was alike the guarantee and -the symbol of the success of his organisation. Nothing -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_321">[Pg 321]</span> -was important enough to warrant any inroad on this sacred -balance. The Engineers’ Central Executive, indeed, practically -laid aside the weapon of the strike. “We believe,” -said Allan before the Royal Commission in 1867, “that -all strikes are a complete waste of money, not only in relation -to the workmen, but also to the employers.”<a id="FNanchor_469" href="#Footnote_469" class="fnanchor">[469]</a> The “Contingent -Fund,” out of which alone strike pay could be given, -was between 1860 and 1872 repeatedly abolished by vote -of the members, re-established for a short time, and again -abolished. Trade Unionists who remembered the old conflicts -viewed with surprise and alarm the spirit which had -come over the once active organisation. Even the experienced -Dunning, whose moderation had, as we have suggested, -dictated the first manifesto in which the new spirit can be -traced, was moved to denunciation of Allan’s apathy. “As -a Trade Union,” he writes in 1866, “the once powerful -Amalgamated Society of Engineers is now as incapable to -engage in a strike as the Hearts of Oak, the Foresters, or any -other extensive benefit society.... It formerly combined -both functions, but now it possesses only one, that of a benefit -society, with relief for members when out of work or travelling -for employment superadded.... The Amalgamated -Engineers, as a trade society, has ceased to exist.” -<a id="FNanchor_470" href="#Footnote_470" class="fnanchor">[470]</a></p> - -<p>It would be a mistake to assume that the inertia and -supineness of the “Amalgamated” Societies was a necessary -result of their accumulated funds or their friendly -benefits. The remarkable energy and success of the United -Society of Boilermakers and Iron-shipbuilders, established -in 1832, and between 1865 and 1875 rapidly increasing -in membership and funds, shows that elaborate friendly -benefits are not inconsistent with a strong and consistent -trade policy. This quite exceptional success is, we believe, -due to the fact that the Boilermakers provided an adequate -salaried staff to attend to their trade affairs. The “district -delegates” who were, between 1873 and 1889, appointed -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_322">[Pg 322]</span> -for every important district, are absolutely unconcerned with -the administration of friendly benefits, and devote themselves -exclusively to the work of Collective Bargaining. -Unlike the General Secretaries of the Engineers, Carpenters, -Stonemasons, or Ironfounders, who had but one salaried -assistant, Robert Knight, the able secretary of the Boilermakers -had under his orders an expert professional staff, -and was accordingly able, not only to keep both employers -and unruly members in check, but also successfully to adapt -the Union policy to the changing conditions of the industry. -In short, it was not the presence of friendly benefits, but the -absence of any such class of professional organisers as exists -in the organisations of the Coal-miners, Cotton Operatives, -and Boilermakers, that created the deadlock in the administration -of the great trade friendly societies. -<a id="FNanchor_471" href="#Footnote_471" class="fnanchor">[471]</a></p> - -<p>The direct result of this abnegation of trade leadership -was a complete arrest of the tendency to amalgamation, -and, in some cases, even a breaking away of sections already -within the organisation. The various independent societies, -such as the Boilermakers, Steam-Engine Makers, and the Co-operative -Smiths, gave up all idea of joining their larger rival. -In 1872 the Patternmakers, who had long been discontented -at the neglect of their special trade interests, formed an -organisation of their own, which has since competed with -the Amalgamated for the allegiance of this exceptionally -skilled class of engineers. Nor was Allan at all eager to -make his organisation co-extensive with the whole engineering -industry. The dominant idea of the early years of the -amalgamation—the protection of those who had, by regular -apprenticeship, acquired “a right to the trade”—excluded -many men actually working at one branch or another, -whilst the friendly society bias against unprofitable recruits -co-operated to restrict the membership to such sections of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_323">[Pg 323]</span> -the engineering industry, and such members of each section, -as could earn a minimum time wage fixed for each locality -by the District Committee.</p> - -<p>This exclusiveness necessarily led to the development -of other societies, which accepted those workmen who were -not eligible for the larger organisation. The little local clubs -of Machine-workers and Metal-planers expanded between -1867 and 1872 into national organisations, and began to claim -consideration at the hands of the better paid engineers, -on whose heels they were treading. New societies, such -as those of the National Society of Amalgamated Brass-workers, -the Independent Order of Engineers and Machinists, -and the Amalgamated Society of Kitchen Range, Stove -Grate, Gas Stoves, Hot Water, Art Metal, and other Smiths -and Fitters, sprang into existence during 1872, in avowed -protest against the “aristocratic” rule of excluding all -workmen who were not receiving a high standard rate. -The Associated Blacksmiths of Scotland, which had been -formed in 1857 out of a class of smiths which was, at the -time, unrecognised in the rules of the Amalgamated, now -began steadily to increase in membership. Finally, during -the decade various local societies were refused the privilege -of amalgamation on the ground that either they included -sections of the trade not recognised by the rules, or that -the average age of their constituents was such as to make -them unprofitable members of a society giving heavy superannuation -benefit. To the tendency to create an “aristocracy -of labour” was added, therefore, the fastidiousness of -an insurance company.</p> - -<p>Many causes were thus co-operating to shift the centre -of Trade Union influence from London to the provinces. -The great trade friendly societies of Engineers, Carpenters, -and Ironfounders were losing that lead in Trade Union -matters which the political activity of the Junta had acquired -for them. The Junta itself was breaking up. Applegarth, -in many respects the leader of the group, resigned his -secretaryship in 1871, and left the Trade Union Movement. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_324">[Pg 324]</span> -Odger, who lived until 1877, was from 1870 onwards devoting -himself more and more to general politics. Allan, long -suffering from an incurable disease, died in 1874. Meanwhile -provincial Trade Unionism was growing apace. The -Amalgamated Society of Engineers, so long pre-eminent in -numbers, began to be overshadowed by the federations of -Coal-miners and Cotton Operatives. Even in the iron trades -it found rivals in the rapidly growing organisations of -Boilermakers (Iron-shipbuilders), whose headquarters were -at Newcastle, and the Ironworkers centred at Darlington, -whilst minor engineering societies were cropping up in all -directions in the northern counties. The tendency to -abandon London was further shown by the decision of the -Amalgamated Society of Carpenters in 1871 to remove their -head office to Manchester, a change which had the incidental -effect of depriving the London leaders of the counsels of -Applegarth’s successor, J. D. Prior, one of the ablest disciples -of the Junta.</p> - -<p>But although London was losing its hold on the Trade -Union Movement, no other town inherited the leadership. -Manchester, it is true, attracted to itself the headquarters -of many national societies, and contained in these years -perhaps the strongest group of Trade Union officials.<a id="FNanchor_472" href="#Footnote_472" class="fnanchor">[472]</a> But -there was no such concentration of all the effective forces -as had formerly resulted in the Junta. Though Manchester -might have furnished the nucleus of a Trade Union Cabinet, -Alexander Macdonald was to be found either in Glasgow or -London, Robert Knight at Liverpool and afterwards in -Newcastle, John Kane at Darlington, the miners’ agents all -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_325">[Pg 325]</span> -over the country, whilst Henry Broadhurst (who in 1875 -succeeded George Howell as the Secretary of the Parliamentary -Committee), John Burnett, the General Secretary -of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and George -Shipton, the Secretary of the London Trades Council, -naturally remained in the Metropolis. The result of the -shifting from London was, accordingly, not the establishment -elsewhere of any new executive centre of the Trade -Union Movement, but the rise of a sectional spirit, the -promotion of sectional interests, and the elaboration of -sectional policies on the part of the different trades.</p> - -<p>We have attempted in some detail to describe the internal -growth of the Trade Union Movement between 1867 and -1875, in order to enable the reader to understand the disheartening -collapse which ensued in 1878-79, and the subsequent -splitting up of the Trade Union world into the hostile -camps once more designated the Old Unionists and the -New. But all the unsatisfactory features of 1871-75 were, -during these years, submerged by a wave of extraordinary -commercial prosperity and Trade Union expansion. The -series of Parliamentary successes of 1871-75 produced, as -we have seen, a feeling of triumphant elation among the -Trade Union leaders. To the little knot of working men -who had conducted the struggle for emancipation and -recognition, the progress of these years seemed almost -beyond belief. In 1867 the officials of the Unions were -regarded as pothouse agitators, “unscrupulous men, leading -a half idle life, fattening on the contributions of their dupes,” -and maintaining, by violence and murder, a system of -terrorism which was destructive, not only of the industry -of the nation, but also of the prosperity and independence -of character of the unfortunate working men who were -their victims. The Unionist workman, tramping with his -card in search of employment, was regarded by the constable -and the magistrate as something between a criminal vagrant -and a revolutionist. In 1875 the officials of the great -societies found themselves elected to the local School Boards, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_326">[Pg 326]</span> -and even to the House of Commons, pressed by the Government -to accept seats on Royal Commissions, and respectfully -listened to in the lobby. And these political results -were but the signs of an extraordinary expansion of the -Trade Union Movement itself. “The year just closed,” -says the report of the Parliamentary Committee in January -1874, “has been unparalleled for the rapid growth and -development of Trade Unionism. In almost every trade -this appears to have been the same; but it is especially -remarkable in those branches of industry which have hitherto -been but badly organised.” Exact numerical details cannot -now be ascertained; but the Trades Union Congress of -1872 claimed to represent only 375,000 organised workmen, -whilst that of 1874 included delegates from nearly three -times as many societies, representing a nominal total of -1,191,922 members.<a id="FNanchor_473" href="#Footnote_473" class="fnanchor">[473]</a> It is possible that between 1871 and -1875 the number of Trade Unionists was more than doubled.</p> - -<p>We see this progress reflected in the minds of the employers. -At the end of 1873 we find the newly established -National Federation of Associated Employers of Labour -declaring that “the voluntary and intermittent efforts of -individual employers,” or even employers’ associations confined -to a single trade or locality, are helpless against -“the extraordinary development—far-reaching, but openly-avowed -designs—and elaborate organisation of the Trade -Unions.” “Few are aware,” continues this manifesto, “of -the extent, compactness of organisation, large resources, and -great influence of the Trade Unions.... They have the -control of enormous funds, which they expend freely in -furtherance of their objects; and the proportion of their -earnings which the operatives devote to the service of their -leaders is startling.... They have a well-paid and ample -staff of leaders, most of them experienced in the conduct of -strikes, many of them skilful as organisers, all forming a class -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_327">[Pg 327]</span> -apart, a profession, with interests distinct from, though not -necessarily antagonistic to, those of the workpeople they -lead, but from their very <i>raison d’être</i> hostile to those of the -employers and the rest of the community.... They have, -through their command of money, the imposing aspect of -their organisation, and partly, also, from the mistaken -humanitarian aspirations of a certain number of literary -men of good standing, a large army of literary talent which -is <i>prompt</i> in their service on all occasions of controversy. -They have their own press as a field for these exertions. -Their writers have free access to some of the leading London -journals. They organise frequent public meetings, at which -paid speakers inoculate the working classes with their ideas, -and urge them to dictate terms to candidates for Parliament. -Thus they exercise a pressure upon members of Parliament, -and those aspirant to that honour, out of all proportion to -their real power, and beyond belief except to those who -have had the opportunity of witnessing its effects. They -have a standing Parliamentary Committee, and a programme; -and active members of Parliament are energetic -in their service. They have the attentive ear of the Ministry -of the day; and their communications are received with -instant and respectful attention. They have a large representation -of their own body in London whenever Parliament -is likely to be engaged in the discussion of the proposals -they have caused to be brought before it. Thus, untrammelled -by pecuniary considerations, and specially set apart -for this peculiar work, without other clashing occupations, -they resemble the staff of a well-organised, well-provisioned -army, for which everything that foresight and preoccupation -in a given purpose could provide, is at command.”<a id="FNanchor_474" href="#Footnote_474" class="fnanchor">[474]</a> It is -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_328">[Pg 328]</span> -not surprising that the Parliamentary Committee of the -Trades Union Congress, composed, as it was, of the “staff -of leaders” referred to, should have had this involuntary -tribute to their efficiency reprinted and widely circulated -among their constituents.</p> - -<p>The student will form a more qualified estimate of the -position in 1873-75 than either the elated Trade Unionists -or the alarmed employers. In the first place, great as was -the numerical expansion of these years, the reader of the -preceding chapters will know that it was not without parallel. -The outburst of Trade Unionism between 1830 and 1834 -was, so far as we can estimate, even greater than that -between 1871 and 1875, whilst it was far more rapid in its -development. There were, during the nineteenth century, -three high tides in the Trade Union history of our country, -1833-34, 1872-74, and 1889-90. In the absence of complete -and trustworthy statistics it is difficult to say at which of -these dates the sweeping in of members was greatest. But it -is easy to discern that the expansion of 1873-74 was marked -by features which were both like and unlike those of its -predecessor.</p> - -<p>Like the outburst of 1833-34, the marked extension of -Trade Unionism in 1872 reached even the agricultural -labourers. For more than thirty years since the transportation -of the Dorchester labourers good times and bad had -passed over their heads without resulting in any combined -effort to improve their condition. There seems to have -been a short-lived combination in Scotland in 1865. We -hear of an impulsive strike of some Buckinghamshire -labourers in 1867, which spread into Hertfordshire. A -more effective Union was formed in Herefordshire in 1871, -which pursued a quiet policy of emigration, and enrolled -30,000 subscribers in half a dozen counties. But a more -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_329">[Pg 329]</span> -energetic movement now arose. On February 7, 1872, -the labourers of certain parishes of Warwickshire met at -Wellesbourne to discuss their grievances. At a second -meeting, a little later, Joseph Arch, a labourer of Barford, -who owned a freehold cottage, and had become known -as a Primitive Methodist preacher, made a speech -which bore fruit. On the 11th of March two hundred men -resolved to strike for higher wages, namely, 16s. per week -for a working day from 6 <span class="allsmcap">A.M.</span> to 5 <span class="allsmcap">P.M.</span> Unlike most -strikes this one attracted from the first the favourable -notice of the press.<a id="FNanchor_475" href="#Footnote_475" class="fnanchor">[475]</a> Publicity brought immediate funds -and sympathisers. On the 29th of March the inaugural -meeting of the Warwickshire Agricultural Labourers’ -Union was held at Leamington, under the presidency -of the Hon. Auberon Herbert, M.P., a donation of one -hundred pounds being handed in by a rich friend. Through -the eloquence, the revivalist fervour, and the untiring energy -of Joseph Arch, the movement spread like wildfire among -the rural labourers of the central and eastern counties. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_330">[Pg 330]</span> -The mania for combination which came over the country -population during the next few months recalls, indeed, the -mushroom growth of the Grand National Consolidated -Trades Union of forty years before. Within two months -delegates from twenty-six counties met to transform the -local society into a National Agricultural Labourers’ Union, -organised in district Unions all over the country, with a -central committee at Leamington, which, by the end of -the year, boasted of a membership of nearly a hundred -thousand. -<a id="FNanchor_476" href="#Footnote_476" class="fnanchor">[476]</a></p> - -<p>The organised Trade Unions rallied promptly to the -support of the labourers, and contributed largely to their -funds. The farmers met the men’s demand by a widespread -lock-out of Unionist labourers, which called forth -the support of Trades Councils and individual societies all -over the country.<a id="FNanchor_477" href="#Footnote_477" class="fnanchor">[477]</a> George Howell, then Secretary of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_331">[Pg 331]</span> -Parliamentary Committee, George Shipton, the Secretary -of the newly revived London Trades Council, and many -other leaders, gave up their nights and days to perfecting -the labourers’ organisations. The skilled trades, indeed, -furnished many of the officials of the new Union. Joseph -Arch found for his headquarters an able general secretary -in Henry Taylor, a carpenter, whilst the Kentish labourers, -organised in the separate Kent Union, enjoyed the services -of a compositor. This help, together with the funds and -countenance of influential philanthropists, made the outburst -less transient than that of 1833-34. In many villages -the mere formation of a branch led to an instantaneous rise -of wages. But, as in 1833-34, the audacity of the field -labourer in imitating the combinations of the town artisan -provoked an almost indescribable bitterness of feeling on -the part of the squirearchy and their connections. The -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_332">[Pg 332]</span> -farmers, wherever they dared, ruthlessly “victimised” any -man who joined the Union. It is needless to say that they -received the cordial support of the rural magistracy. In -aid of a lock-out near Chipping Norton, two justices, who -happened both to be clergymen, sent sixteen labourers’ -wives, some with infants at the breast, to prison with hard -labour, for “intimidating” certain non-Union men. An -attempt to punish the leaders of a meeting at Farringdon, -on the ground of “obstruction of the highway,” was only -defeated by bringing down an eminent Queen’s Counsel -from London to overawe the local bench. The “dukes”—notably -those of Marlborough and Rutland—denounced the -“agitators and declaimers” who had “too easily succeeded -in disturbing the friendly feeling which used to unite the -labourer and his employer in mutual feelings of generosity -and confidence.” Innumerable acts of petty tyranny and -oppression proved how far the landed interest had lagged -behind the capitalist employers in the matter of Freedom -of Combination. Nor was the Established Church more -sympathetic. At the great meeting held at Exeter Hall -on behalf of the labourers, when the chair was taken by -Samuel Morley, M.P., the only ecclesiastic who appeared on -the platform was Archbishop (afterwards Cardinal) Manning. -In fact, the spirit in which the rural clergy viewed this social -upheaval is not unfairly typified by the public utterance of -a learned bishop. On September 2, 1872, Dr. Ellicott, the -Bishop of Gloucester, speaking at a meeting of the Gloucester -Agricultural Society, significantly suggested the village -horsepond as a fit destination for the “agitators,” or delegates -sent by the Union to open new branches. And the -farmers, the squires, and the Church were supported by the -army. When the labourers in August 1872 struck for an -increase of wages, the officers, in Oxfordshire and Berkshire, -placed the soldiers at the disposal of the farmers for -the purpose of getting in the harvest and so defeating the -Union.</p> - -<p>This insurrection of the village and the autocratic spirit -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_333">[Pg 333]</span> -which it aroused in the owners of land and tithe had, we -believe, a far-reaching political effect. With its results -upon the agitation for Church disestablishment and the -growing Radicalism of the counties we are not here concerned. -We trace, however, from these months, the appearance -in the Trade Union programme of the proposals relating -to the Land Law Reform and the Summary Jurisdiction of -the Magistrates, which seem, at first sight, unconnected -with the grievances of the town artisan. But though the -agricultural labourer had his effect upon the Trade Union -Movement, Trade Unionism was not, at this time, able to -do much for him. Funds and personal help were freely -placed at his service by his brother Unionists. The minute-books -and balance-sheets of the great Unions and the Trade -Councils show how warm and generous was the response -made to his appeal by the engineers, carpenters, miners, -and other trades. The London Trades Council successfully -exerted itself to stop the lending of troops to the farmers, -and procured a fresh regulation explicitly prohibiting for -the future such assistance “in cases where strikes or disputes -between farmers and their labourers exist.”<a id="FNanchor_478" href="#Footnote_478" class="fnanchor">[478]</a> The -public disapproval of the sentence in the Chipping Norton -case was used by the Trade Union leaders as a powerful -argument for the repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment -Act.</p> - -<p>But all this availed the agricultural labourer little. The -feverish faith in combination as a panacea for all social ills -gradually subsided. The farmers, after their first surprise, -during which the labourers, in many counties, secured advances -of from eighteenpence to as much as four shillings -per week, met the Union demands and successes by a stolid -resistance, and took every opportunity to regain their ground. -In 1874 the Agricultural Unions sustained their first severe -defeat. Some of those in Suffolk asked for an advance of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_334">[Pg 334]</span> -wages from 13s. to 14s. for a 54-hours week. The farmers’ -answer was an immediate lock-out, which was rapidly taken -up throughout the Eastern and Midland counties, no fewer -than 10,000 members of the Union being thus “victimised.” -The struggle had to be closed in July 1874, after an expenditure -by the National Union of £21,365 in strike pay. -After this the membership rapidly declined. Every winter -saw the lock-out used as a means for smashing particular -branches of the Union. And in this work of destruction -the farmers were aided by their personal intimacy with the -labourer. It was easy to drop into the suspicious mind of -the uneducated villager a fatal doubt as to the real destination -of the pennies which he was sending away to the far-off -central treasury. Nor was the Union organisation perfect. -Difficulties and delays occurred in rendering aid to -threatened branches or victimised men. The clergyman, -the doctor, and the village publican were always at hand -to encourage distrust of the “paid agitator.” Within a -very few years most of the independent Unions had ceased -to exist, whilst Arch’s great national society had dwindled -away to a steadily diminishing membership, scattered up and -down the midland counties, in what were virtually village -sick and funeral clubs. With the decline of prosperity of -British farming, which set in about 1876-77, men were everywhere -dismissed, grass replaced grain over hundreds of -thousands of acres, and the demand for agricultural labour -fell off; and even Joseph Arch had repeatedly to advise -the local branches to acquiesce in lower wages. By 1881 -the National Union could claim only 15,000 members, and -in 1889 only 4254. -<a id="FNanchor_479" href="#Footnote_479" class="fnanchor">[479]</a></p> - -<p>We have, therefore, in the sudden growth and quick -collapse of this revolt “of the field” a marked likeness to -the meteoric career of the general Trades Unions of 1833-34. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_335">[Pg 335]</span> -But the expansion of the Trade Union Movement in 1871-75 -had another point of resemblance to previous periods of -inflation. In 1871-75, as in 1833-34 and in 1852, the project -of recovering possession of the instruments of production -seizes hold of the imagination of great bodies of Trade -Unionists. Again we see attempts by trade organisations -to establish workshops of their own. The schemes of Co-operative -Production of 1871-75 bore more resemblance to -those of 1852 than to Owen’s crude communism. In the -Trade Unionism of 1833-34 the fundamental Trade Union -principle of the maintenance of the Standard of Life was -overshadowed and absorbed by the Owenite idea of carrying -on the whole industry of the country by national associations -of producers, in which all the workmen would be -included. But in the more practical times of 1852 and -1871-75 the project of “self-employment” remained strictly -subordinate to the main functions of the organisation.<a id="FNanchor_480" href="#Footnote_480" class="fnanchor">[480]</a> -Whatever visions may have been indulged in by individual -philanthropists, the Trade Union committees of both these -periods treated the co-operative workshop either as merely -a convenient adjunct to the Union, or as a means of affording -to a certain number of its members a chance of escape -from the conditions of wage-labour.<a id="FNanchor_481" href="#Footnote_481" class="fnanchor">[481]</a> The failure of all -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_336">[Pg 336]</span> -these attempts belongs, therefore, rather to the history of -Co-operation than to that of Trade Unionism. For our -present purpose it suffices to note that the loss in these -experiments of tens of thousands of pounds finally convinced -the officials of the old-established Unions of the -impracticability of using Trade Union organisations and -Trade Union funds for Co-operative Production. The -management of industry by associations of producers still -remains the ideal of one school of co-operators, and still -periodically captures the imagination of individual Trade -Unionists. But other ideals of collective ownership of the -means of production have displaced the Owenism of 1833-34 -and the “Christian Socialism” of 1852. Of co-operative -experiments by Trade Societies, in their corporate capacity, -we hear practically no more. -<a id="FNanchor_482" href="#Footnote_482" class="fnanchor">[482]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_337">[Pg 337]</span></p> - -<p>On the whole the contrast between the Trade Union -expansion of 1873-74 and that of 1833-34 is more significant -than any likeness that may be traced between the two -periods. The Trade Unionists of 1833-34 aimed at nothing -less than the supersession of the capitalist employer; and -they were met by his absolute refusal to tolerate, or even -to recognise, their organisation. The new feature of the -expansion of 1873-74 was the moderation with which the -workmen claimed merely to receive some share of the -enormous profits of these good times. The employers, on -the other hand, for the most part abandoned their objection -to recognise the Unions, and even conceded, after repeated -refusals, the principle of the regulation of industry by Joint -Boards of Conciliation or impartial umpires chosen from -outside the trade. From 1867 to 1875 innumerable Boards -of Conciliation and Arbitration were established, at which -representatives of the masters met representatives of the -Trade Unions on equal terms. In fact, it must have been -difficult for the workmen at this period to realise with what -stubborn obstinacy the employers, between 1850 and 1870, -had resisted any kind of intervention in what they had then -regarded as essentially a matter of private concern. When -the Amalgamated Society of Engineers offered, in 1851, to -refer the then pending dispute to arbitration, the master -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_338">[Pg 338]</span> -engineers simply ignored the proposal. The Select Committees -of the House of Commons in 1856 and 1860 found -the workmen’s witnesses strongly in favour of arbitration, -but the employers sceptical as to its possibility. Nor did -the establishment of A. J. Mundella’s Hosiery Board at -Nottingham in 1860, and Sir Rupert Kettle’s Joint Committees -in the Wolverhampton building trades in 1864, -succeed in converting the employers elsewhere. But between -1869 and 1875 opinion among the captains of industry, -to the great satisfaction of the Trade Union leaders, gradually -veered round. “Twenty-five years ago,” said Alexander -Macdonald in 1875, “when we proposed the adoption -of the principle of arbitration, we were then laughed to -scorn by the employing interests. But no movement has -ever spread so rapidly or taken a deeper root than that -which we then set on foot. Look at the glorious state of -things in England and Wales. In Northumberland the men -now meet with their employers around the common board.... -In Durhamshire a Board of Arbitration and Conciliation -has also been formed; and 75,000 men repose with -perfect confidence on the decisions of the Board. There -are 40,000 men in Yorkshire in the same position.” -<a id="FNanchor_483" href="#Footnote_483" class="fnanchor">[483]</a></p> - -<p>But though the establishment, from 1869 onwards, of -Joint Boards and Joint Committees represented a notable -advance for the Trade Unions, and marked their complete -recognition by the great employers, yet this victory brought -results which largely neutralised its advantages.<a id="FNanchor_484" href="#Footnote_484" class="fnanchor">[484]</a> As in the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_339">[Pg 339]</span> -case of the political triumphs, the men gained their point -at the cost of adopting the intellectual position of their -opponents. When the representatives of the employers and -the delegates of the men began to meet to discuss the future -scale of wages, we see the sturdy leaders of many Trade -Union battles gradually and insensibly accepting the -capitalists’ axiom that wages must necessarily fluctuate -according to the capitalists’ profits, and even with every -variation of market-prices.<a id="FNanchor_485" href="#Footnote_485" class="fnanchor">[485]</a> At Darlington, for instance, -we watch the shrewd leader of the employers, David Dale, -succeeding in completely impressing John Kane and a -whole subsequent generation of ironworkers with a firm -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_340">[Pg 340]</span> -belief in the principle of regulating wages according to the -market price of the product. The high prices of 1870-73 -removed the last scruples of the workmen as to the new -doctrine. In 1874 a delegate meeting of the Northumberland -Miners decided to use the formal expression of the -Executive Committee,<a id="FNanchor_486" href="#Footnote_486" class="fnanchor">[486]</a>“that prices should rule wages”—a -decision expressly repeated by delegate meetings in 1877 -and 1878. In 1879, when prices had come tumbling down, -we find the Executive still maintaining that “as an Association -we have always contended that wages should be based -on the selling price of coal.”<a id="FNanchor_487" href="#Footnote_487" class="fnanchor">[487]</a> In an interesting letter -dated February 1, 1878, Burt, Nixon, and Young (then the -salaried officers of the Northumberland Miners), in describing -the negotiations for a Sliding Scale, take occasion to -mention that they had agreed with the employers that there -should be no Minimum Wage.<a id="FNanchor_488" href="#Footnote_488" class="fnanchor">[488]</a> And though the practical -difficulties involved in the establishment of automatic wage-adjustments -hindered the spread of Sliding Scales to other -industries, the principle became tacitly accepted among -whole sections of Trade Unionists. The compulsory maintenance, -in good times and bad, of the workman’s Standard -of Life was thus gradually replaced by faith in a scale of -wages sliding up and down according to the commercial -speculations of the controllers of the market.</p> - -<p>The new doctrine was not accepted without vigorous -protests from the more thoughtful working-men leaders. -Lloyd Jones, writing in 1874, warns “working men of the -danger there is in a principle that wages should be regulated -by market prices, accepted and acted on, and therefore -presumably approved of by Trades Unions. These bodies, -it is to be regretted, permit it in arbitration, accept it in -negotiations with their employers, and thus give the highest -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_341">[Pg 341]</span> -sanction they can to a mode of action most detrimental to -the cause of labour.... The first thing, therefore, those who -manage trade societies should settle is a minimum, which -they should regard as a point below which they should never -go.... Such a one as will secure sufficiency of food and -some degree of personal and home comfort to the worker; -not a miserable allowance to starve on, but living wages.... -The present agreements they are going into on fluctuating -market prices is a practical placing of their fate in the -hands of others. It is throwing the bread of their children -into a scramble of competition where everything is decided -by the blind and selfish struggles of their employers.”<a id="FNanchor_489" href="#Footnote_489" class="fnanchor">[489]</a>“I -entirely agree,” writes Professor Beesly, “with an admirable -article by Mr. Lloyd Jones<a id="FNanchor_490" href="#Footnote_490" class="fnanchor">[490]</a> in a recent number of the <i>Beehive</i>, -in which he maintained that colliers should aim at establishing -a minimum price for their labour, and compelling their -employers to take that into account as the one constant -and stable element in all their speculations. All workmen -should keep their eyes fixed on this ultimate ideal.” -<a id="FNanchor_491" href="#Footnote_491" class="fnanchor">[491]</a></p> - -<p>Nor was this view confined to friendly allies of the Trade -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_342">[Pg 342]</span> -Union Movement. We shall have occasion to notice how -forcibly both the Cotton Operatives and the Boilermakers -protested against the dependence of wages on the fluctuations -of the market. Alexander Macdonald himself, though -he approved of Joint Committees, instinctively maintained -an attitude of hostility to the innovating principle of a -sliding scale.<a id="FNanchor_492" href="#Footnote_492" class="fnanchor">[492]</a> And, as we shall hereafter see, the conflict -between Macdonald’s teaching with regard to both wages -and the hours of labour, and the economic views of the -Northumberland and Durham leaders, presently divided -the organised miners into two hostile camps.</p> - -<p>The Trade Union world of 1871-75 was therefore more -complicated, and presented many more difficult internal -problems than was imagined, either by the alarmed employers -or the triumphant Trade Unionists. It needed only the -stress of hard times to reveal to the Trade Unionists themselves -that they were not the compact and well-organised -army described by the National Federation of Associated -Employers, but a congeries of distinct sections, pursuing -separate and sometimes antagonistic policies.</p> - -<p>The expansion of trade, under the influence of which -Trade Unionism, as we have seen, reached in 1873-74 one -of its high-water marks, came suddenly to an end. The -contraction became visible first in the coal and iron industries, -those in which the inflation had perhaps been greatest.<a id="FNanchor_493" href="#Footnote_493" class="fnanchor">[493]</a> -The first break occurred in February 1874, when the coal-miners -of the East of Scotland submitted to a reduction -of a shilling a day. During the rest of the year prices and -wages came tumbling down in both these staple trades. In -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_343">[Pg 343]</span> -January 1875 a furious conflict broke out in South Wales, -where many thousand miners and ironworkers refused to -submit to a third reduction of ten per cent. The struggle -dragged on until the end of May, when work was resumed -at a reduction, not of ten, but of twelve and a half per -cent, with an understanding that “any change in the wage -rates ... shall depend on a sliding scale of wages to be -regulated by the selling price of coal.”<a id="FNanchor_494" href="#Footnote_494" class="fnanchor">[494]</a> In the following -year the depression spread to the textile industries, and -gradually affected all trades throughout the country. The -building trades were, however, still prosperous; and the -Manchester Carpenters chose this moment for an aggressive -advance movement. The disastrous strike that followed -early in 1877, and lasted throughout the year, resulted in -the virtual collapse of the General Union of Carpenters and -Joiners, at that time the third in magnitude among the -societies in the building trades, and left the Manchester -building operatives in a state of disorganisation from which -they never fully recovered. In April 1877 the Clyde shipwrights -demanded an increase of wages, to which the -employers replied by a general lock-out of all the operatives -engaged in the shipbuilding yards, in the expectation that -this would cause pressure on the shipwrights to withdraw -their claim. For more than three months the main industry -of the Clyde was at a standstill, the dispute being eventually -ended, in September 1877, by submission to the arbitration -of Lord Moncrieff, in which the men were completely -worsted. In July 1877 a conflict broke out between the -stonemasons and their employers, in which Bull & Co., -the contractors for the new law courts in London, caused -the bitterest resentment by importing German workmen as -blacklegs. The demand had originally been for an increase -of wages and reduction of hours for the London men; but -as the obstinate struggle progressed it became, in effect, -a battle between the Stonemasons’ Union and the federated -master builders throughout the country. Large levies were -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_344">[Pg 344]</span> -raised, and over £2000 collected from other trade societies; -but in March 1878, after eight months’ conflict, the remnant -of the strikers returned to work on the employers’ -terms. The cotton trade, too, was made the scene of one -of the greatest industrial struggles on record. After several -minor reductions of wages during 1877, which resulted in -local strikes, in March 1878, as the <i>Times</i> reports, “all -the way through a centre of 70 miles, where 250,000 cotton -operatives are employed, notices have been posted giving -a month’s notice of ten per cent reduction in wages.” A -colossal strike ensued, which brought into prominence the -rival theories of the cotton operatives and their employers. -It was conceded by the men that the millowners were losing -money, and that some change had to be made. But as the -employers admitted that their losses arose from the glutted -state of the market, the operatives contended that the -proper remedy was the cessation of the over-production; -and they therefore offered to accept the 10 per cent reduction -on condition that the mills should only work four days -a week. A heated controversy ensued, but the millowners -persisted in their demand for the unconditional surrender -of the men, and refused all proposals for arbitration. The -cause of the men was unfortunately prejudiced by serious -riots at Blackburn, at which the house of Colonel Raynsford -Jackson, the leader of the associated employers, was looted -and burnt. After ten weeks’ struggle the men went in on -the employers’ terms. -<a id="FNanchor_495" href="#Footnote_495" class="fnanchor">[495]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_345">[Pg 345]</span></p> - -<p>The great struggles of 1875-78 were only the precursors -of a general rout of the Trade Union forces. The increasing -depression of trade culminated during 1878-79 in a stagnation -which must rank as one of the most serious which -has ever overtaken British industry. The paralysis of -business was intensified, especially in Scotland, by the -widespread ruin caused by the failure of the City of -Glasgow Bank. From one end of the kingdom to the -other great firms became bankrupt, mines and ironworks -were stopped, ships lay idle in the ports, and a universal -feeling of despondency and distrust spread like a blight into -every corner of the industrial world. Every industry had -its crowds of unemployed workmen, the proportion of -men on the books of the Trade Unions rising, in some -cases, to as much as 25 per cent. The capitalists, as -might have been expected, chose the moment of trial for -attempting to take back the rest of the concessions extorted -from them in the previous years. “It has appeared -to employers of labour,” stated the private circular issued -by the Iron Trade Employers’ Association in December -1878, “that the time has arrived when the superfluous wages -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_346">[Pg 346]</span> -which have been dissipated in unproductive consumption -must be retrenched, and when the idle hours which have -been unprofitably thrown away must be reclaimed to industry -and profit by being redirected to reproductive work.” -The result is reflected in the Trade Union reports. “All -over the United Kingdom,” states the Monthly Report of -the Amalgamated Carpenters for January 1879, “notices -of reductions in wages and extended hours of labour come -pouring in from employers with an eagerness and audacity -which contrast strangely with the lessons of forbearance -and moderation so incessantly dinned into the ears of the -British workman in happier times.” “At no time in our -history,” reports the Executive Council of the Amalgamated -Society of Engineers, “have we had such a number -of industrial disturbances throughout the country. Bad -trade has prevailed; and our employers, now better organised -than ever before, seem to have made it their aim to raise -as many points of contention with us as ever possible. In -one place sweeping reductions of wages would be carried -out or attempted; and in others the rates paid for overtime -were sought to be reduced, while in many cases the hours -of labour have been attacked, and in the Clyde district -successfully, three hours being, as a result, added to the -week’s work all over Scotland.... Another notable -feature of the depression has been the continued oppression -by the employers of the men in the most submissive districts, -where conciliatory measures were adopted, and where little -objection was made to any innovation. The Clyde district -has been a notable example of this fact, passing in the first -instance through two considerable reductions of wages -almost passively, only to be almost immediately after the -victims of desultory attacks upon the hours question. -Irregular attack appears almost to have been the system -adopted by the employers in preference to the development -of any general movement by their Associations.”<a id="FNanchor_496" href="#Footnote_496" class="fnanchor">[496]</a> The -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_347">[Pg 347]</span> -years 1878-1880 witnessed, accordingly, a great increase -in the number of strikes in nearly all trades,<a id="FNanchor_497" href="#Footnote_497" class="fnanchor">[497]</a> most of which -terminated disastrously for the workmen. Sweeping reductions -of wages occurred in all industries. The Northumberland -miners, whose normal day’s earnings had been 9s. 1½d. -in March 1873, found themselves reduced, in November -1878, to 4s. 9d. per day, and in January 1880 to 4s. 4d. -Scotch mechanics suffered an even more sudden reduction. -The Glasgow stonemasons, for instance, who had been earning -9d. and 10d. per hour during 1877, dropped by the end of -1878 to 6d. per hour, and found it difficult to find employment -even at that figure. A still more dangerous encroachment -was made in connection with the hours of labour. -Employers on all sides sought to lengthen the working -day. The mechanics on the Clyde lost the fifty-one hours -week which they had won. The Iron Trades Employers’ -Association, whose circular we have quoted, resolved upon -a general attack on the Nine Hours Day. “It has been -resolved,” writes the secretary, “by a large majority of the -Iron Trades Employers’ Association, supported by a general -agreement among other employers, to give notice in their -workshops that the hours of labour shall be increased to -the number prevailing before the adoption of the nine hours -limit.”<a id="FNanchor_498" href="#Footnote_498" class="fnanchor">[498]</a> The concerted action of the associated employers -was, however, baulked by the energy of John Burnett, then -General Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. -Placed in possession of the Circular for a couple of hours, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_348">[Pg 348]</span> -he promptly reproduced it in an ably reasoned appeal to -his own members, which was sent broadcast to the press. -Publicity proved fatal to the employers’ plans, and no -uniform or systematic action was taken. Isolated attempts -were, however, made in all directions by the master engineers -to revert to fifty-seven or fifty-nine hours per week; and -only by the most strenuous action was the normal fifty-four-hours -week retained in “society shops.”</p> - -<p>Other trades were not equally successful in maintaining -even their nominal day. In many towns the carpenters -had two or three hours per week added to their working -time.<a id="FNanchor_499" href="#Footnote_499" class="fnanchor">[499]</a> More serious was the fact that in numerous minor -trades the very conception of a definitely fixed normal day -was practically lost. Even among such well-organised -trades as the Engineers, Carpenters, and Stonemasons the -practice of systematic overtime, coupled with the prevalence -of piecework, reduced the normal day to a nullity.<a id="FNanchor_500" href="#Footnote_500" class="fnanchor">[500]</a> In the -abundant Trade Union records of these years we watch the -progress and results of these economic disasters. The -number of men drawing the out-of-work benefit steadily -rises, until the societies of Ironfounders and Boilermakers, -which in 1872-73 had scarcely 1 per cent unemployed, -had in 1879 over 20 per cent on their funds. The Amalgamated -Society of Engineers paid away, under this one -head, during the three years 1878-80, a sum of no less than -£287,596. The Operative Plumbers had to exclude, in the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_349">[Pg 349]</span> -two years 1880-82, nearly a third of their members for non-payment -of contributions. The Ironfounders, who in 1876 -had accumulated a fund of over £5 per member, paid away -every penny of it by the end of 1879, and were only saved -from actual stoppage by the numerous loans made to the -society by its more prosperous members. The Stonemasons’ -Society drained itself equally dry, and resorted to the same -expedient to avoid default. The Scottish societies had to -meet the crisis in an even more aggravated form. The total -collapse which followed the City of Glasgow Bank failure -absolutely ruined all but half a dozen of the Scotch Trade -Unions, a blow from which Trade Unionism in Scotland did -not recover for the rest of the century.</p> - -<p>The year 1879, indeed, was as distinctly a low-water -mark of the Trade Union Movement as 1873-74 registered -a full tide of prosperity. The economic trials through which -Trade Unionism passed in 1879 are only to be paralleled by -those through which it had gone in 1839-42. But the solid -growth which we have described prevented any such total -collapse as marked the previous periods. The depression -of 1879 swept, it is true, many hundreds of trade societies -into oblivion. The Unions of agricultural labourers, which -had sprung up with such mushroom rapidity, either collapsed -altogether or dwindled into insignificant benefit clubs. Up -and down the country the hundreds of little societies in -miscellaneous trades which had flourished during the good -years, went down before the tide of adversity. Widespread -national organisations shrank up practically into societies -of local influence, concentrated upon the strongholds of -their industries. The great National Union of Miners, established, -as we have seen, in 1862-63, survived, after 1879, -only in Northumberland, Durham, and Yorkshire. Its -younger rival, the Amalgamated Association of Miners, -which had, up to 1875, dominated South Wales and the -Midlands, broke up and disappeared. The National Amalgamated -Association of Ironworkers, also established in -1862, which in 1873 numbered 35,000 members in all parts -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_350">[Pg 350]</span> -of the country, was reduced in 1879 to 1400 members, -confined to a few centres in the North of England.<a id="FNanchor_501" href="#Footnote_501" class="fnanchor">[501]</a> In -some districts, such as South Wales, Trade Unionism practically -ceased to exist.<a id="FNanchor_502" href="#Footnote_502" class="fnanchor">[502]</a> The total membership of the Trade -Union Movement returned, it is probable, to the level of -1871. But despite all these contractions the backbone of -the movement remained intact. In the engineering and -building trades the great national societies, though they were -denuded of their reserve funds, retained their membership. -Nor was it only the trade friendly societies that weathered -the storm. The essentially trade organisations of the cotton -operatives, and of the Northumberland and Durham miners, -maintained their position with only a temporary contraction -of membership. The political organisation of the movement -was, moreover, unaffected. The local Trades Councils -went on undisturbed. The annual Trades Union Congress -continued to meet, and to appoint its standing Parliamentary -Committee. In short, though many individual Unions disappeared, -and many others saw their balances absorbed and -their membership reduced, the trials of 1879 proved that -the Trade Union Movement was at last beyond all danger -of destruction or collapse, and that the Trade Union organisation -had become a permanent element in our social structure.</p> - -<p>We see, therefore, that the work which Allan and Applegarth -had done towards consolidating the Trade Union -Movement had not been fruitless. But along with increasing -consolidation and definiteness of purpose had come an -increasing differentiation of policy and interest. Each trade -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_351">[Pg 351]</span> -was working out its own industrial problems in its way. -Whilst the miners and the cotton operatives, for instance, -were elaborating their own codes of legislative regulation of -the conditions of labour, the engineering and building trades -were becoming pledged to the legislative <i>laissez-faire</i> of -their leaders. Under the influence of the able spokesmen -of the northern counties the coal-miners and ironworkers -were accepting the principle that wages must follow prices; -whilst the cotton operatives, and to some extent the -boilermakers,<a id="FNanchor_503" href="#Footnote_503" class="fnanchor">[503]</a> were making a notable stand for the contrary -view that the Standard Rate of Wages should be a -first charge on industry. And while the miners and cotton -operatives regarded their organisations primarily as societies -for trade protection, there was growing up among the successors -of the Junta in the iron and building trades a fixed -belief that the really “Scientific Trade Unionism” consisted -in elaborate friendly benefits and judiciously invested -superannuation funds. So long as trade was expanding, -and each policy was pursued with success, no antagonism -arose between the different sections. The cotton operatives -cordially approved the Nine Hours Movement of the -engineers, whilst these, in their turn, supported the Factory -Bill desired by the Lancashire spinners. The miners applauded -the gallant stand made by the cotton operatives -against the reductions of 1877-79, whilst the cotton operatives -saw no objection to the acquiescence of the miners in -the dependence of wages on prices. And though all Trade -Unions regarded with respect the high contributions and -accumulated funds of the Amalgamated Engineers, they were -equally respectful of the success with which the Northumberland -coal-miners, through bad times and good, had for half -a generation maintained a strong Union with exclusively -trade objects. Thus the divergences of policy, which were -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_352">[Pg 352]</span> -destined from 1885 onward to form the battle-ground between -what has been once more termed the “Old” Unionism -and the “New,” did not at first prevent cordial co-operation -in the common purposes of the Trade Union Movement. -It was in the dark days after 1878-79, when every Union -suffered reverses, that internal discontent as to Trade Union -policy became acute, and a new spirit of criticism arose. -Not until the purely trade society, on the one hand, had -been found lacking in stability, and the trade friendly -society, on the other, had been convicted of apathy in trade -matters; not until the Lancashire and Yorkshire coalminers -had been driven to protest against the constant -reductions brought about by the sliding scales, and some of -the leaders of the Lancashire cotton operatives hesitated -in their advocacy of the legal day; finally, not until a -powerful section of the miners opposed any further extension -of the Mines Regulation Acts, and a section of the -engineers and building operatives began to advocate the -legal fixing of their own labour day—do we find it declared -that “the two systems cannot co-exist; they are contradictory -and opposed.” -<a id="FNanchor_504" href="#Footnote_504" class="fnanchor">[504]</a></p> - -<p>In more than one direction, therefore, the depression -of trade was bringing into prominence wide divergences -of opinion upon Trade Union policy. But the adverse -industrial circumstances of the time were revealing, in -certain industries, a more invidious cleavage. As manufacturing -processes develop and change with the progress of -invention and the substitution of one material for another—iron -for wood in shipbuilding, for instance—the skilled -members of one trade find themselves superseded for certain -work by the members of another. A modern Atlantic -liner, practically a luxuriously-fitted, electric-lighted floating -hotel, built of rolled steel plates, would obviously not -fall within the work of a shipwright like Peter the Great. -But the old-fashioned shipwright naturally refused to relinquish -without a struggle the right to build ships of every -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_353">[Pg 353]</span> -kind. The depression of 1879 was severely felt in the shipbuilding -and engineering trades, every one of which had a -large percentage of its members unemployed. The societies -found, as we have seen, the out-of-work donation a serious -drain on their funds, and were inclined to look more narrowly -into cases of “encroachment” upon the work which each -regarded as the legitimate sphere of its own members. -Disputes between Union and Union as to overlap and -apportionment of work become, in these years, of frequent -occurrence; and to the standing conflict with the employers -was added embittered internecine warfare between the men -of one branch of trade and those of another. The Engineers -complained of the monopoly which the Boilermakers maintained -of all work connected with angle-iron. The Patternmakers -protested vigorously against the Carpenters presuming -to make any engineering patterns. At Glasgow the -Brassfounders objected to the Ironmoulders continuing to -make the large brass castings which the workers in brass -had at first been unable to undertake. The line of demarcation -in iron shipbuilding between the work of a shipwright -and that of a boilermaker was a constant source of -friction. The disregard of the ordinary classification of -trades by the authorities of the Royal Dockyards created -great discontent among the Engineers, who saw shipwrights -put to do fitters’ work, and Broadhurst brought the matter -in 1882 before the House of Commons.<a id="FNanchor_505" href="#Footnote_505" class="fnanchor">[505]</a> Nor were the -disputes confined to the puzzling question of the lines of -demarcation between particular trades. In 1877 the recently -formed Union of “Platers’ Helpers” complained -bitterly to the Trades Union Congress that the whole force -of the Boilermakers’ Society had been used to destroy their -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_354">[Pg 354]</span> -organisation. The Platers’ Helpers, it may be explained, -constitute a large class of labourers in shipbuilding yards, -who are usually employed and paid, not by the owners of -the yards, but by members of the Boilermakers’ Society. -In the building trades numerous cases of friction were -occurring between bricklayers and masons on the one -hand, and the builders’ labourers on the other. The introduction -of terra cotta led to a whole series of disputes -between the bricklayers and the plasterers as to the trade -to which the new work properly belonged. Disputes of -this kind were, of course, no new thing. What gave the -matter its new importance was the dominance of the great -trade friendly societies in the skilled occupations. The loss -of employment by individual members became in bad times -a serious financial drain on Unions giving out-of-work pay. -In place of the bickerings of individual workmen we have -the conflicts of powerful societies, each supporting the claim -of its own members to do the work in dispute. “When -men are not organised in a Trade Union,” says the general -secretary of a large society, “these little things are not -taken much notice of, but the moment the two trades -become well organised, each trade is looking after its own -particular members’ interests....” -<a id="FNanchor_506" href="#Footnote_506" class="fnanchor">[506]</a></p> - -<p>We have in our <i>Industrial Democracy</i> analysed the -history, character, and extent of this rivalry among competing -branches of the same trade. Here we need do no -more than record its result in weakening the bond of union -between powerful sections of the Trade Union world. The -local Trades Councils, which might have attained a position -of political influence, were always being disintegrated -by the disputes of competing trades. The powerful Shipping -Trades Council of Liverpool, for instance, which played an -important part in Samuel Plimsoll’s agitation for a new -Merchant Shipping Act, was broken up in 1880 by the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_355">[Pg 355]</span> -quarrel between the separate societies of Shipwrights, Ship-joiners, -and House Carpenters over ship work. The minutes -of every Trades Council, especially those in seaports, relate -innumerable well-intentioned attempts to settle similar -disputes, almost invariably ending in the secession of one or -other of the contending Unions. These quarrels prevented, -moreover, the formation of any effective general federation. -An attempt was made in 1875 by the officers of the Amalgamated -Engineers’, Boilermakers’, Ironfounders’, and Steam-Engine -Makers’ Societies to establish a federation for mutual -defence against attacks upon the Nine Hours System. -After a few months, the disputes between the Engineers -and Boilermakers on the one hand, and between the members -of the Amalgamated Society and the Steam-Engine -Makers’ Society on the other, led to the abandonment of -the attempt.<a id="FNanchor_507" href="#Footnote_507" class="fnanchor">[507]</a> A similar movement initiated by the Boilermakers -in 1881 equally failed to get established. -<a id="FNanchor_508" href="#Footnote_508" class="fnanchor">[508]</a></p> - -<p>Wider federations met with no better success than those -confined to the engineering and shipbuilding trades. The -Trades Union Congress repeatedly declared itself in favour -of universal brotherhood among Trade Unionists, and the -formation of a federal bond between the different societies. -But the inherent differences between trade and trade, the -numerous distinct types into which societies were divided, -the wide divergences as to Trade Union policy which we -have been describing, and, above all, the rivalry for members -and employment between competing societies in the same -industry, rendered any universal federation impossible. -After the Sheffield Congress in 1874, representatives of the -leading Unions in the iron and building trades set on foot -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_356">[Pg 356]</span> -a “Federation of Organised Trade Societies,” which all -Unions were invited to join for mutual defence. But the -Cotton-spinners, with their preference for legislative regulation, -refused to have anything to do with a federation -which contemplated nothing but strike benefits. The whole -scheme was, indeed, more a project of certain Trade Union -officials than a manifestation of any general feeling in -favour of common action. Each trade was, as we have -said, working out its own policy, and attending almost -exclusively to its own interests. Under such circumstances -any attempt at effective federation must necessarily have -been still-born. Nevertheless the Edinburgh Congress of -1879 called for a renewed attempt; and the Parliamentary -Committee circulated to every Trade Union in the kingdom -their proposed rules for another “Federation of Organised -Trade Societies,” To this invitation not half a dozen replies -were received.<a id="FNanchor_509" href="#Footnote_509" class="fnanchor">[509]</a> At the Congress of 1882, when the resolution -in favour of a universal federation was again proposed, -it found little support. The representatives of the local -Trades Councils urged that these bodies furnished all that -was practicable in the way of federation. Thomas Ashton, -the outspoken representative of the cotton-spinners, was -more emphatic. “For years,” he said, “the Parliamentary -Committee and others had been trying to bring about such -an organisation as that mentioned in the resolution, but it -had been found utterly impossible.... It was all nonsense -to pass such a resolution. It was impossible for the trades of -the country to amalgamate, their interests were so varied and -they were so jealous with regard to each other’s disputes.” -<a id="FNanchor_510" href="#Footnote_510" class="fnanchor">[510]</a></p> - -<p>The foregoing examination of the internal relations of -the Trade Union world between 1875 and 1879, though incomplete, -demonstrates the extent to which the movement -during these years was dominated by a somewhat narrow -“particularism.” From 1880 to 1885 the various societies -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_357">[Pg 357]</span> -were absorbed in building up again their membership and -balances, which had so seriously suffered during the continued -depression. The annual Trades Union Congress, the -Parliamentary Committee, and the political proceedings of -these years constitute practically the only common bond -between the isolated and often hostile sections. In all industrial -matters the Trade Union world was broken up into -struggling groups, destitute of any common purpose, each, -indeed, mainly preoccupied with its separate concerns, and -frequently running counter to the policy or aims of the rest. -The cleavages of interest and opinion among working men -proved to be deeper and more numerous than any one -suspected. In the following chapter we shall see how an -imperfect appreciation of each other’s position led to that -conflict between the “Old Unionists” and the “New” -which for some years bade fair to disintegrate the whole -Labour Movement.</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_442" href="#FNanchor_442" class="label">[442]</a>Address of Alexander Macdonald to the Leeds Conference, 1873. -Alexander Macdonald, the son of a sailor, who became a miner in Lanarkshire, -was born at Airdrie in 1821, and went to work in the pit at the -age of eight. Having an ardent desire for education he prepared himself -as best he could for Glasgow University, which he entered in 1846, supporting -himself from his savings, and from his work as a miner in the -summer. Whilst still at the University he became known as a leader of -the miners all over Scotland. In 1850 he became a mine manager, and -in 1851 he opened a school at Airdrie, an occupation which he abandoned -in 1855 to devote his whole time to agitation on behalf of the miners. -On the formation, in 1863, of the National Union of Miners, he was elected -president, a position which he retained until his death. Meanwhile he -was, by a series of successful commercial speculations, acquiring a modest -fortune, which enabled him to devote his whole energies to the promotion -of the Parliamentary programme which he had impressed upon the -miners. He gave important evidence before the Select Committee of -1865 on the Master and Servant Law. In 1868 he offered himself as a -candidate for the Kilmarnock Burghs, but retired to avoid a split. At -the General Election of 1874 he was more successful, being returned for -Stafford, and thus becoming (with Thomas Burt) the first “Labour -Member.” He was shortly afterwards appointed a member of the Royal -Commission on the Labour Laws, and eventually presented a minority -report of his own on the subject. He died in 1881. A history of the -coal-miners which he projected was apparently never written, and, with -the exception of numerous presidential addresses and other speeches, and -a pamphlet entitled <i>Notes and Annotations on the Coal Mines Regulation -Act, 1872</i>(Glasgow, 1872, 50 pp.), we have found nothing from his pen. -A eulogistic notice of his life by Lloyd Jones appeared in the <i>Newcastle -Chronicle</i>, November 17, 1883, most of which is reprinted in Dr. Baernreither’s -<i>English Associations of Working Men</i>, p. 408.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_443" href="#FNanchor_443" class="label">[443]</a>Address to the Miners’ National Conference at Leeds, 1873.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_444" href="#FNanchor_444" class="label">[444]</a>The Conference appointed a sub-committee to compile and publish -its proceedings, “a thing,” as the preface explains, “altogether unparalleled -in the records of labour.” And indeed the elaborate volume, -regularly published by the eminent firm of Longmans in 1864, entitled -<i>Transactions and Results of the National Association of Coal, Lime, and -Ironstone Miners of Great Britain, held at Leeds, November 9, 10, 11, 12, -13, and 14, 1863</i>, with its 174 pages, its frontispiece representing the -pit-brow women, and its motto on the title-page extracted from the -writings of W. E. Gladstone, formed a creditable and impressive appeal -to the reading public.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_445" href="#FNanchor_445" class="label">[445]</a>For this militant Chartist (1805-79), see <i>Life of Joseph Rayner -Stephens</i>, by G. J. Holyoake, 1881.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_446" href="#FNanchor_446" class="label">[446]</a><i>Transactions and Results of the National Association of Coal, Lime, -and Ironstone Miners of Great Britain, held at Leeds, November 9, 10, 11, -12, 13, and 14, 1863</i>, p. 14.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_447" href="#FNanchor_447" class="label">[447]</a><i>Transactions and Results of the National Association of Coal, Lime, and -Ironstone Miners of Great Britain, held at Leeds, November 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, -and 14, 1863</i>, p. 17. In Northumberland and Durham the hewers very -largely work in two shifts, whilst there used to be only one shift of boys.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_448" href="#FNanchor_448" class="label">[448]</a>Section 29 of Mines Regulation Act of 1860.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_449" href="#FNanchor_449" class="label">[449]</a>Normansell <i>v.</i> Platt. John Normansell, the agent of the South -Yorkshire Miners’ Association, stands second only to Macdonald as a -leader of the miners between 1863 and 1875. The son of a banksman, -he was born at Torkington, Cheshire, in 1830, and left an orphan at an -early age. At seven he entered the pit, and when, at the age of nineteen, -he married, he was unable to write his own name. Migrating to -South Yorkshire, he became a leader in the agitation to secure a checkweigher, -which the local coal-owners conceded in 1859. Normansell was -elected to the post for his own pit, and rapidly became the leading spirit -in the district. After the lock-out of 1864 he was elected secretary to -the Union, then counting only two thousand members. Within eight -years he had raised its membership to twenty thousand, and built up an -elaborate system of friendly benefits. Normansell was the first working-man -Town Councillor, having been triumphantly elected at Barnsley, his -Union subscribing £1000 to lodge in the bank in his name, in order to -enable him to declare himself possessed of the pecuniary qualification at -that time required. On his death the amount was voted to his widow. -Normansell gave evidence in 1867 before the Select Committee on Coal-mining, -and before that on the Master and Servant Law, in 1868 before -the Royal Commission on Trade Unions, and in 1873 before that on the -Coal Supply.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_450" href="#FNanchor_450" class="label">[450]</a>The best and indeed the only exact account of these cotton lists is -that prepared for the Economic Section of the British Association by a -committee consisting of Professor Sidgwick, Professor Foxwell, A. H. D. -(now Sir Arthur) Acland, Dr. W. Cunningham, and Professor J. E. C. -Munro, the report being drawn up by the latter. (<i>On the Regulation of -Wages by means of Lists in the Cotton Industry</i>, Manchester, 1887; in -two parts—Spinning and Weaving.) See <i>History of Wages in the Cotton -Trade during the Past Hundred Years</i>, by G. H. Wood, 1910; <i>A Century -of Fine Cotton Spinning</i>, by McConnel & Co., 1906; and <i>Standard Piece -Lists and Sliding Scales</i>, by the Labour Department of the Board of -Trade, Cd. 144, 1900.</p> - -<p>The principles upon which the lists are framed are so complicated -that we confess, after prolonged study, to be still perplexed on certain -points; and though Professor Munro clears up many difficulties, we are -disposed to believe that even he, in some particulars, has not in all cases -correctly stated the matter. We have discussed the whole subject in our -<i>Industrial Democracy</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_451" href="#FNanchor_451" class="label">[451]</a><i>Bolton and District Net List of Prices for Spinning Twist, Reeled -Yarn or Bastard Twist, and Weft, on Self-actor Mules</i>(Bolton, 1887; -85 pp.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_452" href="#FNanchor_452" class="label">[452]</a>Birtwistle was, in 1892, at an advanced age, appointed by the Home -Secretary an Inspector in the Factory Department, under the “particulars -clause” (sec. 24 of the Factory and Workshops Act, 1891), as the -only person who could be found competent to understand and interpret -the intricacies of the method of remuneration in the weaving trade.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_453" href="#FNanchor_453" class="label">[453]</a><i>Beehive</i>, February 23, 1867. The circular announcing the resolution -is signed by the leading officers of the Cotton-spinners’ and Cotton-weavers’ -Unions of the time.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_454" href="#FNanchor_454" class="label">[454]</a>Report of the Parliamentary Committee to the Trades Union Congress, -January 1873.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_455" href="#FNanchor_455" class="label">[455]</a>Circular of December 11, 1871, signed on behalf of the preliminary -meeting by Thomas Mawdsley—not to be mistaken for James Mawdsley, -J.P., a subsequent secretary.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_456" href="#FNanchor_456" class="label">[456]</a>Thomas Ashton, J.P. (died 1919), then secretary of the Oldham -Spinners, often made this statement. On the 26th of May 1893 the -<i>Cotton Factory Times</i>, the men’s accredited organ, declared, with reference -to the Eight Hours Movement, that “now the veil must be lifted, -and the agitation carried on under its true colours. Women and children -must no longer be made the pretext for securing a reduction of working -hours for men.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_457" href="#FNanchor_457" class="label">[457]</a>Speech at Trades Union Congress, Bristol, 1878.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_458" href="#FNanchor_458" class="label">[458]</a>“From what I have heard,” writes Professor Beesly in the <i>Beehive</i>, -May 16, 1874, “I am inclined to think that no single fact had more to -do with the defeat of the Liberal Party in Lancashire at the last election -than Mr. Fawcett’s speech on the Nine Hours Bill in the late Parliament.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_459" href="#FNanchor_459" class="label">[459]</a>Report of Trades Union Congress, Sheffield, January 1874.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_460" href="#FNanchor_460" class="label">[460]</a>John Burnett, who was born at Alnwick, Northumberland, in 1842, -became, after the Nine Hours Strike, a lecturer for the National Education -League, and joined the staff of the <i>Newcastle Chronicle</i>. In 1875, on -Allan’s death, he was elected to the General Secretaryship of the Amalgamated -Society of Engineers. He was a member of the Parliamentary -Committee of the Trades Union Congress from 1876 to 1885. In 1886 -he was appointed to the newly-created post of Labour Correspondent of -the Board of Trade, in which capacity he prepared and issued a series -of reports on Trade Unions and Strikes. On the establishment of the -Labour Department in 1893 he became Chief Labour Correspondent -under the Commissioner for Labour, and was selected to visit the United -States to prepare a report on the effects of Jewish immigration. He -retired in 1907 and died 1914.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_461" href="#FNanchor_461" class="label">[461]</a>A full account of this conflict is given by John Burnett in his <i>History -of the Engineers’ Strike in Newcastle and Gateshead</i>(Newcastle, 1872; -77 pp.). A description by the Executive of the Amalgamated Society of -Engineers is given in their “Abstract Report” up to December 31, 1872. -The <i>Newcastle Daily Chronicle</i>, from April to October 1871, furnishes a -detailed contemporary record. The leading articles and correspondence -in the <i>Times</i> of September 1871 are important.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_462" href="#FNanchor_462" class="label">[462]</a>See the <i>Times</i> leader of September 11, 1871. This leader, which -pronounced “the conduct of the employers throughout this dispute as -imprudent and impolitic,” called forth the bewildered remonstrance of -Sir William (afterwards Lord) Armstrong, writing on behalf of “the -Associated Employers.” “We were amazed,” writes the great captain -of industry, “to see ourselves described in your article as being in a -condition of hopeless difficulty; and we really felt that, if the League -themselves had possessed the power of inspiring that article, they could -scarcely have used words more calculated to serve their purposes than -those in which it is expressed. The concurrent appearance in the <i>Spectator</i> -of an article exhibiting the same bias adds to our surprise. We had -imagined that a determined effort to wrest concessions from employers -by sheer force of combination was not a thing which found favour with -the more educated and intelligent classes, whose opinions generally find -expression in the columns of the <i>Times</i>” (<i>Times</i> September 14, 1871).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_463" href="#FNanchor_463" class="label">[463]</a>Here the “International” was of use. At Burnett’s instigation, -Cohn, the Danish secretary in London, proceeded to the Continent to -check this immigration, his expenses being paid by the Amalgamated -Society of Engineers.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_464" href="#FNanchor_464" class="label">[464]</a>With regard to overtime, Burnett informed us that “it was found -impossible to carry a Nine Hours Day pure and simple at the time of the -strike of 1871, and that overtime should still be worked as required was -insisted upon as a first condition of settlement by the employers.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_465" href="#FNanchor_465" class="label">[465]</a>Meeting of London pattern-makers to seek advance of wages, <i>Beehive</i>, -October 21, 1865.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_466" href="#FNanchor_466" class="label">[466]</a>Letter from “Amalgamator,” <i>Beehive</i>, January 19, 1867.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_467" href="#FNanchor_467" class="label">[467]</a>The rank and file were more sympathetic than the Executive. The -machinery for making the collections was mostly furnished by the branches -and committees of the Society.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_468" href="#FNanchor_468" class="label">[468]</a>An “Assistant Secretary” was subsequently added, and eventually -another. But these assistants were, like the General Secretary himself, -recruited from the ranks of the workmen, and however experienced they -may have been in trade matters, were necessarily less adapted to the -clerical labour demanded of them. The great Trade Friendly Societies -of the Stonemasons, Bricklayers, and Ironfounders long continued to have -only one assistant secretary, and no clerical staff whatever.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_469" href="#FNanchor_469" class="label">[469]</a>Question 827 in Report of Trade Union Commission (March 26, 1867).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_470" href="#FNanchor_470" class="label">[470]</a><i>Bookbinders’ Trade Circular</i>, January 1866.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_471" href="#FNanchor_471" class="label">[471]</a>In 1892 the Amalgamated Engineers provided themselves, not only -with district delegates, like those of the Boilermakers, but also with a -salaried Executive Council. The Amalgamated Society of Carpenters has -since started district delegates, and the other national societies gradually -followed suit.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_472" href="#FNanchor_472" class="label">[472]</a>Mention should here be made of the Manchester and District Association -of Trade Union Officials, an organisation which grew out of a joint -committee formed to assist the South Wales miners in their strike of -1875. The frequent meetings, half serious, half social, of this grandly -named association, known to the initiated as “the Peculiar People,” -served for many years as opportunities for important consultations on -Trade Union policy between the leaders of the numerous societies having -offices in Manchester. It also had as an object the protection of Trade -Union officials against unjust treatment by their own societies (see <i>History -of the British Trades Union Congress</i>, by W. J. Davis, vol. i., 1910, p. 89)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_473" href="#FNanchor_473" class="label">[473]</a>Report of the Trades Union Congress, Sheffield, 1874. A table -printed in the Appendix to the present volume gives such comparative -statistics of Trade Union membership as we have been able to compile.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_474" href="#FNanchor_474" class="label">[474]</a>“Statement as to Formation and Objects of the National Federation -of Associated Employers of Labour,” December 11, 1873, reprinted by the -Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress. This Federation -comprised in its ranks a large proportion of the great “captains -of industry” of the time, including such shipbuilders as Laird and Harland -& Wolff; such textile manufacturers as Crossley, Brinton, Marshall, -Titus Salt, Akroyd, and Brocklehurst; such engineers as Mawdsley, Son -& Field, Combe, Barbour & Combe, and Beyer & Peacock; such ironmasters -as David Dale and John Menelaus; such builders as Trollope of London -and Neill of Manchester, and such representatives of the great industrial -peers as Sir James Ramsden, who spoke for the Duke of Devonshire, and -Fisher Smith, the agent of the Earl of Dudley.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_475" href="#FNanchor_475" class="label">[475]</a>The immediate publicity given to the agitation was due, in the first -place, to the sympathy of J. E. Matthew Vincent, the editor of the <i>Leamington -Chronicle</i>, and secondly, to the instinct of the <i>Daily News</i>, which -promptly sent Archibald Forbes, its war correspondent, to Warwickshire, -and “boomed” the movement in a series of special articles. A contemporary -account of the previous career of Joseph Arch is given by the Rev. -F. S. Attenborough in his <i>Life of Joseph Arch</i>(Leamington, 1872; 37 pp.). -See also <i>The Revolt of the Field</i>, by A. W. Clayden (1874), 234 pp.; and -“Zur Geschichte der englischen Arbeiterbewegung im Jahre 1872-1873,” -by Dr. Friedrich Kleinwächter in <i>Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und -Statistik</i>, 1875, and Supplement I. of 1878; “Die jüngste Landarbeiterbewegung -in England,” by Lloyd Jones, in Nathusius-Thiel’s <i>Landwirthschaftliche -Jahrbücher</i>, 1875; <i>The Romance of Peasant Life</i>, 1872, and <i>The -English Peasantry</i>, 1872, by F. G. Heath; <i>The Agricultural Labourer</i>, by -F. E. Kettel, 1887; <i>Joseph Arch, the Story of his Life, told by Himself</i>, 1898; -<i>A History of the English Agricultural Labourer</i>, by Dr. W. Hasbach, 1908; -“The Labourers in Council,” a valuable article in <i>The Congregationalist</i>, -1872; “The Agricultural Labourers’ Union,” in <i>Quarterly Review</i>, 1873; -“The Agricultural Labourers’ Union,” by Canon Girdlestone, in <i>Macmillan’s -Magazine</i>, vol. xxviii.; “The Agricultural Labourer,” by F. -Verinder, in <i>The Church Reformer</i>, 1892; and others in this magazine -during 1891-93; <i>Conflicts of Capital and Labour</i>, by G. Howell, 1878 and -1890 editions; <i>Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and Labour Leaders</i>, -by the same, 1902; and <i>Village Trade Unions in Two Centuries</i>, by -Ernest Selley, 1919.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_476" href="#FNanchor_476" class="label">[476]</a>Other Labourers’ Unions sprang up which refused to be absorbed in -the National; and the London Trades Council summoned a conference in -March 1873 to promote unity of action. Considerable jealousy was -shown of any centralising policy, and eventually a Federal Union of -Agricultural and General Labourers was formed by half a dozen of the -smaller societies, with an aggregate membership of 50,000.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_477" href="#FNanchor_477" class="label">[477]</a>The Birmingham Trades Council, for instance, issued the following -poster:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="center">“<span class="smcap">Great Lock-out of Agricultural Labourers!</span></p> - -<p class="center">“<span class="smcap">An Appeal. Is the Labourer worthy of his Hire?</span></p> - -<p>“This question is to all lovers of freedom and peaceful progress, and -it is left for them to say whether that spark of life and hope which has -been kindled in the breasts of our toiling brothers in the agricultural -districts shall be extinguished by the pressure of the present lock-out. -The answer is No! and the echo resounds from ten thousand lips. But -let us be practical; a little help is of more value than much sympathy; -we must not stand to pity, but strive to send relief. The cause of the agricultural -labourer is our own; the interests of labour in all its forms are -very closely bound up together, and the simple question for each one is, -How much can I help, and how soon can I do it? If we stay thinking too -long, action may come too late; these men, our brethren, now deeply in -adversity, may have fallen victims when our active efforts might have -saved them. The strain upon the funds of their Union must be considerable -with such a number thrown into unwilling idleness, and that for simply -asking that their wages, in these times of dear food, might be increased -from 13s. to 14s. per week. Money is no doubt wanted, and it is by that -alone the victory can be won. Let us therefore hope that Birmingham -will once again come to the rescue, determined to assist these men to a -successful resistance of the oppression that is attempted in this lock-out.</p> - -<p>“The great high priest and deliverer of this people now seeks our aid. -We must not let him appeal to us in vain; his efforts have been too noble -in the past, the cause for which he pleads is too full of righteousness, and -the issues too great to be passed by in heedless silence. Let us all to work -at once. We can all give a little, and each one may encourage his neighbour -to follow his example. The conflict may be a severe one. It is for freedom -and liberty to unite as we have done. We have reaped some of the advantages -of our Unions; we must assist them to establish theirs, and not -allow the ray of hope that now shines across the path of our patient but -determined fellow-toilers to be darkened by the blind folly of their employers, -who, being in a measure slaves to the powers above them, would, -if they could, even at their own loss, consign all below them to perpetual -bondage. This must not be. We must not allow these men to be robbed -of their right to unite, or their future may be less hopeful than their past. -Let some one in every manufactory and workshop collect from those -disposed to give, and so help to furnish the means to assist these men to -withstand the powers brought against them, showing to their would-be -oppressors that we have almost learned the need and duty of standing side -by side until all our righteous efforts shall be crowned by victory.</p> - -<p>“All members of the Birmingham Trades Council are authorised to -collect and receive contributions to the fund, and will be pleased to receive -assistance from others.</p> - -<p class="right"> -“By order of the Birmingham Trades Council,<br /> -“<span class="smcap">W. Gilliver</span>, Secretary.” -</p> -</div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_478" href="#FNanchor_478" class="label">[478]</a><i>Queen’s Regulations for the Army for 1873</i>, Article 180; the whole -correspondence is given in the Report of the London Trades Council, -June 1873.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_479" href="#FNanchor_479" class="label">[479]</a>The rival Kent Union, which had become the Kent and Sussex -Agricultural and General Labourers’ Union, enrolling all sorts of labourers, -claimed in 1889 still to have 10,000 members, with an annual income of -£10,000 a year, mostly disbursed in sick and funeral benefits.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_480" href="#FNanchor_480" class="label">[480]</a>See <i>Die Strikes, die Co-operation, die Industrial Partnerships</i>, by -Dr. Robert Jannasch (Berlin, 1868; 66 pp.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_481" href="#FNanchor_481" class="label">[481]</a>Amid the great outburst of feeling in favour of Co-operative Production -it is difficult to distinguish in every case between the investments of -the funds of the Trade Unions in their corporate capacity, and the subscriptions -of individual members under the auspices, and sometimes -through the agency, of their trade society. The South Yorkshire Miners’ -Association used £30,000 of its funds in the purchase of the Shirland -Colliery in 1875, and worked it on account of the Association. In a very -short time, however, the constant loss on the working led to the colliery -being disposed of, with the total loss of the investment. The Northumberland -and Durham Miners in 1873 formed a “Co-operative Mining -Company” to buy a colliery, a venture in which the Unions took shares, -but which quickly ended in the loss of all the capital. Some of the Newcastle -engineers on strike for Nine Hours in 1871 were assisted by sympathisers -to start the Ouseburn Engine Works, which came to a disastrous -end in 1876. In 1875 the Leicester Hosiery Operatives’ Union, having -2000 members, began manufacturing on its own account, and bought up -a small business. In the following year a vote of the members decided -against such an investment of the funds, and the Union sold out to a group -of individuals under the style of the Leicester Hosiery Society. It became -fairly successful, but scarcely a tenth of the shareholders were workers in -the concern, and it was eventually merged in the Co-operative Wholesale -Society. Innumerable smaller experiments were set on foot during -these years by groups of Trade Unionists with more or less assistance from -their societies, but the great majority were quickly abandoned as unsuccessful. -In a few cases the business established still exists, but in every -one of these any connection with Trade Unionism has long since ceased. -In later years renewed attempts have been made by a few Unions. -Several local branches of the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives, -for instance, have taken shares in the Leicester Co-operative Boot and Shoe -Manufacturing Society. The London Bassdressers, the Staffordshire -Potters, the Birmingham Tinplate Workers, and a few other societies have -also taken shares in co-operative concerns started in their respective -trades. Full particulars will be found in the exhaustive work of Benjamin -Jones on <i>Co-operative Production</i>, 1894.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_482" href="#FNanchor_482" class="label">[482]</a>In one other respect the Trade Union expansion of 1872-74 resembled -that of 1833-34. Both periods were marked by an attempt to enrol the -women wage-earners in the Trade Union ranks. Ephemeral Unions of -women workers had been established from time to time, only to collapse -after a brief existence. The year 1872 saw the establishment of the oldest -durable Union for women only—the Edinburgh Upholsterers’ Sewers’ -Society. Two years later Mrs. Paterson, the real pioneer of modern -women’s Trade Unions, began her work in this field, and in 1875 several -small Unions among London Women Bookbinders, Upholsteresses, Shirt -and Collar Makers, and Dressmakers were established, to be followed, in -subsequent years, by others among Tailoresses, Laundresses, etc. Mrs. -Emma Ann Paterson (<i>née</i> Smith), who was born in 1848, the daughter of -a London schoolmaster, served from 1867 to 1873 successively as an -Assistant Secretary of the Working Men’s Club and Institute Union and -the Women’s Suffrage Association, and married, in 1873, Thomas Paterson, -a cabinetmaker. On a visit to the United States she became acquainted -with the “Female Umbrella Makers’ Union of New York,” and strove, on -her return in 1874, to promulgate the idea of Trade Unionism among -women workers in the South of England. After some newspaper articles, -she set on foot the Women’s Protective and Provident League (now the -Women’s Trade Union League), for the express purpose of promoting -Trade Unionism, and established in the same year the National Union of -Working Women at Bristol. From 1875 to 1886 she was a constant -attendant at the Trades Union Congress, and was several times nominated -for a seat on the Parliamentary Committee, at the Hull Congress heading -the list of unsuccessful candidates. An appreciative notice of her life and -work appeared in the <i>Women’s Union Journal</i> on her death in December -1886; see also <i>Dictionary of National Biography</i>, and <i>Women in the Printing -Trades</i>, edited by J. R. MacDonald (1904), pp. 36, 37.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_483" href="#FNanchor_483" class="label">[483]</a>Speech quoted in <i>Capital and Labour</i>; June 16, 1875.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_484" href="#FNanchor_484" class="label">[484]</a>It must be remembered that the words “arbitration” and “conciliation” -were at this time very loosely used, often meaning no more than -a meeting of employers and Trade Union representatives for argument and -discussion. The classic work upon the whole subject is Henry Crompton’s -<i>Industrial Conciliation</i>, 1876. It receives detailed examination in the -various contributions of Mr. L. L. Price, notably his <i>Industrial Peace</i>(1887) -and the supplementary papers entitled “The Relations between Industrial -Conciliation and Social Reform,” and “The Position and Prospects of -Industrial Conciliation,” published in the <i>Statistical Society’s Journal</i> for -June and September 1890 (vol. liii. pp. 290 and 420). For an American -summary may be consulted Joseph D. Weeks’ <i>Report on the Practical -Working of Arbitration and Conciliation in the Settlement of Differences -between Employers and Employees in England</i> (Harrisburg, 1879), and his -paper on <i>Labour Differences</i> (New York, 1886). The working of arbitration -is well set forth in <i>Strikes and Arbitration</i>, by Sir Rupert Kettle, 1866; -in A. J. Mundella’s evidence before the Trade Union Commission, 1868; -in his address, <i>Arbitration as a Means of Preventing Strikes</i>(Bradford, 1868; -24 pp.); and in the lecture by Dr. R. Spence Watson entitled “Boards of -Arbitration and Conciliation and Sliding Scales,” reported in the -<i>Barnsley Chronicle</i>, March 20, 1886. An early account of the Nottingham -experience is contained in the paper by E. Renals, “On Arbitration in the -Hosiery Trades of the Midland Counties” (<i>Statistical Society’s Journal</i>, -December 1867, vol. xxx. p. 548). See also the volume edited by Dr. -Brentano, <i>Arbeitseinstellungen und Fortbildung des Arbeitvertrags</i>(Leipzig, -1890), and <i>Zum socialen Frieden</i>, by Dr. von Schulze Gaevernitz (Leipzig, -2 vols., 1892). The whole subject of the relation between Trade Unions -and employers is fully dealt with in our <i>Industrial Democracy</i>. For the -latest British Official reports on the subject see Cd. 6603, 6952, and 9099.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_485" href="#FNanchor_485" class="label">[485]</a>The course of prices after 1870 demonstrates how disastrously this -principle would have operated for the wage-earners had it been universally -adopted. Between 1870 and 1894 the Index Number compiled by the -<i>Economist</i>, representing the average level of market prices, fell steadily -from 2996 to 2082, irrespective of the goodness of trade or the amount -of the employers’ profits. Any exact correspondence between wages and -the price of the product would exclude the wage-earners, as such, from all -share in the advantages of improvements in production, cheapening of -carriage, and the fall in the rate of interest, which might otherwise be -turned to account in an advance in the workman’s Standard of Life. On -the other hand, in an era of rising prices, when these influences are being -more than counteracted by currency inflation, increasing difficulty of production, -or a world-shortage of supply, an automatic correspondence between -money wages and the cost of living would be useful, if it did not -lead to the implication that the only ground for an advance in wages was -an increase in the cost of living. The workmen have still to contend for a -progressive improvement of their Standard of Life whatever happens to -profits.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_486" href="#FNanchor_486" class="label">[486]</a>Executive Circular, October 12, 1874.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_487" href="#FNanchor_487" class="label">[487]</a><i>Ibid.</i>, October 21, 1879; as to the Sliding Scales actually adopted, see -Appendix II.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_488" href="#FNanchor_488" class="label">[488]</a><i>Miners’ Watchman and Labour Sentinel</i>, February 9, 1878—a quasi-official -organ of the Northern Miners, which was published in London -from January to May 1878.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_489" href="#FNanchor_489" class="label">[489]</a>“Should Wages be Regulated by Market Prices?” by Lloyd Jones, -<i>Beehive</i>, July 18, 1874; see also his article in the issue for March 14, 1874.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_490" href="#FNanchor_490" class="label">[490]</a>Lloyd Jones, one of the ablest and most loyal friends of Trade Unionism, -was born at Bandon, in Ireland, in 1811, the son of a small working -master in the trade of fustian-cutting. Himself originally a working -fustian-cutter, Lloyd Jones became, like his father, a small master, but -eventually abandoned that occupation for journalism. He became an -enthusiastic advocate of Co-operation, and in 1850 he joined Thomas -Hughes and E. Vansittart Neale in a memorable lecturing tour through -Lancashire. A few years later we find him in London, in close touch with -the Trade Union leaders, with whom he was on terms of intimate friendship. -From the establishment of the <i>Beehive</i> in 1861 he was for eighteen years a -frequent contributor, his articles being uniformly distinguished by literary -ability, exact knowledge of industrial facts, and shrewd foresight. From -1870 until his death in 1886 he was frequently selected by the various -Unions to present their case in Arbitration proceedings. At the General -Election of 1885 he stood as candidate for the Chester-le-Street Division -of Durham, where he was opposed by both the official Liberals and the -Conservatives, and was unsuccessful. In conjunction with J. M. Ludlow, -he wrote <i>The Progress of the Working Classes</i>, 1867, and afterwards published -<i>The Life, Times, and Labours of Robert Owen</i>, to which a memoir by -his son, Mr. W. C. Jones, has since been prefixed.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_491" href="#FNanchor_491" class="label">[491]</a><i>Beehive</i>, May 16, 1874.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_492" href="#FNanchor_492" class="label">[492]</a>This information we owe to personal friends and colleagues of Macdonald, -Thomas Burt, M.P., and Ralph Young, who, as we have seen, -differed from him on this point, and also on the allied question of regulation -of output according to demand, to be preached by the coal-miners as -well as by the colliery companies, which Macdonald, throughout his whole -career, persistently advocated. See, for instance, his speech at the local -conference on the Depression of Trade, <i>Bristol Mercury</i>, February 13, 1878.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_493" href="#FNanchor_493" class="label">[493]</a>A useful summary of these events is given in Dr. Kleinwächter’s -pamphlet, <i>Zur Geschichte der englischen Arbeiterbewegung in den Jahren -1871 und 1874</i>(Jena, 1878; 150 pp.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_494" href="#FNanchor_494" class="label">[494]</a><i>Beehive</i>, June 5, 1875.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_495" href="#FNanchor_495" class="label">[495]</a>The operatives’ case is well put in the Weavers’ Manifesto of June -1878:</p> - -<p>“Fellow-workers—We are and have been engaged during the past -nine weeks in the most memorable struggle between Capital and Labour -in the history of the world. One hundred thousand factory workers are -waging war with their employers as to the best possible way to remove the -glut from an overstocked cloth market, and at the same time reduce the -difficulties arising from an insufficient supply of raw cotton. To remedy -this state of things the employers propose a reduction of wages to the -extent of ten per cent below the rate of wages agreed upon twenty-five -years ago. On the other hand, we have contended that a reduction in -the rate of wages cannot either remove the glut in the cloth market or -assist to tide us over the difficulty arising from the limited supply of raw -material. However, this has been the employers’ theory, and at various -periods throughout the struggle we have made the following propositions -as a basis of settlement of this most calamitous struggle:</p> - -<p>“1. A reduction of ten per cent, with four days’ working, or five per -cent with five days’ working, until the glut in the cloth market and the -difficulties arising from the dearth of cotton had been removed.</p> - -<p>“2. To submit the whole question of short time or reduction, or both, -to the arbitrement of any one or more impartial gentlemen.</p> - -<p>“3. To submit the entire question to two Manchester merchants or -agents, two shippers conversant with the Manchester trade, and two -bankers, one of each to be selected by the employers and the other by the -operatives, with two employers and two operatives, with Lord Derby, the -Bishop of Manchester, or any other impartial gentleman, as chairman, or, -if necessary, referee.</p> - -<p>“4. To split the difference between us, and go to work unconditionally -at a reduction of five per cent.</p> - -<p>“5. Through the Mayor of Burnley, to go to work three months at -a reduction of five per cent, and if trade had not sufficiently improved at -that time, to submit to a further reduction.</p> - -<p>“6. And lastly, to an unconditional reduction of seven and a half -per cent.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_496" href="#FNanchor_496" class="label">[496]</a>Amalgamated Society of Engineers, etc., Abstract Report of the -Council’s Proceedings, 1878-79, p. 18.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_497" href="#FNanchor_497" class="label">[497]</a>See <i>The Strikes of the Past Ten Years</i>, by G. Phillips Bevan (March -1880, <i>Stat. Soc. Journal</i>, vol. xliii. pp. 35-54). We have ascertained that -the strikes mentioned in the <i>Times</i> between 1876 and 1889 show the following -variations:</p> - -<table summary="Strikes"> -<tr><td>1876</td> - <td class="right">17</td></tr> -<tr><td>1877</td> - <td class="right">23</td></tr> -<tr><td>1878</td> - <td class="right">38</td></tr> -<tr><td>1879</td> - <td class="right">72</td></tr> -<tr><td>1880</td> - <td class="right">46</td></tr> -<tr><td>1881</td> - <td class="right">20</td></tr> -<tr><td>1882</td> - <td class="right">14</td></tr> -<tr><td>1883</td> - <td class="right">26</td></tr> -<tr><td>1884</td> - <td class="right">31</td></tr> -<tr><td>1885</td> - <td class="right">20</td></tr> -<tr><td>1886</td> - <td class="right">24</td></tr> -<tr><td>1887</td> - <td class="right">27</td></tr> -<tr><td>1888</td> - <td class="right">37</td></tr> -<tr><td>1889</td> - <td class="right">111</td></tr> -</table> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_498" href="#FNanchor_498" class="label">[498]</a>Secret circular from the London Secretary (Sidney Smith) of the Iron -Trades Employers’ Association, December 1878; republished in Circular -of Amalgamated Society of Engineers, January 3, 1879, and in Report of -Executive Council for 1878-79, p. 31.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_499" href="#FNanchor_499" class="label">[499]</a>At Manchester, Bolton, Ramsbottom, Wrexham, Falmouth, Aldershot, -etc., the hours were thus lengthened.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_500" href="#FNanchor_500" class="label">[500]</a>To the ordinary reader it may be desirable to explain that the Unions -have, in most trades, succeeded in establishing the principle of the payment -of higher rates for overtime. But in most cases this is limited to workers -paid by time, no extra allowance being given to the man working by the -piece.</p> - -<p>It will be obvious that if a workman, ostensibly enjoying a Nine Hours -Day, is habitually required to work overtime, and is paid only at the normal -piecework rate for his work, he obtains no advantage whatever from the -nominal fixing of his hours of labour. To many thousands of men in the -engineering and building trades the nominal maintenance of the Nine -Hours Day meant, in 1878 and succeeding years, no more than this. See -for the whole subject of “the Normal Day,” <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, by -S. and B. Webb.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_501" href="#FNanchor_501" class="label">[501]</a>The lowest point reached in the statistics of the annual Trades -Union Congresses was in 1881, when the delegates claimed to represent -little more than a third of the numbers of 1874. These statistics of membership -are, however, in many respects misleading. The Congress of 1879 -was attended by a much smaller number of delegates than any Congress -since 1872, and the number of Unions represented was also the smallest -since that date.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_502" href="#FNanchor_502" class="label">[502]</a>“Four years ago,” writes the President of the Bristol Coopers’ Society -in 1878, “upwards of 40,000 workmen were in combination in these -valleys [South Wales], and to-day not a single Union is in existence -throughout the entire district.” (Paper at Local Conference on the -Depression of Trade, <i>Bristol Mercury</i>, February 13, 1878).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_503" href="#FNanchor_503" class="label">[503]</a>See the injunctions of the General Secretary, Monthly Report, March -1862; Annual Reports, 1882 and 1888. Robert Knight consistently -opposed “violent fluctuations of wages, at one time a starvation pittance, -at another exorbitantly high.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_504" href="#FNanchor_504" class="label">[504]</a><i>Trade Unionism, New and Old</i>, by George Howell, M.P. (1891), p. 235.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_505" href="#FNanchor_505" class="label">[505]</a>House of Commons Journals, Motion of March 14, 1882: “That in -the opinion of this House it is detrimental to the public service, fatal to -the efficiency of our war ships, and unjust to the fitters in Her Majesty’s -Dockyards, that superintending leading men should be placed in authority -over workmen with whose trades they have no practical acquaintance, or -that men should be put to execute work for which they are unsuited either -by training or experience.” See <i>Henry Broadhurst, the Story of his Life -from a Stonemason’s Bench to the Treasury Bench</i>, by himself, 1901.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_506" href="#FNanchor_506" class="label">[506]</a>Evidence of Mr. Chandler, then general secretary of Amalgamated -Society of Carpenters and Joiners (Labour Commission, 1892, vol. iii. -Q. 22,014).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_507" href="#FNanchor_507" class="label">[507]</a>Abstract Report of Amalgamated Engineers, June 30, 1876.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_508" href="#FNanchor_508" class="label">[508]</a>In 1890, however, Robert Knight, who had been throughout the -foremost worker for federation, succeeded in establishing a Federation of -the Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades of the United Kingdom, described -in our <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, from which the Amalgamated Society of -Engineers has held aloof. A large part of the work of the Federal Executive -consisted, for many years, of adjusting disputes between Union and Union -with regard to overlap and apportionment of work. For the whole subject, -see our <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, 1897.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_509" href="#FNanchor_509" class="label">[509]</a>When, in 1890, the project of universal federation was revived, the -draft rules of 1879 were simply reprinted.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_510" href="#FNanchor_510" class="label">[510]</a>Report of Manchester Congress, 1882; see also <i>History of the British -Trades Union Congress</i>, by W. J. Davis, vol. i., 1910.</p> - -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_358">[Pg 358]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII</h2> -</div> - -<p class="h2sub">THE OLD UNIONISM AND THE NEW<br /> -[1875-1890]</p> - -<p>Since 1875 the Trades Union Congress has loomed before -the general public with ever-increasing impressiveness as -the representative Parliament of the Trade Union world. -To the historical student, on the other hand, it has, during -the last fifty years, been wanting in significance as an index -to the real factors of the Trade Union Movement. Between -1871 and 1875, the period of the struggle for complete -legalisation, the Congress concentrated the efforts of the -different sections upon the common object they had all at -heart. On the accomplishment of that object it became -for ten years little more than an annual gathering of Trade -Union officials, in which they delivered, with placid unanimity, -their views on labour legislation and labour politics. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_359">[Pg 359]</span><a id="FNanchor_511" href="#Footnote_511" class="fnanchor">[511]</a> -From 1885 to 1890 we shall watch the Congress losing its -decorous calm, and gradually becoming the battle-field of -contending principles and rival leaders. But throughout its -whole career it has, to speak strictly, been representative -less of the development of Trade Unionism as such, than -of the social and political aspirations of its leading members.</p> - -<p>The reader of the Congress proceedings between 1875 -and 1885 would, for instance, fail to recognise our description -of the characteristics of the movement in these years. -The predominant feature of the Trade Union world between -1875 and 1885 was, as we have seen, an extreme and -complicated sectionalism. It might therefore have been -expected that the annual meeting of delegates from different -trades would have been made the debating ground for all -the moot points and vexed questions of Trade Unionism, not -to say the battle-field of opposing interests. But though -the Trades Union Congress, like all popular assemblies, -had its stormy scenes and hot discussions, from 1875 -to 1885 these episodes arose only on personal questions, -such as the conduct of individual members of the committee -or the <i>bona fides</i> of particular delegates. On all questions -of policy or principle before the Congress the delegates were -generally unanimous. This was brought about by the deliberate -exclusion of all Trade Union problems from the -agenda. The relative merits of collective bargaining and -legislative regulation were, during these years, never so -much as discussed. The alternative types of benefit club -and trade society were not compared. The difficulties of -overlap and apportionment of work were not even referred -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_360">[Pg 360]</span> -to. No mention was made of Sliding Scales, Wage-Boards, -Piecework Lists, or other expedients for avoiding disputes. -Piecework itself, when introduced by a delegate in 1876, -was dropped as a dangerous topic. The disputes between -Union and Union were regarded by the Committee as outside -the proper scope of Congress.<a id="FNanchor_512" href="#Footnote_512" class="fnanchor">[512]</a> In short, the knotty -problems of Trade Union organisation, the divergent views -as to Trade Union policy, the effect on Trade Unionism of -different methods of remuneration—all the critical issues of -industrial strife were expressly excluded from the agenda of -the Congress.</p> - -<p>For the narrow limits thus set to the functions of the -Congress there was an historical reason. Arising as it did -between 1868 and 1871, when the one absorbing topic was -the relation of Trade Unionism to the law, it had retained -the character then impressed upon it of an exclusively -political body. For many years its chief use was to give -weight to the Parliamentary action of the standing committee, -whose influence in the lobby of the House of -Commons was directly proportionate to the numbers they -were believed to represent. Publicity and advertisement, -the first requisites of a successful Congress, were worse -than useless without unanimity of opinion. The deliberate -refusal of the Trade Union leaders to discuss internal -problems in public Congress under such circumstances was -not surprising. Most men in their position would have -hesitated to let the world know that the apparent solidarity -of Trade Unionism covered jealous disputes on technical -questions, and fundamental differences as to policy. They -easily persuaded themselves that a yearly meeting of -shifting delegates was fitted neither to debate technical -questions nor to serve as a tribunal of appeal. But these -difficulties could have been overcome. The quinquennial -delegate meeting of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_361">[Pg 361]</span> -secures absolute frankness of discussion by the exclusion of -reporters; and the frequent national conferences of miners -achieve the same end by supplying the press with their -own abstract of the proceedings. The Miners’ Conference -of 1863, which we have already described, had shown, too, -how successfully a large conference of workmen could -resolve itself, for special questions, into private committees, -the reports being laid before the whole conference -at its public sittings—a device not yet adopted by the -Trades Union Congress. And the London Society of Compositors, -which is governed practically by mass meetings, -had, for over half a century, known how to combine detailed -investigation of complicated questions with Democratic decisions -on principles of policy, by appointing special committees -to report to the next subsequent members’ meeting. -The fact that no such expedients were suggested shows that -in these years the jealousy of most workmen of outside -interference and their apathy about questions unconnected -with their immediate trade interests, made their leaders -unwilling to trust them with real opportunities for full -Democratic discussion.</p> - -<p>We shall therefore not attempt to reconstruct the Trade -Union Movement from the proceedings of its annual congresses. -The following brief analysis of their programmes -and the achievements of the Parliamentary Committee is -meant to show, not the facts as to Trade Union organisation -throughout the country, with which we have already dealt, -but the political and social ideals that filled the minds of -the more thoughtful and better educated working men, and -the rapid transformation of these ideals in the course of -the last decade. -<a id="FNanchor_513" href="#Footnote_513" class="fnanchor">[513]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_362">[Pg 362]</span></p> - -<p>The mantle of the Junta of 1867-71 had, by 1875, fallen -upon a group of able organisers who, for many years, -occupied the foremost place in the Trade Union world. -Between 1872 and 1875 Allan and Applegarth were replaced -by Henry Broadhurst, John Burnett, J. D. Prior, and -George Shipton.<a id="FNanchor_514" href="#Footnote_514" class="fnanchor">[514]</a> These leaders had moulded their methods -and policy upon those of the able men who preceded them. -It was they, indeed, aided by Alexander Macdonald and -Thomas Burt, who had actually carried through the final -achievement of 1875. Like Allan, Applegarth, and Guile, -they belonged either to the iron or the building trades, and -were permanent officials of Trade Union organisations. A -comparison of the private minutes of the Parliamentary -Committee between 1875 and 1885 with those of the Conference -of Amalgamated Trades of 1867-71 reveals how -exactly the new “Front Bench” carried on the traditions -of the Junta. We see the same shrewd caution and practical -opportunism. We notice the same assiduous lobbying in -the House of Commons, and the same recurring deputations -to evasive Ministers. For the first few years, at least, we -watch the Committee in frequent consultation with the same -devoted legal experts and Parliamentary friends.<a id="FNanchor_515" href="#Footnote_515" class="fnanchor">[515]</a> Through -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_363">[Pg 363]</span> -the skilful guidance and indefatigable activity of Henry -Broadhurst the political machinery of the Trade Union -Movement was maintained and even increased in efficiency. -If during these years the occupants of the “Front Bench” -failed to give so decisive a lead to the Labour Movement as -their predecessors had done, the fault lay, not in the men -or in the machinery, but rather in the programme which -they set themselves to carry out.</p> - -<p>This programme, laid before all candidates for the House -of Commons at the General Election of 1874, was based, as -John Prior subsequently declared, on the principle “that -all exceptional legislation affecting working men should be -swept away, and that they should be placed on precisely -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_364">[Pg 364]</span> -the same footing as other classes of the community.”<a id="FNanchor_516" href="#Footnote_516" class="fnanchor">[516]</a> Its -main items were the repeal of the hated Criminal Law -Amendment Act of 1871, and the further legalisation of -Trade Unionism. The sweeping triumphs of 1875, and the -acceptance by the Conservative Government of the proposals -of the Junta, denuded the programme for subsequent -years of its most striking proposals. There remained over -in this department certain minor amendments of law and -procedure which occupied the attention of the Committee -for the next few years, and were gradually, by their exertions, -carried into effect. -<a id="FNanchor_517" href="#Footnote_517" class="fnanchor">[517]</a></p> - -<p>But one great disability still lay upon working men as -such. By the common law of England a person is liable -for the results, not only of his own negligence, but also -for that of his servant, if acting within the scope of his -employment. The one exception is that, whereas to a -stranger the master is liable for the negligence of any person -whom he employs, to his servant he is not liable for the -negligence of a fellow-servant in common employment. By -this legal refinement, which dates only from 1837, and which -successive judicial decisions have engrafted upon the common -law, a workman who suffered injury through the negligence -of some other person in the same employment was precluded -from recovering that compensation from the common -employer which a stranger, to whom the same accident -had happened, could claim and enforce.<a id="FNanchor_518" href="#Footnote_518" class="fnanchor">[518]</a> If by the error -of a signalman a railway train met with an accident, all the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_365">[Pg 365]</span> -injured passengers could obtain compensation from the -railway company; but the engine-driver and guard were -expressly excluded from any remedy. What the workman -demanded was the abolition of the doctrine of “common employment,” -and the placing of the employee upon exactly the -same footing for compensation as any member of the public.</p> - -<p>By the influence of the Miners’ National Union and the -Amalgamated Society of the Railway Servants (established -in 1872) the removal of this disability was, from the first, -placed in the foreground of the Trade Union programme. -Year after year Employers’ Liability Bills were brought in -by the Trade Union representatives in the House of Commons, -only to be met by stubborn resistance from the -capitalists of both parties. Through the pertinacity of -Henry Broadhurst a partial reform<a id="FNanchor_519" href="#Footnote_519" class="fnanchor">[519]</a> was obtained from -Gladstone’s Government in 1880, in spite of the furious -opposition of the great employers of labour sitting on both -sides of the House. The responsibility of the employer for -insuring his workmen against the risks of their calling was, -for the first time, clearly recognised by Parliament. The -report of the Parliamentary Committee for 1880 claimed -that the main battle on the subject had been fought, and -that “time and opportunity only were now wanting for -the completion of this work.” Since then the promotion -of claims for compensation for accidents has been one of -the most important functions of Trade Unions; and many -of the societies, such as the Bricklayers and Boilermakers, -have recovered thousands of pounds for injured members or -their relatives.<a id="FNanchor_520" href="#Footnote_520" class="fnanchor">[520]</a> But the doctrine of “common employment,” -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_366">[Pg 366]</span> -modified by this Act, was by no means abolished. -Employers, moreover, were allowed to induce their work-people -to “contract out” of the provisions of the Act.<a id="FNanchor_521" href="#Footnote_521" class="fnanchor">[521]</a> -An Employers’ Liability Bill, the last remnant of the demands -of the Junta, remained, therefore, from 1872 onward a permanent -item in the Trade Union programme down to 1896.</p> - -<p>With the exception of this one proposal the Parliamentary -programme of the Trade Union world was framed, in -effect, by the New Front Bench. Curiously devoid of interest -or reality, it is important to the political student as showing -to what extent the thoughtful and superior workman had, -at this time, imbibed the characteristic ideas of middle-class -reformers.</p> - -<p>The programme of the Parliamentary Committee between -1875 and 1885 falls mainly under three heads. We have -first a group of measures the aim of which was the democratisation -of the electoral, administrative, and judicial -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_367">[Pg 367]</span> -machinery of the State. Another set of reforms had for -their end the enabling of the exceptionally thrifty or exceptionally -industrious man to rise out of the wage-earning -class. A third group of proposals aimed at the legal regulation -of the conditions of particular industries.</p> - -<p>Complete political Democracy had been for over a century -the creed of the superior workmen. It was therefore not -unnatural that it should come to the front in the Trades -Union Congress. What appears peculiar is the form which -this old-standing faith took in the hands of the Front Bench. -The Trade Union leaders of 1837-42 had adopted enthusiastically -the “Six Points” of the Charter. Even the sober -Junta of 1867-71 had sat with Karl Marx on the committee -of the “International,” in the programme of which Universal -Suffrage was but a preliminary bagatelle. To the Front -Bench of 1875-85 Democracy appeared chiefly in the guise -of the Codification of the Criminal Law, the Reform of the -Jury System, the creation of a Court of Criminal Appeal, -and the Regulation of the Summary Jurisdiction of the -Magistracy—a curious group of law reforms which it is -easy to trace to the little knot of barristers who had stood -by the Unions in their hour of trial.<a id="FNanchor_522" href="#Footnote_522" class="fnanchor">[522]</a> We do not wish to -deprecate the value of these proposals, framed in the -interests of all classes of the community; but they were -not, and probably were never intended to be, in any sense -a democratisation of our judicial system.<a id="FNanchor_523" href="#Footnote_523" class="fnanchor">[523]</a> When the Congress -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_368">[Pg 368]</span> -dealt with electoral reform it got no further than the -assimilation of the county and borough franchise—already -a commonplace of middle-class Liberalism. The student of -Continental labour movements will find it difficult to believe -that in the representative Congress of the English artisans, -amendments in favour of Manhood Suffrage were even as -late as 1882 and 1883 rejected by large majorities.<a id="FNanchor_524" href="#Footnote_524" class="fnanchor">[524]</a> Nor -did the Parliamentary Committee put even the County -Franchise into their own programme until it had become -the battle-cry of the Liberal party at the General Election -of 1880. The Extension of the Hours of Polling becomes a -subject of discussion from 1878 onward, but the Payment -of Election Expenses does not come up until 1883, and -Payment of Members not until 1884.</p> - -<p>Scarcely less significant in character were the measures -of social reform advocated during these years. The prominent -Trade Unionists had been converted, as we have -already had occasion to point out, to the economic Individualism -which at this time dominated the Liberal party. -A significant proof of this unconscious conversion is to be -found in the unanimity with which a Trades Union Congress -could repeatedly press for such “reforms” as Peasant -Proprietorship, the purchase by the artisan of his own -cottage, the establishment of “self-governing workshops,” -the multiplication of patents in the hands of individual -workmen, and other changes which would cut at the root -of Trade Unionism or any collective control of the means of -production. For whatever advantages there might be in -turning the agricultural labourer into a tiny freeholder, it is -obvious that under such a system no Agricultural Labourers’ -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_369">[Pg 369]</span> -Union could exist. However useful it may be to make -the town artisan independent of a landlord, it has been -proved beyond controversy that wage-earning owners of -houses lose that perfect mobility which enables them, -through their Trade Union, to boycott the bad employer or -desert the low-paying district. And we can imagine the -dismay with which the leaders of the Nine Hours Movement -would have discovered that any considerable proportion -of the engineering work of Newcastle was being done -in workshops owned by artisans whose interests as capitalists -or patentees conflicted with the common interests of all -the workers.</p> - -<p>In no respect, however, does the conversion of the Trade -Union leaders to middle-class views stand out more clearly -than in their attitude to the clamour from the workers in -certain industries for the legal protection of their Standard -of Life. From time immemorial one of the leading tenets of -Trade Unionism has been the desirability of maintaining -by law the minimum Standard of Life of the workers, and -it was still steadfastly held by two important sections of -the Trade Union world, the Cotton Operatives and the Coal-miners. -But to the Parliamentary Committee of 1875-85, -as to the Liberal legislators, every demand for securing the -conditions of labour by legislation appeared as an invidious -exception, only to be justified by the special helplessness -or incompetency of the applicants. Nevertheless, many of -the trades succeeded in persuading Congress to back up the -particular sectional legislation they desired. The Tailors -asked, on the one hand, for the extension of the Factory -Acts to home workers, and, on the other, for compensation -out of public funds when interfered with by the sanitary -inspector. The Bakers complained with equal pertinacity -of the lack of public inspection of bakehouses, and of the -hardships of their regulation by the Smoke Prevention -Acts. The London Cabmen sought the aid of Congress, not -against their employers, the cab proprietors, but against -the public. The men in charge of engines and boilers -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_370">[Pg 370]</span> -demanded that no one should be allowed to work at their -trade without obtaining from the Government a certificate -of competency. In the absence of any fixed or consistent -idea of the collective interest of the wage-earning class, or -of Trade Unionists as such, every proposal that any section -demanded for itself was accepted with equanimity by the -Congress, and passed on to the Parliamentary Committee -to carry out, however inconsistent it might be with the -general principles that swayed their minds. -<a id="FNanchor_525" href="#Footnote_525" class="fnanchor">[525]</a></p> - -<p>It is not difficult to understand why, with such a programme, -the Trade Union world failed, between 1876 and -1885, to exercise any effective influence upon the House of -Commons. A few concessions to the wage-earners were, -indeed, obtained from the Government. The Employers’ -Liability Act of 1880, to which we have already referred, -represented, in spite of all its deficiencies, a new departure -of considerable importance. Useful little clauses protecting -the interests of the wage-earners were, through Broadhurst’s -pertinacity, inserted in Chamberlain’s Bankruptcy Act and -in his Joint Stock Companies Act.<a id="FNanchor_526" href="#Footnote_526" class="fnanchor">[526]</a> But it was left to -Charles Bradlaugh, who had never been a Trade Unionist, -to initiate the useful law prohibiting the payment of wages -in public-houses, though when it was introduced the Parliamentary -Committee (observing that it was unnecessary in -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_371">[Pg 371]</span> -respect of organised trades) gave it a mild support. Bradlaugh -it was, too, who in 1887 got passed the amendment -of the law against Truck—a subject which the Parliamentary -Committee had, in 1877, dismissed from their programme -on the ground that they were unable, in the trades of which -they had knowledge, to find sufficient evidence of its necessity.<a id="FNanchor_527" href="#Footnote_527" class="fnanchor">[527]</a> -But the failure of the Parliamentary Committee to -induce the Government of the day to legislate for wage-earners -as such was naturally most patent in that group -of reforms which dealt with the legal regulation of the -conditions of labour. To the great consolidating Factory -Bill of 1878 they found only four small amendments to -propose; and of these only one was carried.<a id="FNanchor_528" href="#Footnote_528" class="fnanchor">[528]</a> The “Sweating -System” of home work against which the Tailors and -Bootmakers were suggesting stringent but, as we venture -to think, ill-considered legislation was permitted to expand -free from all regulation. The bakehouses, too, were allowed -to slip virtually out of inspection. Deputation after deputation -waited on the Home Secretary to press for an increase -in the number of factory inspectors, only to be met with -the apparently unanswerable argument that it would cost -money which the poor taxpayers could ill spare, until the -astute and practical leaders of the Lancashire Cotton Operatives -grew tired of the monotonous regularity with which -their resolutions in favour of further factory inspection and -more stringent regulations of the conditions of their trade -were passed by Congress, and the little assistance which -this endorsement procured for them. A “Northern Counties -Factory Act Reform Association” was established in 1886, -to do the work which the Trades Union Congress and its -Parliamentary Committee had failed to accomplish. We -have, in fact, only one important achievement of the Parliamentary -Committee to record in this department of social -reform. For years Congress had passed emphatic resolutions -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_372">[Pg 372]</span> -in favour of the selection of practical working men as -Factory Inspectors. Great was the jubilation at the appointment, -in 1882, of J. D. Prior, General Secretary of the -Amalgamated Society of Carpenters, and a member of the -Parliamentary Committee, to the post of Inspector. -<a id="FNanchor_529" href="#Footnote_529" class="fnanchor">[529]</a></p> - -<p>In matters of more general interest the Trade Union -leaders were not more successful, though the attempt to -reform the law and its administration resulted in some -minor improvements. The first outcome of the projects -for law reform so dear to the Congresses of 1876-80 was -the Justices’ Clerks Act of 1877, which enabled magistrates -to remit costs. The passing of the Summary Jurisdiction -Act of 1879, which gave defendants the right to claim trial -before a jury whenever the penalty exceeded three months’ -imprisonment, was, Howell observes, “materially aided by -the action of Congress.” But it is needless to inform the -reader that the Criminal Law never got itself codified. To -this day juries continue to be drawn exclusively from the -upper and middle classes. The long agitation for the -abolition of the unpaid magistracy ended in an anti-climax. -The Liberal Government of 1884 left the system unaltered, -but, on the nomination of Henry Broadhurst,<a id="FNanchor_530" href="#Footnote_530" class="fnanchor">[530]</a> placed four -Trade Union leaders upon the magisterial bench in certain -Lancashire boroughs, a precedent since followed by successive -Lord Chancellors.</p> - -<p>In one direction the Parliamentary Committee saw their -hopes fully accomplished. Their adoption of the particular -projects of electoral reform advocated by the Liberal party -enabled them to render effective help in the passing of the -Acts of 1885, which assimilated the County and the Borough -Franchise, effected a redistribution of seats, and made the -extended hours of polling universal. But the desire of -successive Congresses for effective labour representation -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_373">[Pg 373]</span> -continued to be baulked by the extortion from candidates -of heavy election expenses, and by the refusal to provide -payment for service in Parliament and other public bodies. -On the burning question of the land the Parliamentary -Committee supported with conscientious fervour Gladstone’s -Irish policy of creating small freeholds, and enthusiastically -endorsed the proposals of Chamberlain for the extension of -similar legislation to Great Britain. The same spirit no -doubt entered into their support of the provisions of Chamberlain’s -Patent Act, designed to facilitate the taking out -of patents by poor inventors. To sum up the situation, we -may say that the resolutions of the Trades Union Congress -on questions of general politics between 1880 and 1884 -were successfully pressed on the Legislature only in so far -as they happened to coincide with the proposals of the -Liberal party. With the one great exception of the Employers’ -Liability Act, nothing seems really to have called -out the full energies of the leaders. The manifestoes and -published memoranda of the Parliamentary Committee -during these years do not differ either in tone or in substance -from the speeches and articles in which Chamberlain -and other Radical capitalists were propounding a programme -of individualist Radicalism. In fact, the draft “Address -to the Workmen of the United Kingdom,” which the Parliamentary -Committee, in anticipation of the General -Election, submitted to the Congress of 1885, fell far short -of Chamberlain’s “Unauthorised Programme.” It occurred -neither to the Parliamentary Committee nor to the Congress -to suggest the obvious answer to Sir William Harcourt’s -financial objection to increased factory inspection. No -trace is to be discovered of any consciousness on the part -of the Trade Union leaders of the existence of a very substantial -tribute annually levied upon the industrial world -under the names of rent and interest. And even Chamberlain’s -modest and tentative proposals of these years, relating -to the payment, by the recipients of that tribute, of -some contribution by way of “ransom,” found no echo in -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_374">[Pg 374]</span> -the official programme of the Trade Union world. Finally, -though the Congress had adopted Payment of Election -Expenses in 1883, and Payment of Members in 1884, the -Parliamentary Committee omitted both these propositions -from its draft, and, like Gladstone, could not even bring -itself to ask for Free Education. The three latter points -were added to the draft by the Congress.</p> - -<p>The assimilation of the political creed of the Trade -Union leaders with that of the official Liberal party was -perfectly sincere. We have already described, in the preceding -chapter, how the Junta had begun to be unconsciously -converted from the traditional position of Trade -Unionism to the principle of Administrative Nihilism, then -dominant in the middle class. It is unnecessary for us to -argue whether this conception of the functions of law and -government is or is not an adequate view of social development. -The able and conscientious men who formed the -Front Bench of the Trades Union Congress of 1876-85 had -grown up without any alternative political theory, and had -accordingly erected the objection to legislative interference -or Governmental administration into an absolute dogma. -<a id="FNanchor_531" href="#Footnote_531" class="fnanchor">[531]</a></p> - -<p><i>Laisser-faire</i>, then, was the political and social creed of -the Trade Union leaders of this time. Up to 1885 they -undoubtedly represented the views current among the rank -and file. At that date all observers were agreed that the -Trade Unions of Great Britain would furnish an impenetrable -barrier against Socialistic projects. Within a decade -we find the whole Trade Union world permeated with -Collectivist ideas, and, as the <i>Times</i> recorded as early as -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_375">[Pg 375]</span> -1893, the Socialist party supreme in the Trades Union -Congress.<a id="FNanchor_532" href="#Footnote_532" class="fnanchor">[532]</a> This revolution in opinion is the chief event of -Trade Union history at the close of the nineteenth century; -and we propose to analyse in some detail the various influences -which in our opinion co-operated to bring it about. -We shall trace the beginnings of a new intellectual ferment -in the Trade Union world. We shall watch this working -on minds awakened by an industrial contraction of exceptional -character. We shall see it resulting in the revelation -of hideous details of poverty and degradation, for which -deepening social compunction imperatively demanded a -remedy. We shall describe the recrudescence of a revolutionary -Utopianism like the Owenism of 1833-34. We shall -trace the gradual schooling of the impracticable elements -into a sobered and somewhat bureaucratic Collectivism; -and finally, we shall watch the rapid diffusion of this new -faith throughout the whole Trade Union world. -<a id="FNanchor_533" href="#Footnote_533" class="fnanchor">[533]</a></p> - -<p>If we had to assign to any one event the starting of -the new current of thought, we should name the wide circulation -in Great Britain of Henry George’s <i>Progress and -Poverty</i> during the years 1880-82. The optimistic and -aggressive tone of the book, in marked contrast with the -complacent quietism into which the English working-class -movement had sunk, and the force of the popularisation of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_376">[Pg 376]</span> -the economic Theory of Rent, sounded the dominant note -alike of the “New Unionism” and of the British Socialist -Movement. Henry George made, it is true, no contribution -to the problems of industrial organisation; nor had he, -outside of the “Single Tax” on land values, any intention -of promoting a general Collectivist movement. But he -succeeded, where previous writers had failed, in widely -diffusing among all classes a vivid appreciation of the nature -and results of the landlord’s appropriation of economic -rent. It is, in our judgement, the spread among the town -artisans of this conception of rent which has so largely -transformed the economic views of the Trade Union world, -and which has gone far to shift the lines of politics. The land -question in particular has been completely revolutionised. -Instead of the Chartist cry of “Back to the Land,” still -adhered to by rural labourers and belated politicians, the -town artisan is thinking of his claim to the unearned increment -of urban land values, which he now watches falling -into the coffers of the great landlords.</p> - -<p>But if Henry George gave the starting push, it was the -propaganda of the Socialists that got the new movement -under way. The Socialist party, which became reorganised -in London between 1881 and 1883, after practically a generation -of quiescence, merged the project of Land Nationalisation -in the wider conception of an organised Democratic -community in which the collective power and the collective -income should be consciously directed to the common benefit -of all.<a id="FNanchor_534" href="#Footnote_534" class="fnanchor">[534]</a> Whilst Henry George was, almost in his own -despite, driving Peasant Proprietorship and Leasehold Enfranchisement -out of the political field, the impressive -description which Karl Marx had given of the effects of the -Industrial Revolution was interpreting to the thoughtful -workman the every-day incidents of industrial life. It -needed no Socialist to convince the artisan in any of the -great industries that his chance of rising to be a successful -employer was becoming daily more remote. It required no -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_377">[Pg 377]</span> -agitator to point out that amid an enormous increase in -wealth production the wages of the average mechanic remained -scarcely sufficient to bring up his family in decency -and comfort, whilst whole sections of his unskilled fellow-workers -received less than the barest family maintenance. -Even the skilled mechanic saw himself exposed to panics, -commercial crises, and violent industrial dislocations, over -which neither he nor his Trade Union had any control, and -by which he and his children were often reduced to destitution. -But it was the Socialists who supplied the workman -with a plausible explanation of these untoward facts. -Through the incessant lecturing of H. M. Hyndman, William -Morris, and other disciples of Karl Marx, working men were -taught that the impossibility of any large section of the -working class becoming their own employers was due, not -to lack of self-control, capacity, or thrift, but to the Industrial -Revolution, with its improvement of mechanical -processes, its massing of capital, and the consequent extinction -of the small <i>entrepreneur</i> by great industrial establishments. -In this light the divorce of the manual workers -from the ownership of the means of production was seen to -be no passing phase, but an economic development which -must, under any system of private control of industry, -become steadily more complete. And it was argued that -the terrible alterations of over-production and commercial -stagnation, the anomaly that a glut of commodities should -be a cause of destitution, were the direct result of the -management of industry with a view to personal profit, -instead of to the satisfaction of public wants.</p> - -<p>The economic circumstances of the time supplied the -Socialist lecturers with dramatic illustrations of their theory. -The acute depression of 1878-79 had been succeeded by only -a brief and partial expansion during 1881-83. A period of -prolonged though not exceptional contraction followed, -during which certain staple trades experienced the most -sudden and excessive fluctuations. In the great industry -of shipbuilding, for instance, the bad times of 1879 were -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_378">[Pg 378]</span> -succeeded by a period during which trade expanded by -leaps and bounds, more than twice the tonnage being built -in 1883 than in 1879. In the very next year this enormous -production came suddenly to an end, many shipbuilding -yards being closed and whole towns on the north-east coast -finding their occupation for the moment destroyed. The -total tonnage built fell from 1,250,000 in 1883 to 750,000 -in 1884, 540,000 in 1885, and to the still lower total of -473,000 in 1886. Thousands of the most highly skilled and -best organised mechanics, who had been brought to Jarrow -or Sunderland the year before, found themselves reduced to -absolute destitution, not from any failure of their industry, -but merely because the exigencies of competitive profit-making -had led to the concentration in one year of the -normal production of two. “In every shipbuilding port,” -says Robert Knight in the Boilermakers’ Annual Report for -1886, “there are to be seen thousands of idle men vainly -seeking for an honest day’s work. The privation that has -been endured by them, their wives and children, is terrible -to contemplate. Sickness has been very prevalent, whilst -the hundreds of pinched and hungry faces have told a tale -of suffering and privation which no optimism could minimise -or conceal. Hide it—cover it up as we may, there is a -depth of grief and trouble the full revelations of which, we -believe, cannot be indefinitely postponed. The workman -may be ignorant of science and the arts, and the sum of -his exact knowledge may be only that which he has gained -in his closely circumscribed daily toil; but he is not blind, -and his thoughts do not take the shape of daily and hourly -thanksgiving that his condition is not worse than it is; he -does not imitate the example of the pious shepherd of -Salisbury Plain, who derived supreme contentment from the -fact that a kind Providence had vouchsafed him salt to -eat with his potatoes. He sees the lavish display of wealth -in which he has no part. He sees a large and growing class -enjoying inherited abundance. He sees miles of costly -residences, each occupied by fewer people than are crowded -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_379">[Pg 379]</span> -into single rooms of the tenement in which he lives. He -cannot fail to reason that there must be something wrong -in a system which effects such unequal distribution of the -wealth created by labour.”</p> - -<p>Other skilled trades had, between 1883 and 1887, a -similar though less dramatic experience. At the International -Trades Union Congress of 1886, James Mawdsley, -the cautious leader of the Lancashire cotton-spinners, speaking -as a member of the Parliamentary Committee on behalf -of the British section, described the state of affairs in England -in the following terms: “Wages had fallen, and there -was a great number of unemployed.... Flax mills were -being closed every day.... All the building trades were in -a bad position; ... ironfoundries were in difficulties, and -one-third of the shipwrights were without work.... Steam-engine -makers were also slack, except those manufacturers -who exported to France, Germany, and Austria. With a -few rare exceptions, the depression affecting the great leading -trades was felt in a thousand-and-one occupations. -Seeing that there was a much larger number of unemployed, -the question naturally presented itself as to whether there -was any chance of improvement. He considered there was -no chance of improvement so long as the present state of -society continued to exist.... He did not understand -their Socialism; he had not studied it as perhaps he ought -to have done. The workmen of England were not so -advanced as the workmen of the Continent. Nevertheless -they, at least, possessed one clear conception: they realised -that the actual producers did not obtain their share of the -wealth they created.”<a id="FNanchor_535" href="#Footnote_535" class="fnanchor">[535]</a> We see the same spirit spreading -even to the most conservative and exclusive trades. “To -our minds,” writes the Central Secretary of the powerful -Union of Flint Glass Makers, “it is very hard for employers -to attempt to force men into systems by which they cannot -earn an honourable living. These unjust attempts to -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_380">[Pg 380]</span> -grind down the working men will not be tolerated much -longer, for revolutionary changes are beginning to show -themselves, and important matters affecting the industrial -classes will speedily come to the front. Why, for example, -should Lord Dudley inherit coal-mines and land producing -£1000 a day while his colliers have to slave all the week -and cannot get a living?” -<a id="FNanchor_536" href="#Footnote_536" class="fnanchor">[536]</a></p> - -<p>The discontent was fanned by well-intentioned if somewhat -sentimental philanthropists, who were publishing their -experiences in the sweated industries and the slums of the -great cities. The <i>Bitter Cry of Outcast London</i> and other -gruesome stories were revealing, not only to the middle -class, but also to the “aristocracy of labour,” whole areas -of industrial life which neither Trade Unionism nor Co-operation -could hope to reach. With the middle class the -compunction thus excited resulted in elaborate investigations -issuing in inconclusive reports. A Royal Commission -on the Housing of the Poor produced nothing more effectual -than a slight addition to the existing powers of vestries and -Town Councils. Another on the Depression of Trade was -absolutely barren. A Select Committee of the House of -Lords on the Poor Law failed even to discover the problems -to be solved. Another on the Sweating System ended, -after years of delay, in an accurate diagnosis of the evil, -coupled with a confession of inability to cope with it. In -1885 an Edinburgh philanthropist provided a thousand -pounds for a public conference to inquire whether some -more equitable system of industrial remuneration could not -be suggested: a conference which served only to cast doubt -on such philanthropic schemes as profit-sharing and the -“self-governing workshop,” whilst bringing into prominence -the Socialist proposals.<a id="FNanchor_537" href="#Footnote_537" class="fnanchor">[537]</a> And, more important than all -these, Charles Booth, a great merchant and shipowner, -began in 1886, at his own expense, a systematic statistical -inquiry into the actual social condition of the whole population -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_381">[Pg 381]</span> -of London, the impressive results of which eventually -reverberated from one end of the kingdom to the other. -<a id="FNanchor_538" href="#Footnote_538" class="fnanchor">[538]</a></p> - -<p>The outcome of the investigations thus set on foot was -an incalculable impetus to social reform. They had, for -the most part, been undertaken in the expectation that a -sober and scientific inquiry would prove the exceptional -character of the harrowing incidents laid bare by the philanthropists, -and unsparingly quoted by the new agitators. -But to the genuine surprise alike of the economists and the -Trade Union leaders, the lurid statements of the sensationalists -and the Socialists were, on the whole, borne out by -the statistics. The stories of unmerited misery were shown -to be, not accidental exceptions to a general condition of -moderate well-being, but typical instances of the average -existence of great masses of the population. The “sweater” -turned out to be, not an exceptionally cruel capitalist, but -himself the helpless product of a widespread degeneration -which extended over whole industries. In the wealthiest -and most productive city in the world, Charles Booth, after -an exhaustive census, was driven to the conclusion that a -million and a quarter persons fell habitually below his -“Poverty Line.” Thirty-two per cent of the whole population -of London (in some large districts over 60 per cent) were -found to be living in a state of chronic poverty, which precluded -not only the elementary conditions of civilisation -and citizenship, but was incompatible with physical health -or industrial efficiency. Moreover, Charles Booth’s figures -and the report of the House of Lords Committee on Sweating -disproved, once for all, the comfortable assumption that all -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_382">[Pg 382]</span> -destitution originated in drink or vice. It was impossible, -to use the well-known phrase of Burke, to draw an indictment -against a third of the people of London, or against -two-thirds of the East End.</p> - -<p>The daily experience of whole sections of the wage-earners -during these years of depression, and the statistical -inquiries of the middle class, appeared, therefore, to justify -the Socialist indictment of the capitalist system. What -was perhaps of more effect was the fact that the Socialists -alone seemed inspired by faith in a radical transformation -of society, and that they alone offered a solution which had -not yet been tried and found wanting. Prior to 1867 it had -been possible to ascribe the evil state of the wage-earners to -the malignant influence of class government and political -exclusion. Cobden and Bright had eloquently described -the millennium to be reached through untaxed products. -For a whole generation the leaders of a consolidated Trade -Unionism had demonstrated the advantageous terms that -the artisan might, through collective bargaining and a -reserve fund, wring from his employers. But in face of a -protracted lack of employment, the extended suffrage, Free -Trade, and well-administered Trade Unions proved alike -helpless. Twenty years of the franchise had left the town -artisan still at the mercy of commercial gamblers and -exposed to the extortions of the slum landlord. A Liberal -Government was actually in power, wielding an enormous -majority, but manifesting no keen desire to remedy the -results of economic inequality. No attempt was being made -to redress even the admitted wrongs of the necessitous taxpayer. -The Tea Duty remained untouched; the Land -Tax was left unreformed; whilst the larger question of -using some of the nation’s wealth to provide decent conditions -of existence for the great bulk of the people was -not even mooted. A further Extension of the Franchise, -Free Trade, and Popular Education were still the only -social and economic panaceas that the Liberal party had -to offer. But cheapness of commodities was of no use to -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_383">[Pg 383]</span> -the workman who was thrown out of employment; and -the spread of education served but to increase his discontent -with existing social conditions and his ability to understand -the theoretic explanations and practical proposals -of the new school of reformers.</p> - -<p>The working man found no more comfort in Trade -Unionism than in party politics. The mason, carpenter, -or ironfounder saw, for instance, his old and powerful -Trade Society reduced to little more than a sick and burial -club, refusing all support to strikes even against reductions -of wages and increase of hours, and only maintaining its -out-of-work benefit by running heavily into debt to its -more prosperous members.<a id="FNanchor_539" href="#Footnote_539" class="fnanchor">[539]</a> As the lean years followed -one on another, he saw the benefits reduced, the contributions -raised, and numbers of staunch Unionists left high -and dry as members “out of benefit.” The trade friendly -society—the “scientific Trade Unionism” of the Front -Bench—was in fact becoming rapidly discredited. John -Burns and Tom Mann, young and energetic members of the -Amalgamated Society of Engineers, were, between 1884 and -1889, vigorously denouncing, up and down the country, -the supineness of their great amalgamated Union. “How -long, how long,” appeals Tom Mann to the Trade Unionists -in 1886,<a id="FNanchor_540" href="#Footnote_540" class="fnanchor">[540]</a>“will you be content with the present half-hearted -policy of your Unions? I readily grant that good work -has been done in the past by the Unions; but, in Heaven’s -name, what good purpose are they serving now? All of -them have large numbers out of employment even when -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_384">[Pg 384]</span> -their particular trade is busy. None of the important -societies have any policy other than that of endeavouring -to keep wages from falling. The true Unionist policy of -<i>aggression</i> seems entirely lost sight of: in fact, the average -Unionist of to-day is a man with a fossilised intellect, either -hopelessly apathetic, or supporting a policy that plays -directly into the hands of the capitalist exploiter.... I take -my share of the work of the Trade Union to which I belong; -but I candidly confess that unless it shows more vigour -at the present time (June 1886) I shall be compelled to take -the view—against my will—that to continue to spend time -over the ordinary squabble-investigating, do-nothing policy -will be an unjustifiable waste of one’s energies. I am sure -there are thousands of others in my state of mind.” -<a id="FNanchor_541" href="#Footnote_541" class="fnanchor">[541]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_385">[Pg 385]</span></p> - -<p>“Constituted as it is,” writes John Burns in September -1887,<a id="FNanchor_542" href="#Footnote_542" class="fnanchor">[542]</a>“Unionism carries within itself the source of its own -dissolution.... Their reckless assumption of the duties -and responsibilities that only the State or whole community -can discharge, in the nature of sick and superannuation -benefits, at the instance of the middle class, is crushing out -the larger Unions by taxing their members to an unbearable -extent. This so cripples them that the fear of being unable -to discharge their friendly society liabilities often makes -them submit to encroachments by the masters without -protest. The result of this is that all of them have ceased -to be Unions for maintaining the rights of labour, and have -degenerated into mere middle and upper class rate-reducing -institutions.” -<a id="FNanchor_543" href="#Footnote_543" class="fnanchor">[543]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_386">[Pg 386]</span></p> - -<p>Here we see the beginning of that agitation against the -combination of friendly benefits with trade protection aims -which subsequently became, for a short time, one of the -characteristics of the “New Unionism.” But if the trade -friendly society withered up during these years into a mere -benefit club, the purely trade society showed no greater -vitality. The great depression of 1878-79 had swept out of -existence hundreds of little local Unions which lacked the -cohesion given by the friendly society side. The Lancashire -and Midland Miners’ organisations, which gave no benefits, -had either collapsed altogether, or had dissolved into -isolated pit clubs, incapable of combined action. The -Lancashire cotton operatives, the Northumberland and -Durham miners, and a few other essentially trade societies, -held together only by surrendering to the employers one -concession after another. With capitalists ready at any -moment to suspend a profitless business, collective bargaining -proved as powerless to avert reductions as the -individual contract. In face of a long-continued depression -of trade, marked by frequent oscillations in particular -industries, both types of Trade Unionism, it seemed, had -been tried and found wanting.</p> - -<p>These were the circumstances under which the disillusioned -working-class politician or Trade Unionist was -reached by the lectures and writings of the Socialists, who -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_387">[Pg 387]</span> -offered him not only a sympathetic explanation of the ills -from which he suffered, but also a comprehensive scheme -of social reform, extending from an Eight Hours Bill to -the Nationalisation of the Means of Production. In a -purely historical essay it is unnecessary for us to discuss -the validity of the optimistic confidence with which the -Socialists of these years declared that under a system of -collective ownership the workers would not only be ensured -at all times a competent livelihood, but would themselves -control the administration of the surplus wealth of the nation. -But in tracing the causes of the New Unionism of 1889-90, -and the transformation of the Trade Union Movement from -an Individualist to a Collectivist influence in the political -world, we venture to ascribe a large share to the superior -attractiveness of this buoyant faith over anything offered -by the almost cynical fatalism of the old school.</p> - -<p>The Socialist agitation benefited between 1886 and 1889 -by a series of undesigned advertisements. Meetings of “the -unemployed” in February 1886 led to unexpected riots, -which threw all London into a panic, and were followed by -a Government prosecution for sedition. Hyndman, Burns, -Champion, and Williams, as the leaders of the Social Democratic -Federation, were indicted at the Old Bailey, and their -trial, ending in an acquittal, attracted the attention of the -whole country to their doctrines. The “Unemployed” -gatherings went on with ever-increasing noise until November -1887, when the Chief Commissioner of Police issued a -proclamation prohibiting meetings in Trafalgar Square, -which had for a whole generation served as the forum of -the London agitator. This “attack on free speech” by -a Conservative Government, coming after several minor -attempts to suppress open-air meetings by its Liberal predecessor, -rallied the forces of London artisan Radicalism -to those of the Socialists. A gigantic demonstration on -Sunday, November 13, 1887, was held in defiance of the -police, only to be repulsed from Trafalgar Square by a free -use of the police bludgeon and the calling out of both -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_388">[Pg 388]</span> -cavalry and infantry. John Burns and Cunninghame -Graham, M.P., were imprisoned for their share in this -transaction. A similar agitation on a smaller scale was -going on in the provinces. On Tyneside and in the Midlands -numerous emissaries of the Social Democratic Federation -and the Socialist League were spreading the revolt -against the helpless apathy into which the Trade Unions -had sunk. In every large industrial centre the indefatigable -lecturing of branches of Socialist organisations was stirring -up a vague but effective unrest in all except the official -circle of the Trade Union world.</p> - -<p>To the great army of unskilled, or only partially skilled, -workmen concentrated in London and other large cities the -new crusade came as a gospel of deliverance. The unskilled -labourer was getting tired of being referred, as the sole -means of bettering his condition, to the “scientific Trade -Unionism” alone recognised by the Front Bench. Trade -Societies which admitted only workmen earning a high -standard rate, which exacted a weekly contribution of not -less than a shilling, and which frequently excluded all but -regularly apprenticed men, were regarded by the builders’ -labourer, the gas stoker, or the docker, as aristocratic corporations -with which he had as little in common as with the -House of Lords. “The great bulk of our labourers,” writes -John Burns, “are ignored by the skilled workers. It is -this selfish, snobbish desertion by the higher grades of the -lower that makes success in many disputes impossible. -Ostracised by their fellows, a spirit of revenge alone often -prompts men to oppose or remain indifferent to Unionism, -when if the Unions were wiser and more conciliatory, support -would have been forthcoming where now jealousy and discontent -prevails.”<a id="FNanchor_544" href="#Footnote_544" class="fnanchor">[544]</a> Even among the skilled workers, the -younger artisans, if they had joined their Unions at all, -were discontented with the exclusive and apathetic policy -of the older members. Thus we find rising up, in such -“aristocratic” Unions as the Amalgamated Society of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_389">[Pg 389]</span> -Engineers and the London Society of Compositors, a “New -Unionist” party of young men, who vigorously objected to -the degradation of a Trade Union into a mutual insurance -company, who protested against the exclusion of the lowly -paid sections from the organisation of the trade, and who -advocated the use of the political influence of the Society -in the interests of Social-Democracy. By 1888 the Socialists -had not only secured the allegiance of large sections of the -unskilled labourers in London and some other towns, but -had obtained an important body of recruits in the great -“Amalgamated” societies.</p> - -<p>At this pass nothing short of strangulation could have -kept the new spirit out of the Trade Union Congress. It -is interesting to notice that the first sign among the delegates -is to be ascribed to the direct influence of Karl Marx. At -the 1878 Congress at Bristol we find Adam Weiler, an old -member of the “International,” and a personal friend of -the great Socialist, reading a paper in which he advocated -legislation to limit the hours of labour.<a id="FNanchor_545" href="#Footnote_545" class="fnanchor">[545]</a> At the next -Congress Weiler took exception to the resolution in favour -of establishing a Peasant Proprietorship moved on behalf -of the Parliamentary Committee. But in that year his -amendment in favour of Land Nationalisation did not even -find a seconder. Three years later the effect of Henry -George’s propaganda becomes visible. In 1882, when the -land question was again raised, the two ideals were sharply -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_390">[Pg 390]</span> -contrasted, and in spite of protests against “communistic -principles,” a rider declaring for nationalisation was adopted -by 71 votes to 31. The Parliamentary Committee made no -change in their attitude on the question, contending that -the vote had been taken in the absence of many delegates, -and that it did not represent the opinion of the Congress -as a whole. This contention was to some extent borne out -by the votes of the next five Congresses, at all of which -amendments in favour of the principle of nationalisation -were rejected, though by decreasing majorities. At length, -in 1887, at the Swansea Congress, the tide turned, and a -vague addendum in favour of Land Nationalisation was -accepted.<a id="FNanchor_546" href="#Footnote_546" class="fnanchor">[546]</a> At the Bradford Congress in 1888 the very idea -of Peasant Proprietorship had disappeared. The representatives -of the agricultural labourers now asked only for -individual occupation of publicly owned allotments. Ultimately -the Congress adopted by 66 votes to 5 a distinct -declaration in favour of Land Nationalisation, coupled with -an instruction to the Parliamentary Committee to bring -the proposal before the House of Commons.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile Weiler had made another and more successful -attempt to enlist the aid of the Congress in the legal regulation -of the hours of labour. At the 1883 Congress he -moved a resolution which instructed the Parliamentary -Committee to obtain the legal limitation to eight hours of -the maximum day of all workers in the employment of -public authorities, or companies exercising Parliamentary -powers. This was seconded by Edward Harford, the -General Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Railway -Servants, and carried, in a thin meeting, by only 33 to 8. -In 1885 the movement had so far gained weight that the -Parliamentary Committee thought it expedient to temporise -by promoting an investigation into the amount of -overtime worked in Government departments, with the -result of demonstrating how completely the practice of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_391">[Pg 391]</span> -systematic overtime had neutralised the Nine Hours victory.<a id="FNanchor_547" href="#Footnote_547" class="fnanchor">[547]</a> -At the 1887 Congress at Swansea the Parliamentary Committee -were instructed to take a vote of the Trade Union -world upon the whole question, a vote which revealed the -unexpected fact that Applegarth’s own Union, the Amalgamated -Society of Carpenters and Joiners, had been converted -to an Eight Hours Bill.<a id="FNanchor_548" href="#Footnote_548" class="fnanchor">[548]</a> A second plebiscite, taken -at the instance of the following year’s Congress, showed that -such old Unions as the Compositors, the Ironfounders, and -the Railway Servants were swinging round. -<a id="FNanchor_549" href="#Footnote_549" class="fnanchor">[549]</a></p> - -<p>In the meantime the growing divergence of policy among -the coal-miners, which we foreshadowed in the last chapter, -had brought a powerful contingent of organised workmen to -the support of the new party. We have already described -the conversion of the leaders of the Northumberland and -Durham miners to the principle of the Sliding Scale, involving, -as it did, the dependence of the worker’s standard of -comfort upon the market price of his product. On another -point, too, the two northern counties had broken away from -the traditional policy of the Miners’ organisation. Already -in 1863 we noted that Crawford, one of the ablest of their -leaders, was vigorously objecting, at the Leeds Conference, -to an Eight Hours Bill for boys, on the ground that in -Northumberland and Durham, where the hewers often -worked in two shifts, such a restriction would interfere -with the men’s convenience. This resistance to a particular -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_392">[Pg 392]</span> -interference with the exceptional circumstances of the local -industry gradually developed into a general objection to -legal regulation of the hours of adult men. We find, therefore, -the Northumberland and Durham miners from 1875 -onwards ranging themselves more and more with the leaders -of the iron and building trades, who, as we have seen, -had become largely converted to the economic conceptions -then current among the middle class. The fact that the -Northumberland and Durham Associations, almost alone -among Miners’ Unions, had successfully weathered the -bad times of 1877-79, and the constant presence of one or -other of their leaders on the Parliamentary Committee, -caused these opinions to be accepted as those of the whole -industry.</p> - -<p>But the miners elsewhere did not long rest content with -the new policy of Durham and Northumberland. In -December 1881 the amalgamated South and West Yorkshire -Miners’ Associations formally terminated the then -existing Sliding Scale, and passed a resolution in favour of -the policy of restricting the output. During the following -years the Yorkshire employers several times proposed the -re-establishment of a scale, but the men insisted on its -being accompanied by an agreement for a minimum below -which wages should in no event fall—a condition to which -the coal-owners uniformly refused their assent. The lead -given by the Yorkshire miners was quickly followed by -other districts, notably by Lancashire. In this county -Trade Unionism among the miners had, as we have seen, -gone to pieces in the bad years. Reorganisation in local -Unions, came in 1881; and a Lancashire Miners’ Federation -was successfully established in the following year. At their -Conference of 1883 the delegates of the Lancashire miners -resolved, “That the time has come when the working miners -shall regulate the production of coal; that no collier or -other underground worker shall work more than five days -or shifts per week; and that the hours from bank to bank -be eight per shift.” Finding it impossible to secure their -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_393">[Pg 393]</span> -object by strikes, the Lancashire men turned to that policy -of legislative regulation which had marked the proceedings -of the Conference of 1863.</p> - -<p>With the improvement in trade which began in 1885, -the membership and influence of the Lancashire and Yorkshire -organisations rapidly increased, and new federations -were started throughout the Midlands. The Scotch miners, -too, had in 1886-87 a short outburst of organisation, when -a national federation was formed with a membership of -23,000. All these Associations adopted the policy of regulating -the output, and the Scotch miners, in particular, -conducted, in 1887, a vigorous agitation in support of the -clause limiting the day’s work to eight hours, which two -Scottish members endeavoured to insert in the Mines Regulation -Act of 1887.<a id="FNanchor_550" href="#Footnote_550" class="fnanchor">[550]</a> But the Executive of the National -Union had, since Macdonald’s death in 1881, fallen entirely -into the hands of the Northumberland and Durham leaders. -Under their influence it maintained its adherence to the -principle of the Sliding Scale and its hostility to the Eight -Hours Bill, thereby alienating, not only the new federations, -but also the old-established and powerful Yorkshire Miners’ -Association. From 1885 to 1888 the battle between the -contending doctrines ranged at every miners’ conference.<a id="FNanchor_551" href="#Footnote_551" class="fnanchor">[551]</a> -During the latter year the combatants withdrew to separate -camps. In September 1888 a conference of the representatives -of non-sliding scale districts was called together in -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_394">[Pg 394]</span> -Manchester, when arrangements were made for the establishment -of a new federation, into which no district governed -by a sliding scale was to be allowed to enter. From this -time forth the old National Union on the one hand, and -the new Miners’ Federation on the other, became rivals for -the allegiance of the various district associations, and somewhat -unsympathetic critics of each other’s policy and actions. -The issue was not long doubtful. The National Union -gradually shrank up to Northumberland and Durham, -whilst the Miners’ Federation, with its aggressive policy -and its semi-Socialistic principles of a minimum wage and -a legal day, grew apace. From 36,000 members in 1888, it -rose to 96,000 in 1889, 147,000 in 1891, and over 200,000 in -1893, overshadowing in its growth all existing Trade Union -organisations. The Socialist advocates of the legal limitation -of the hours of labour accordingly enjoyed from 1888 -onward, both in the Trade Union Congress and at the polling-booths, -the support of a rapidly growing contingent of -organised miners, whose solid adhesion has done more than -anything else to promote the general movement in favour -of an Eight Hours Bill.</p> - -<p>It is easy at this distance to recognise, in the altered -tone of the rank and file of Congress delegates, a reflection -of the wider change of opinion outside. But to the Trade -Union Front Bench, as, in fact, to most of the politicians -of the time, it was incredible that the new ideas should gain -any real footing among the skilled artisans. The Parliamentary -Committee regarded the innovations with much -the same feeling as that with which they had met the proposals -of a little gang which had, in 1882, vainly attempted -to foist the principles of fiscal protection upon the Congress.<a id="FNanchor_552" href="#Footnote_552" class="fnanchor">[552]</a> -When Congress insisted on passing a resolution -with which the Parliamentary Committee found themselves -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_395">[Pg 395]</span> -in disagreement, this expression of opinion was sometimes -ignored as being nothing more than the fad of particular -delegates. It was in vain that the Congress of 1888, after -ten years’ deliberation, definitely decided in favour of the -principles of Land Nationalisation instead of Peasant Proprietorship. -The Parliamentary Committee contented itself -with promising that “a well-considered measure” would be -put forward by the Committee. The Eight Hours question -could not be treated so cavalierly. Direct resolutions in favour -of legislative action were therefore staved off by proposals -for inquiry. When a vote of the Trade Union world was -decided upon, the Parliamentary Committee, in conjunction -with many of the General Secretaries, were able practically -to baulk the investigation. The voting paper was loaded -with warnings and arguments against legislative action. -No attempt was made to ensure a genuine vote of the rank -and file. In some cases the Executive Committees were -allowed to take upon themselves the responsibility of declaring -the opinions held by the members of their societies, -the total membership of which was then reckoned in the -voting. In other instances the Executives were permitted -without remonstrance simply to burke the question. The -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_396">[Pg 396]</span> -inquiry failed to elicit any trustworthy census of the opinion -of the Trade Union world.</p> - -<p>An equal lack of sympathy was shown in connection -with the growing feeling of the Congress in favour of the -participation of British Trade Unionists in International -Congresses. At the express command of Congress, the -Parliamentary Committee sent delegates to the International -gatherings of 1883 and 1886. But though these instructions -were complied with, the Parliamentary Committee made it -clear, in their annual reports, that far from favouring -International action, “the position they assumed was that -they were so well organised, so far ahead of foreign workmen, -that little could be done until these were more on a -level” with the skilled workers of England.<a id="FNanchor_553" href="#Footnote_553" class="fnanchor">[553]</a> The Congress -of 1886 nevertheless instructed the Parliamentary Committee -to summon an International Conference in London in the -following year. Instead of complying with this instruction, -the Committee published, in May 1887, a lengthy pamphlet -explaining that, owing to the indisposition of foreign workmen -to make any pecuniary sacrifices for their Trade Unions, -and the consequent lack of any stable working-class organisations, -they had decided to refer the whole question again -to the forthcoming Trade Union Congress. When the Congress -met at Swansea in September 1887, it soon became -evident that the Parliamentary Committee, on this question -as on others, was quite out of touch with its constituents. -In spite of the influence of the Front Bench, a resolution in -favour of an International Congress was adopted; and the -Committee succeeded only in inducing Congress to impose -restrictions which were intended to exclude the delegates -of the German Social-Democratic party. The International -Congress was held in London in November 1888. Notwithstanding -every precaution, a majority of the representatives -proved to be of Socialist views, Mrs. Besant, -John Burns, Tom Mann, and Keir Hardie appearing among -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_397">[Pg 397]</span> -the British delegates. The stiff and unsympathetic attitude -of the Parliamentary Committee led to heated and, -at times, unseemly controversies; and the resolutions -passed were treated by the Committee as of no account -whatsoever.</p> - -<p>The net result of these proceedings was the loss by the -Parliamentary Committee of all intellectual leadership of -the Trade Union world. They failed either to resist the -new ideas or to guide them into practicable channels. The -official Trade Union programme from 1885 to 1889 became -steadily more colourless, in striking contrast with the rapid -march of politics in the country, which was sweeping the -Liberal party forward year by year until in 1891 it adopted -the so-called “Newcastle Programme.” This programme -formulated, though very inadequately, the national side of -that semi-collectivist policy which under the name of Progressivism -had superseded Liberalism in the London County -Council. All that the Parliamentary Committee did was to -abandon, one by one, the proposals for the democratisation -of the civil and judicial administration which the Front -Bench had so much at heart, without replacing them by -the more robust resolutions which the Congress in these -years was passing. The Land Question, on which a vigorous -advocacy of the creation of small freeholders had been -formerly maintained, dwindled to a meaningless demand for -undefined reform of the land laws, and finally disappeared -altogether on the adoption by the Congress of the principle -of nationalisation. The maintenance of the Nine Hours -Day, and the further reduction of the hours of labour by -means of voluntary combination (a frequent item in the -official agenda from 1875 to 1879) gradually dropped out -altogether as the new demand for legal regulation gathered -strength. In short, the Parliamentary Committee had perforce -to give up those items in their programme which were -contrary to the new ideas of Congress, whilst they silently -abstained from incorporating the new resolutions with which -they were personally not in agreement.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_398">[Pg 398]</span></p> - -<p>It would, however, be unfair to assume that the stock -of official Trade Unionism was, during these years, absolutely -barren of new developments. To Mr. C. J. Drummond,<a id="FNanchor_554" href="#Footnote_554" class="fnanchor">[554]</a> -then Secretary to the London Society of Compositors, and -a friend of the Parliamentary Committee, belongs the credit -of having taken the first step towards the enforcement, -through the Government, of a standard minimum wage. -On the revision of the Government printing contract in -1884, Mr. Drummond secured the support of the Parliamentary -Committee in an attempt to induce the Stationery -Office to adopt, as the basis for the contract, the Trade -Union rates of the London compositors. This attempt -was, in the main, successful; but the new contract was -nevertheless given to a “closed” house, in which no member -of the Union could work. The compositors did not let the -matter rest. When the President of the Local Government -Board (Joseph Chamberlain) issued a circular in January -1886, as to the effects of the depression in trade, Mr. Drummond -replied by explicitly demanding the Government’s -recognition of the Standard Wage in all their dealings. The -idea spread with great rapidity. A general demand was -started that public authorities should present a good example -as employers of labour by themselves paying Trade Union -rates, and insisting on their contractors doing the same. -Candidates for Parliament at the General Election of 1886 -found themselves, at the instance of the London Society of -Compositors,<a id="FNanchor_555" href="#Footnote_555" class="fnanchor">[555]</a> for the first time “heckled” as to their willingness -to insist on “Fair Wages”; and it began slowly -to dawn upon election agents that it might be prejudicial -for their election literature to bear the imprint of “rat -houses.” In October 1886 the action of the London School -Board in giving its printing contract to an “unfair” house -was bitterly resented by the London compositors, who induced -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_399">[Pg 399]</span> -the London Trades Council to go on a vain deputation -of protest. When, in November 1888, the London School -Board election came round, A. G. Cook, a member of the -London Society of Compositors, secured election for Finsbury, -avowedly as a champion of Trade Union wages; and -two members of the Fabian Society, Mrs. Annie Besant and -the Rev. Stewart Headlam, won seats as Socialists. By -their eloquence and tactical skill these members induced -the Board, early in 1889, to declare that it would henceforth -insist on the payment of “Fair Wages” by all its contractors, -a policy in which the Board was promptly followed by the -newly established London County Council.<a id="FNanchor_556" href="#Footnote_556" class="fnanchor">[556]</a> This new departure -by the leading public bodies in the Metropolis did -much to bring about a common understanding between the -official Trade Unionists and the new movement. It is -needless to describe in this place how, since that date, the -principle of “Fair Wages” has developed. By 1894 a -hundred and fifty local authorities had adopted some kind -of “Fair Wages” resolution. In 1890, and more explicitly -still in 1893, successive Governments found it necessary to -repudiate the old principle of buying in the cheapest market, -in favour of the now widespread feeling that public authorities -as large employers of labour, instead of ignoring the -condition of their employees, should use their influence to -maintain the Standard Rate of Wages and Standard Hours -of Labour recognised and in practice obtained by the Trade -Unions concerned.</p> - -<p>Though the Front Bench as a whole maintained during -these years its policy of contemptuous inactivity, there were, -as we have seen, some signs of the permeation of the new -ideas. It was under these circumstances a grave misfortune -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_400">[Pg 400]</span> -that the inevitable criticism on the Parliamentary Committee -began by a scurrilous attack upon the personal character -and conduct of its leaders.<a id="FNanchor_557" href="#Footnote_557" class="fnanchor">[557]</a> During the years 1887-89 the -conscientious adhesion to the Liberal party of most of the -Parliamentary Committee was made the occasion for gross -charges of personal corruption. The General Secretaries -of the great Unions, men who had for a lifetime diligently -served their constituents, found their influence undermined, -their character attacked, and themselves denounced, by the -circulation all over the country of insidious accusations of -treachery to the working classes. These charges found a -too ready acceptance among, and were repeated by, those -young and impatient recruits of the new movement who -knew nothing of the history and services of the men they -were attacking. In the year 1889 the friction reached its -climax. During the summer the attacks upon the personal -character of the Front Bench were redoubled. As the date -of the Trade Union Congress approached, it became known -that a determined attempt would be made by the Socialist -delegates to oust the Parliamentary Committee from office. -The Congress met at Dundee, and plunged straight into an -angry conflict in which the Socialists were completely -routed. The regular attenders of the Congress had, as we -have seen, been gradually absorbing many of the new ideas, -and were not altogether satisfied with the way their resolutions -had been ignored by the Parliamentary Committee. -But all discontent or criticism was swept away by the anger -which the character of the attack had excited. A great -majority of the delegates came expressly pledged to support -Broadhurst and his colleagues, and when the division was -taken only 11 out of a meeting of 188 delegates were found -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_401">[Pg 401]</span> -to vote against him. The Cotton Operatives who had at -all times supported factory legislation, the Miners who were -demanding an Eight Hours Bill, the Londoners who came -from the centre of the Socialist agitation—all rallied to -defend the Parliamentary Committee. The little knot of -assailants were thoroughly discredited; and the triumph of -the “old gang” was complete. -<a id="FNanchor_558" href="#Footnote_558" class="fnanchor">[558]</a></p> - -<p>The victory of the Parliamentary Committee was hailed -with satisfaction by all who were alarmed at the progress -of the new ideas. For a moment it looked as if the organised -Trade Unions of skilled workers had definitely separated -themselves from the new labour movement growing up -around them. Such a separation would, in our opinion, -have been an almost irreparable disaster. The Trade -Union Congress could claim to represent less than 10 per -cent of the wage-earners of the country. Many of the -old societies were already shrinking up into insignificant -minorities of superior workmen, intent mainly on securing -their sick and superannuation benefits. Any definite -exclusion of wider ideals might easily have reduced the -whole Trade Union organisation to nothing more than a -somewhat stagnant department of the Friendly Society -movement. This danger was averted by a series of dramatic -events which brought the new movement once more inside -the Trade Union ranks. At the moment that Henry Broadhurst -was triumphing over his enemies at Dundee, the London -dock-labourers were marching to that brilliant victory over -their employers which changed the whole face of the Trade -Union world.</p> - -<p>The great dock strike of 1889 was the culmination of -an attempt to organise the unskilled workers which had -begun in London two or three years before. The privations -suffered by the unemployed labourers during the -years of depression of trade, and the new spirit of hopefulness -due to the Socialist propaganda, had led to efforts -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_402">[Pg 402]</span> -being made to bring the vast hordes of unskilled workmen -in the Metropolis into some kind of organisation. At first -this movement made very little progress. In July 1888, -however, the harsh treatment suffered by the women -employed in making lucifer matches roused the burning -indignation of Mrs. Besant, then editing <i>The Link</i>, a little -weekly newspaper which had arisen out of the struggle for -Trafalgar Square. A fiery leading article had the unexpected -result of causing the match-girls to revolt; and 672 of them -came out on strike. Without funds, without organisation, -the struggle seemed hopeless. But by the indefatigable -energy of Mrs. Besant and Herbert Burrows public opinion -was aroused in a manner never before witnessed; £400 -was subscribed by hundreds of sympathisers in all classes; -and after a fortnight’s obstinacy the employers were compelled, -by sheer pressure of public feeling, to make some -concessions to their workers.</p> - -<p>The match-girls’ victory turned a new leaf in Trade -Union annals. Hitherto success had been in almost exact -proportion to the workers’ strength. It was a new experience -for the weak to succeed because of their very weakness, -by means of the intervention of the public. The lesson -was not lost on other classes of workers. The London gas-stokers -were being organised by Burns, Mann, and Tillett, -aided by William Thorne, himself a gas-worker and a man -of sterling integrity and capacity. The Gas-workers and -General Labourers’ Union, established in May 1889, quickly -enrolled many thousands of members, who in the first days -of August simultaneously demanded a reduction of their -hours of labour from twelve to eight per day. After an -interval of acute suspense, during which the directors of -the three great London gas companies measured their forces, -peaceful counsels prevailed, and the Eight Hours Day, to -the general surprise of the men no less than that of the -public, was conceded without a struggle, and was even -accompanied by a slight increase of the week’s wages. -<a id="FNanchor_559" href="#Footnote_559" class="fnanchor">[559]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_403">[Pg 403]</span></p> - -<p>The success of such unorganised and unskilled workers -as the Match-makers and the Gas-stokers led to renewed -efforts to bring the great army of Dock-labourers into the -ranks of Trade Unionism. For two years past the prominent -London Socialists had journeyed to the dock gates in -the early hours of the morning to preach organised revolt -to the crowds of casuals struggling for work. Meanwhile -Benjamin Tillett, then working as a labourer in the tea -warehouses, was spending his strength in the apparently -hopeless task of constituting the Tea-workers and General -Labourers’ Union. The membership of this society fluctuated -between 300 and 2500 members; it had practically -no funds; and its very existence seemed precarious. -Suddenly the organisation received a new impulse. An -insignificant dispute on the 12th of August 1889 as to the -amount of “plus” (or bonus earned over and above the five-pence -per hour) on a certain cargo, brought on an impulsive -strike of the labourers at the South-West India Dock. The -men demanded sixpence an hour, the abolition of sub-contract -and piecework, extra pay for overtime, and a -minimum engagement of four hours. Tillett called to his -aid his friends Tom Mann and John Burns, and appealed to -the whole body of dock labourers to take up the fight. -The strike spread rapidly to all the docks north of the -Thames. Within three days ten thousand labourers had, -with one accord, left the precarious and ill-paid work to -get which they had, morning after morning, fought at the -dock gates. The two powerful Unions of Stevedores (the -better-paid, trained workmen who load ships for export) -cast in their lot with the dockers, and in the course of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_404">[Pg 404]</span> -next week practically all the river-side labour had joined -the strike. Under the magnetic influence of John Burns, -who suddenly became famous as a labour leader on both -sides of the globe, the traffic of the world’s greatest port -was, for over four weeks, completely paralysed. An electric -spark of sympathy with the poor dockers fired the enthusiasm -of all classes of the community. Public disapproval hindered -the dock companies from obtaining, even for their unskilled -labour, sufficient blacklegs to take the strikers’ place. A -public subscription of £48,736 allowed Burns to organise an -elaborate system of strike-pay, which not only maintained -the honest docker, but also bribed every East End loafer -to withhold his labour; and finally the concentrated pressure -of editors, clergymen, shareholders, ship-owners, and merchants -enabled Cardinal Manning and Sydney (afterwards -Lord) Buxton, as self-appointed mediators, to compel the -Dock Directors to concede practically the whole of the men’s -demands, a delay of six weeks being granted to allow the -new arrangements to be made. As in the case of the match-girls -in the previous year, the most remarkable feature of -the dockers’ strike was the almost universal sympathy with -the workers’ demands. A practical manifestation of that -sympathy was given by the workmen of Australia. The -Australian newspapers published telegraphic accounts of -the conflict, with descriptions of the dockers’ wrongs, which -produced an unparalleled and unexpected result. Public -subscriptions in aid of the London dockers were opened in -all the principal towns on the Australian continent; and -money poured in from all sides. Over £30,000 was remitted -to London by telegraph—an absolutely unique contribution -towards the strike subsidy which went far to win the -victory ultimately achieved. -<a id="FNanchor_560" href="#Footnote_560" class="fnanchor">[560]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_405">[Pg 405]</span></p> - -<p>The immediate result of the dockers’ success was the -formation of a large number of Trade Unions among the -unskilled labourers. Branches of the Dock, Wharf, and -Riverside Labourers’ Union (into which Tillett’s little society -was now transformed) were established at all the principal -ports. A rival society of dockers, established at Liverpool, -enrolled thousands of members at Glasgow and Belfast. -The unskilled labourers in Newcastle joined the Tyneside -and National Labour Union, which soon extended to all the -neighbouring towns. The Gas-workers’ Union enrolled tens -of thousands of labourers of all kinds in the provincial cities. -Organisation began again among the farm labourers. The -National Union of Agricultural Labourers, which had sunk -to a few thousand scattered members, suddenly rose in 1890 -to over 14,000. New societies arose, which took in general -as well as farm labourers; such as the Eastern Counties -Labour Federation, which, by 1892, had 17,000 members; -and the smaller societies centring respectively on Norwich, -Devizes, Reading, Hitchin, Ipswich, and Kingsland in Herefordshire.<a id="FNanchor_561" href="#Footnote_561" class="fnanchor">[561]</a> -The General Railway Workers’ Union, originally -established in 1889 as a rival to the Amalgamated Society -of Railway Servants, took in great numbers of general -labourers. The National Amalgamated Sailors and Firemen’s -Union,<a id="FNanchor_562" href="#Footnote_562" class="fnanchor">[562]</a> established in 1887, expanded during 1889 to -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_406">[Pg 406]</span> -a membership of 65,000. Within a year after the dockers’ -victory probably over 200,000 workers had been added to -the Trade Union ranks, recruited from sections of the labour -world formerly abandoned as incapable of organisation. -All these societies were marked by low contributions and -comprehensive membership. They were, at the outset, -essentially, if not exclusively, devoted to trade protection, -and were largely political in their aims. Their characteristic -spirit is aptly expressed by the resolution of the Congress -of the General Railway Workers’ Union on the 19th -of November 1890: “That the Union shall remain a fighting -one, and shall not be encumbered with any sick or accident -fund.” “We have at present,” reports the General Secretary -of the National Union of Gas-workers and General -Labourers in November 1889, “one of the strongest labour -Unions in England. It is true we have only one benefit -attached, and that is strike pay. I do not believe in having -sick pay, out-of-work pay, and a number of other pays.... -The whole aim and intention of this Union is to reduce -the hours of labour and reduce Sunday work.” -<a id="FNanchor_563" href="#Footnote_563" class="fnanchor">[563]</a></p> - -<p>A wave of Trade Unionism, comparable in extent with -those of 1833-34 and 1873-74, was now spreading into every -corner of British industry. Already in 1888 the revival of -trade has led to a marked increase in Trade Union membership. -This normal growth now received a great impulse -from the sensational events of the Dock strike. Even the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_407">[Pg 407]</span> -oldest and most aristocratic Unions were affected by the -revivalist fervour of the new leaders. The eleven principal -societies in the shipbuilding and metal trades, which had -been, since 1885, on the decline, increased from 115,000 at the -end of 1888 to 130,000 in 1889, 145,000 in 1890, and 155,000 -in 1891. The ten largest Unions in the building trades, -which between 1885 and 1888 had, in the aggregate, likewise -declined in numbers, rose from 57,000 in 1888 to 63,000 in -1889, 80,000 in 1890, and 94,000 in 1891. In certain individual -societies the increase in membership during these years -was unparalleled in their history. We have already referred -to the rapid rise between 1888 and 1891 of that modern -Colossus of Unions, the Miners’ Federation. The Operative -Society of Bricklayers, established in 1848, grew from a -fairly stationary 7000 in 1888, to over 17,000 in 1891. The -National Society of Boot and Shoe Operatives, established -in 1874, went from 11,000 in 1888 to 30,000 in 1891. And, -to turn to quite a different industry, the Amalgamated -Society of Railway Servants, a trade friendly society of the -old type, established in 1872, rose from 12,000 in 1888 to -30,000 in 1891. Nor was the expansion confined to a mere -increase in membership. New Trades Councils sprang up -in all directions, whilst those already existing were rejoined -by the trades which had left them. Federations of the -Unions in kindred trades were set on foot, and competing -societies in the same trade sank their rivalry in the formation -of local joint committees.</p> - -<p>The victory of the London Dockers and the impetus -it gave to Trade Unionism throughout the country at last -opened the eyes of the Trade Union world to the significance -of the new movement. It was no longer possible -for the Parliamentary Committee to denounce the Socialists -as a set of outside intriguers, when Burns and Mann, now -become the representative working-men Socialists, stood at -the head of a body of 200,000 hitherto unorganised workmen. -The general secretaries of the older Unions, forming a compact -official party behind the Front Bench, were veering -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_408">[Pg 408]</span> -around towards the advanced party. Their constituencies -were becoming permeated with Socialism. In many instances -the older members now supported the new faith. In other -cases they found themselves submerged by the large accessions -to their membership which, as we have already seen, -resulted from the general expansion. The process of conversion -was facilitated by the genuine admiration felt by -the whole Trade Union world for the great organising -power and generalship shown by the leaders of the new -movement, and by the cessation of the personal abuse and -recrimination which had hitherto marred the controversy. -At the Dundee Congress of 1889, as we have seen, Henry -Broadhurst, and his colleagues on the Parliamentary Committee, -had triumphed all along the line. Within a year the -situation had entirely changed. The Stonemasons, Broadhurst’s -own society, had decided, by a vote of the members, -to support an Eight Hours Bill, and Broadhurst, under these -circumstances, had perforce to refuse to act as their representative. -The Executive Council of the Amalgamated -Society of Engineers chose Burns and Mann as two out of -their five delegates, impressing upon them all a recommendation -to vote for the legal limitation of the hours of -labour. Both the old-established societies of Carpenters -gave a similar mandate. The Miners’ Federation this time -led the attack on the old Front Bench, and the resolution -in favour of a general Eight Hours Bill was carried, after -a heated debate, by 193 to 155. Broadhurst resigned his -position as Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee on the -ground of ill-health. George Shipton, the secretary of the -London Trades Council, publicly declared his conversion to -the legal regulation of the hours of labour. The Liverpool -Congress was as decisive a victory for the Socialists as that -of Dundee had been for the Parliamentary Committee. -The delegates passed in all sixty resolutions. “Out of -these sixty resolutions,” said John Burns, “forty-five were -nothing more or less than direct appeals to the State and -Municipalities of this country to do for the workman what -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_409">[Pg 409]</span> -Trade Unionism, ‘Old’ and ‘New,’ has proved itself incapable -of doing. Forty-five out of the sixty resolutions were -asking for State or Municipal interference on behalf of the -weak against the strong. ‘Old’ Trade Unionists, from -Lancashire, Northumberland, and Birmingham, asked for -as many of these resolutions as the delegates from London; -but it is a remarkable and significant fact that 19 out of -20 delegates were in favour of the ‘New’ Trades Union -ideas of State interferences in all things except reduction -of hours, and even on this we secured a majority that -certainly entitles us Socialists to be jubilant at our success.” -<a id="FNanchor_564" href="#Footnote_564" class="fnanchor">[564]</a></p> - -<p>But whilst the new faith was being adopted by the rank -and file of Trade Unionists the character of the Socialist -propaganda had been undergoing an equal transformation. -The foremost representative of the Collectivist views had -hitherto been the Social-Democratic Federation, of which -Burns and Mann were active members. Under the dominant -influence of Mr. H. M. Hyndman, this association -adopted the economic basis and political organisation of -State Socialism. Yet we find, along with these modern -views, a distinct recrudescence of the characteristic projects -of the revolutionary Owenism of 1833-34. The student of -the volumes of <i>Justice</i> between 1884 and 1889 will be struck -by the unconscious resemblance of many of the ideas and -much of the phraseology of its contributors, to those of the -<i>Poor Man’s Guardian</i> and the <i>Pioneer</i> of 1834. We do not -here allude to the revival, in 1885, of the old demand for -an Eight Hours Bill, a measure regarded on both occasions -as a “mere palliative.” Nor need we refer to the constant -assumption, made alike by Robert Owen and the Social-Democratic -lecturers, that the acceptance of the Labour-value -theory would enable the difficulty of the “unemployed” -to be solved by organising the mutual exchange of -their unmarketable products. But both in <i>Justice</i> and the -<i>Pioneer</i> we see the same disbelief in separate action by -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_410">[Pg 410]</span> -particular Trade Unions, in contrast to an organisation -including “every trade, skilled and unskilled, of every -nationality under the sun.”<a id="FNanchor_565" href="#Footnote_565" class="fnanchor">[565]</a>“The real emancipation of -labour,” says the official manifesto of the Social-Democratic -Federation to the Trade Unions of Great Britain in September -1884, “can only be effected by the solemn banding -together of millions of human beings in a federation as wide -as the civilised world.”<a id="FNanchor_566" href="#Footnote_566" class="fnanchor">[566]</a>“The day has gone by,” we read -in 1887, “for the efforts of isolated trades.... Nothing is -to be gained for the workers as a class without the complete -organisation of labourers of all grades, skilled and unskilled.... -We appeal therefore earnestly to the skilled artisans -of all trades, Unionists and non-Unionists alike, to make -common cause with their unskilled brethren, and with us -Social-Democrats, so that the workers may themselves take -hold of the means of production, and organise a Co-operative -Commonwealth for themselves and their children.”<a id="FNanchor_567" href="#Footnote_567" class="fnanchor">[567]</a> And -if the “scientific Socialists” of 1885 were logically pledged -to the administration of industry by the officials of the community -at large, none the less do we see constantly cropping -up, especially among the working-class members, Owen’s -diametrically opposite proposal that the workers must -“own their own factories and decide by vote who their -managers and foremen shall be.”<a id="FNanchor_568" href="#Footnote_568" class="fnanchor">[568]</a> Above all we see the -same faith in the near and inevitable advent of a sudden -revolution, when “it will only need a compact minority -to take advantage of some opportune accident that will -surely come, to overthrow the present system, and once and -for all lift the toilers from the present social degradation.”<a id="FNanchor_569" href="#Footnote_569" class="fnanchor">[569]</a> -“Noble Robert Owen,” says Mr. Hyndman in 1885, “seventy -years ago perceived ‘the utter impossibility of succeeding -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_411">[Pg 411]</span> -in permanently improving the condition of our population -by any half-measures.’ We see the same truth if possible -yet more clearly now. But the revolution which in his day -was unprepared is now ripe and ready.... Nothing short -of a revolution which shall place the producers of wealth -in control of their own country can possibly change matters -for the better.... Will it be peaceful? We hope it may. -That does not depend upon us. But, peaceful or violent, -the great social revolution of the nineteenth century is at -hand, and if fighting should be necessary the workers may -at least remember the profound historical truth that ‘Force -is the midwife of progress delivering the old society pregnant -with the new,’ and reflect that they are striving for the -final overthrow of a tyranny more degrading than the worst -chattel slavery of ancient times.”<a id="FNanchor_570" href="#Footnote_570" class="fnanchor">[570]</a>“Let our mission be,” -he writes in 1887, “to help to band together the workers of -the world for the great class struggle against their exploiters. -No better date could be chosen for the establishment of such -international action on a sound basis than the year 1889, -which the classes look forward to with trembling and the -masses with hope. I advocate no hasty outbreak, no -premature and violent attempt on the part of the people -to realise the full Social-Democratic programme. But I do -say that from this time onwards we, as the Social-Democratic -Labour Party of Great Britain, should make every -effort to bear our part in the celebration by the international -proletariat of the First Centenary of the great French -Revolution, and thus to prepare for a complete International -Social Revolution before the end of the century.” -<a id="FNanchor_571" href="#Footnote_571" class="fnanchor">[571]</a></p> - -<p>The year 1889, instead of ushering in a “complete -International Social Revolution” by a universal compact -of the workers, turned the current of Socialist propaganda -from revolutionary to constitutional channels. The advent -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_412">[Pg 412]</span> -of political Democracy had put out of date the project of -“a combined assault by workers of every trade and grade -against the murderous monopoly of the minority.”<a id="FNanchor_572" href="#Footnote_572" class="fnanchor">[572]</a> For -a moment, at the very crisis of the dockers’ struggle, the -idea of a “General Strike” flickers up, only to be quickly -abandoned as impracticable. When the problems of administration -had actually to be faced by the new leaders the -specially Owenite characteristics of the Socialist propaganda -were quietly dropped. In January 1889 John Burns was -elected a member of the London County Council, and -quickly found himself organising the beginnings of a bureaucratic -municipal Collectivism, as far removed from Owen’s -“national companies” as from the conceptions of the -Manchester School. Tom Mann, as president of the Dockers’ -Union, could not help discovering how impracticable it was -to set to work his unemployed members, accustomed only -to general labour, in the production for mutual exchange -of the bread and clothing of which they were in need. And -whether working in municipal committees, or at the head -office of a great Union, both Burns and Mann had perforce -to realise the impossibility of bringing about any sudden -or simultaneous change in the social or industrial organisation -of the whole community, or even of one town or trade.</p> - -<p>Under these circumstances it is perhaps not surprising -that Burns and Mann left the Social Democratic Federation, -and found themselves hotly denounced by their old -comrades.<a id="FNanchor_573" href="#Footnote_573" class="fnanchor">[573]</a> With the defection of the New Unionists, -revolutionary Socialism ceased to grow; and the rival propaganda -of constitutional action became the characteristic -feature of the British Socialist Movement. Far from abusing -or deprecating Trade Unionism or Co-operation, the constitutional -Collectivists urged it as a primary duty upon -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_413">[Pg 413]</span> -every working-class Socialist to become a member of his -Trade Union, to belong to the local Co-operative Society, -and generally to take as active a part as possible in all -organisations. Instead of denouncing partial reforms as -mischievous attempts to defeat “the Social Revolution,” -the New Unionist leaders appealed to their followers to put -their own representatives on Town Councils, and generally -to use their electoral influence to bring about, in a regular -and constitutional manner, the particular changes they had -at heart. Instead of circulating calumnies against the personal -character of Trade Union leaders, they flooded the -Trade Union world with Socialist literature, dealing not so -much in rhetorical appeals or Utopian aspirations as in -economic expositions of the actual grievances of industrial -life. The vague resolutions of the Trades Union Congresses -were worked out in practical detail, or even embodied in -draft bills which the local member of Parliament might be -invited to introduce, or driven to support.</p> - -<p>The new policy, adopted as it was by such prominent -Socialists as Burns, Mann, and Tillett, and Mrs. Besant, -appeared, from 1889 onward, increasingly justified by its -success. The Collectivist victories on the London School -Board and County Council, the steady growth of municipal -activity, and the increasing influence exercised by working-men -members of representative bodies, went far to persuade -both Socialists and Trade Unionists that the only practicable -means of securing for the community the ownership and -control of the means of production lay in a wide extension -of that national and municipal organisation of public services -towards which Parliament and the Town Councils had -already taken the first steps. In those industries in which -neither national nor municipal administration was yet possible, -the Socialists demanded such a regulation of the conditions -of employment as would ensure to every worker a -minimum Standard of Life. The extension of the Factory -Acts and the more thorough administration of the Sanitary -Law accordingly received a new impulse. In another direction -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_414">[Pg 414]</span> -the drastic taxation of Rent and Interest, pressed for -by Land Nationalisers and Socialists alike, was justified -as leading eventually to the collective absorption of all -unearned incomes. In short, from 1889 onward, the chief -efforts of the British Socialist Movement have been directed, -not to bringing about any sudden, complete, or simultaneous -revolution, but to impregnating all the existing forces of -society with Collectivist ideals and Collectivist principles. -<a id="FNanchor_574" href="#Footnote_574" class="fnanchor">[574]</a></p> - -<p>With the advent of the “New Unionism” of 1889-90 -we close this chapter. We shall see, in subsequent chapters -to what extent, and in what way, the Trade Union Movement -was permanently affected by the new movement. -But we append at this point a brief account of what seem -to us, first, the ephemeral features and, secondly, the more -durable results of an impulse which did not wholly spend -its force for a whole decade.</p> - -<p>If we were to believe some of the more enthusiastic -apostles of the “New Unionism,” we should imagine that -the aggressive trade society of unskilled labourers, unencumbered -with friendly benefits, was an unprecedented -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_415">[Pg 415]</span> -departure in the history of labour organisation. Those who -have followed our history thus far will know better than to -entertain such an illusion, itself an old characteristic of -Trade Unionist revivals. The purely trade society is as old -as Trade Unionism itself. Throughout the whole history of -the movement we find two types of societies co-existing. At -special crises in the annals of Trade Unionism we see one -or other of these types taking the lead, and becoming the -“New Unionism” of that particular period. Both trade -society and friendly society with trade objects were common -in the eighteenth century. Legal persecution of trade combination -brought to the front the Union cloaked in the guise -of a benefit club; and it was mainly for organisations of this -type that Place and Hume won the emancipation of 1824-1825. -In 1833-34 we find Place deploring as a mischievous -innovation the growth of the new “Trades Unions” without -friendly benefits. Twenty years later we see the leadership -reverting to the “new model” of an elaborate trade friendly -society which, for a whole generation, was vehemently -denounced by employers as a fraud on the provident workman. -The “New Unionism” of 1852, described by so -friendly a critic as Professor Beesly as a novel departure, -became, in its turn, the “Old Unionism” of 1889, when the -more progressive spirits again plumed themselves on eliminating -from their brand-new organisations the enervating -influences of friendly benefits.</p> - -<p>A closer examination of the facts shows that this almost -rhythmical alternation of type has been only apparent. -The impartial student will notice that whilst the purely -trade society has been persistently adhered to by certain -important industries, such as the Coal-miners and the -Cotton-spinners, other trades, like the Engineers and the -Ironfounders, have remained equally constant to the -trade friendly society; whilst others, again, such as the -Compositors and the Carpenters, have passed backwards -and forwards from one model to the other. But besides -this adaptation of type to the circumstances of particular -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_416">[Pg 416]</span> -industries, we see also a preference for the purely trade -society on no higher ground than its cheapness. The high -contributions and levies paid by the Cotton-spinners to their -essentially trade society are as far beyond the means of -the Agricultural Labourer or the Docker as the weekly premiums -for superannuation, sick, and other benefits charged -to the Amalgamated Engineer. When, as in 1833-34, -1872, and 1889, a wave of enthusiasm sweeps the unskilled -labourers into the Trade Union ranks, it is obviously necessary -to form, at any rate in the first instance, organisations which -make no greater tax upon their miserable earnings than a -penny or twopence per week. The apparent rhythm of -alternations between the two types of organisation is due, -therefore, not to any general abandonment of one for the -other, but to the accidental prominence, in certain crises of -Trade Union history, of the Unions belonging to particular -trades or classes of wage-earners. When, for instance, the -cotton-spinners, the builders, and the unskilled labourers of -1834 loomed large to Francis Place as a revolutionary force, -the purely trade society appeared to him to be the source -of all that was evil in Trade Unionism. When, in 1848-52, -the iron trades were conspiring against piecework and overtime, -it was especially the illicit combination of trade and -friendly society which attracted the attention of the public, -and called forth the denunciations of the capitalist class. -And when in 1889 the dockers were stopping the trade of -London, and the coal-miners and cotton-spinners were -pressing upon both political parties their demands for -legislative interference, we see George Howell voicing the -opposition to exclusively trade societies as dangerously -militant bodies. -<a id="FNanchor_575" href="#Footnote_575" class="fnanchor">[575]</a></p> - -<p>If the purely trade society is no new thing, still less is -the extension of Trade Unionism to the unskilled labourer -an unprecedented innovation. The enthusiasm which, in -1872, enrolled a hundred thousand agricultural labourers -in a few months, produced also numerous small societies -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_417">[Pg 417]</span> -of town labourers, some of which survived for years before -absorption into larger organisations. The London and -Counties Labour League, established as the Kent and Sussex -Agricultural and General Labourers’ Union in 1872, has -maintained its existence down to the present day. The -expansion of 1852 led to the formation in Glasgow of a -Labourers’ Society, which is reputed to have enrolled thousands -of members. But it is with the enthusiasm of 1833-34 -that the movement of 1889-90 has in this respect the -greatest analogy. The almost instantaneous conversion to -Trade Unionism after the dock strike of tens of thousands -of the unskilled labourers of the towns recalls, indeed, -nothing so much as the rapid enrolment of recruits among -the poorest wage-earners by the emissaries of the Grand -National Consolidated Trades Union.</p> - -<p>But however strongly the outward features of the wave -of 1889-90 may remind the student of those of 1833-34, -the characteristics peculiar to the new movement significantly -measure the extent of the advance, both in social -theory and social methods, made by the wage-earners in -the two intervening generations. Time and experience -alone will show how far the empirical Socialism of the -Trade Unionist of 1889, with its eclectic opportunism, its -preference for municipal collectivism, its cautious adaptation -of existing social structure, and its modest aspirations -to a gradually increasing participation of the workmen in -control, may safely be pronounced superior in practicability -to the revolutionary and universal Communism of Robert -Owen. In truth, the radical distinction between 1833-34 -and 1889-90 is not a matter of the particular social theories -which inspired the outbursts. To the great majority of -the Trade Unionists the theories of the leaders at either date -did but embody a vague aspiration after a more equitable -social order. The practical difference—the difference -reflected in the character and temper of the men attracted -to the two movements, and of the attitude of the public -towards them—is the difference of method and immediate -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_418">[Pg 418]</span> -action. Robert Owen, as we have seen, despised and rejected -political action, and strove to form a new voluntary -organisation which should supersede, almost instantaneously -and in some unexplained way, the whole industrial, political, -and social administration of the country. In this disdain -of all existing organisations, and the suddenness of the -complete “social revolution” which it contemplated, the -Owenism of 1833-34 found, as we have seen, an echo in much -of the Socialist propaganda of 1884-89. The leaders of the -New Unionists, on the contrary, sought to bring into the -ranks of existing organisations—the Trade Union, the -Municipality, or the State—great masses of unorganised -workers who had hitherto been either absolutely outside -the pale, or inert elements within it. They aimed, not at -superseding existing social structures, but at capturing them -all in the interests of the wage-earners. Above all, they -sought to teach the great masses of undisciplined workers -how to apply their newly acquired political power so as -to obtain, in a perfectly constitutional manner, whatever -changes in legislation or administration they desired.</p> - -<p>The difference in method between the “New Unionism” -of 1833-34 and that of 1889-90 may, we think, be ascribed -in the main to the difference between the circumstances -under which the movements arose. To Robert Owen, -whose path was blocked on the political line by the disfranchisement -of five out of six of the adult male population, -open voting under intimidation, corrupt close corporations -in the towns and a Whig oligarchy at the centre, the -idea of relying on the constitutional instrument of the polling-booth -must have appeared no less chimerical than his own -programme appears to-day. The New Unionists of 1889-90, -on the other hand, found ready for their use an extensive -and all-embracing Democratic social structure, which it was -impossible to destroy, and would have been foolish to -attempt to ignore. The efforts of two generations of -Radical Individualists and “Old Trade Unionists” had -placed the legislative power and civil administration of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_419">[Pg 419]</span> -country in the hands of a hierarchy of popularly elected -representative bodies. The great engine of taxation was, -for instance, now under the control of the wage-earning -voters instead of that of the land-owning class. The Home -Secretary and the factory inspector, the relieving-officer -and the borough surveyor, could be employed to carry out -the behests of the workers instead of those of the capitalists. -And thus it came about that the methods advocated by the -New Unionists of 1889-94 resemble, not those of the Owenites -of 1833-34, but much more the practical arts of political -warfare so successfully pursued by the Junta of 1867-75.</p> - -<p>We shall see the change which had come over the English -working-class movement in the course of sixty years if we -compare the leaders of the two movements which we have -been contrasting. To Owen himself we may allow the -privilege of his genius, which did not prevent him from -being an extravagantly bad captain for a working-class -movement. But in his leading disciples ignorance of industrial -conditions, contemptuous indifference to facts and -figures, and incapacity to measure, even in the smallest -actions, the relation between the means and the end, stand -in as marked contrast to the sober judgment of men like -John Burns as they did to the cautious shrewdness of Allan -and Applegarth. It would indeed be easy to find many -traits of personal likeness between Burns and Mann on the -one hand, and Allan and Applegarth on the other. High -personal character, scrupulous integrity, dignity or charm -of manner, marked all four alike, and the resemblance of -character is heightened by a noticeable resemblance in the -nature of their activity. The day’s work of Tom Mann at -the head office of the Dockers’ Union from 1889 to 1892, -and that of John Burns in the London County Council and -the lobby of the House of Commons from 1892 to 1906, -were close reproductions of Allan’s activity at the general -office of his Engineers, and Applegarth’s assiduous attendance -to Parliamentary Committees and Royal Commissions. -In short, the ways and means of the leaders of the “New -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_420">[Pg 420]</span> -Unionism” remind the student, not of the mystic rites and -skeleton mummery of the Owenite movement, but rather -of the restless energy and political ingenuity of the Junta -or the Trades Union Congress Parliamentary Committee in -those early days when the old Trade Unionists were fighting -for legislative reforms with a faith which was as wise as it -was fervent and sincere.</p> - -<p>Some of the secondary characteristics of the New Unionism -of 1889 promptly faded away. The revulsion of feeling -against the combination of friendly benefits with Trade -Union purposes quickly disappeared, though the difficulty -of levying high contributions upon ill-paid workers prevented -the complete adoption of the contrary policy.<a id="FNanchor_576" href="#Footnote_576" class="fnanchor">[576]</a> The expansion -of trade which began in 1889 proved to be but of -brief duration, and with the returning contraction of 1892 -many of the advantages gained by the wage-earners were -lost. Under the influence of this check the unskilled -labourers once more largely fell away from the Trade -Union ranks. But just as 1873-74 left behind it a far more -permanent structure than 1833-34, so 1889-90 added even -more than 1873-74. The older Unions retained a large part, -at any rate, of the two hundred thousand members added -to their ranks between 1887 and 1891. But this numerical -accession was of less importance than what may, without -exaggeration, be termed the spiritual rebirth of organisations -which were showing signs of decrepitude. The selfish -spirit of exclusiveness which often marked the relatively -well-paid engineer, carpenter, or boilermaker of 1880-85, -gave place to a more generous recognition of the essential -solidarity of the wage-earning class. For example, the whole -constitution of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers was, -in 1892, revised for the express purpose of opening the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_421">[Pg 421]</span> -ranks of this most aristocratic of Unions to practically all -the mechanics in the innumerable branches of the engineering -trade. Special facilities, moreover, were offered by this -and the other great societies to old men and artisans earning -wages insufficient to pay for costly friendly benefits. -Nor was this all. The plumber vied with the engineer, the -carpenter with the shipwright, in helping to form Unions -among the labourers who work with or under them. And -the struggling Unions of women workers, which had originally -some difficulty in gaining admittance to Trades Councils -and the Trade Union Congress, gratefully acknowledged a -complete change in the attitude of their male fellow-workers. -Not only was every assistance now given to the formation -of special Unions among women workers, but women were, -in some cases, even welcomed as members by Unions of -skilled artisans. A similar widening of sympathies and -strengthening of bonds of fellowship was shown in the very -general establishment of local joint committees of rival -societies in the same trade, as well as of larger federations. -Robert Knight’s failures to form a federal council representing -the different Unions concerned in shipbuilding were -retrieved in 1891 by his successful establishment of the -Federation of the Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades, which -maintained a permanent existence. The increased sense of -solidarity among all sections of wage-earners, moreover, led -to a greatly increased cordiality in international relations. -The Coal-miners, the Glass Bottle Makers, and the Textile -Operatives established more or less formal federations with -their fellow-workers on the Continent of Europe. At the -frequent international Congresses of these trades, as well as -at the Socialist Congress of the workers of all countries, -the representatives of the British Trade Unions largely laid -aside that insular conceit which led the Parliamentary Committee -of 1884 to declare that, owing to his superiority, the -British Trade Unionist derived no benefit from international -relations. All this indicates a widening of the mental -horizon, a genuine elevation of the Trade Union Movement.</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_511" href="#FNanchor_511" class="label">[511]</a>See the <i>History of the British Trades Union Congress</i>, by W. J. Davis, -of which two volumes have been issued by the Parliamentary Committee -(1910 and 1916). William John Davis, one of the most successful Trade -Union administrators, was born in 1848, at Birmingham. In 1872, when -the National Society of Amalgamated Brassworkers was established in a -trade hitherto entirely unorganised, he became General Secretary, a post -which, except for one short interval, he has ever since retained. Within -six months he obtained from the employers the 15 per cent increase which -they had refused to the unorganised men, and established branches throughout -the kingdom; and presently he completed the difficult and laborious -task of constructing a list of prices for all brasswork, for which he obtained -the employers’ recognition. He was elected to the Birmingham School -Board in 1876, and to the Town Council in 1880. In 1883 he accepted appointment -as Factory Inspector, but six years later returned to his former -post at the urgent request of the workmen, whose Union had in his absence -sunk almost to nothing, a condition from which he was able quickly to -restore it to far more than its highest previous strength; and to take on, -in addition, the secretaryship of the Amalgamated Metal Wire and Tube -Makers’ Society. He was made a J.P. in 1906. Since 1881 he has been -elected twenty-six times to the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades -Union Congress. He is the author, in addition to the <i>History of the British -Trades Union Congress</i>, of <i>The Token Coinage of Warwickshire</i> and <i>Nineteenth-Century -Token Coinage</i>(<i>The Life Story of W. J. Davis</i>, by W. B. -Dalley, 1914).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_512" href="#FNanchor_512" class="label">[512]</a>In 1878, for instance, the Parliamentary Committee resolved that -Congress ought not to interfere either between the English and Scottish -Tailors’ Societies or between the Boilermakers and the Platers’ Helpers.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_513" href="#FNanchor_513" class="label">[513]</a>The Congress, from 1871, annually elected a Parliamentary Committee -of ten members and a secretary. The members of the Committee were -always chosen from the officials of the more important Unions, with a -strong tendency to re-elect the same men year after year. Between 1875 -and 1889 the composition of the Committee was, in fact, scarcely changed, -except through death or the promotion of members to Government -appointments. George Potter was secretary from 1869-71; George -Odger in that year; and George Howell, afterwards M.P., from 1872-75. -Henry Broadhurst was for fourteen years annually re-elected secretary -without a contest, temporarily ceding the post, whilst Under Secretary of -State for the Home Department in 1886, to George Shipton. He was -succeeded by Charles Fenwick, M.P., from 1890-93; then followed S. -Woods, M.P., from 1894-1904; W. C. Steadman, M.P., from 1905-10; -and the Right Honourable C. W. Bowerman, M.P., from 1911 onwards.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_514" href="#FNanchor_514" class="label">[514]</a>Odger died in 1877, Guile in 1883, and Coulson (who had retired -many years before) in 1893.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_515" href="#FNanchor_515" class="label">[515]</a>To the counsels of Frederic Harrison, E. S. Beesly, H. Crompton, and -A. J. Mundella was, from 1873, frequently added that of Mr. (afterwards -Justice) R. S. Wright, who rendered invaluable service as a draughtsman. -Henry Crompton supplied us with the following account of the subsequent -separation between the Positivists and the Trade Union leaders:</p> - -<p>“In the year 1881 the connection of the Parliamentary Committee -with the Positivists was modified. There was not the same occasion for -their services as there had been. After 1883, in which year Mr. F. Harrison -and Mr. H. Crompton attended the Congress by invitation, the connection -ceased altogether, though there was no breach of friendly relations. Till -1881 there had been entire agreement between them both as to policy and -means of action. The policy of the Positivists had been to secure complete -legal independence for workmen and their legitimate combinations; to -make them more respected and more conscious of their own work; to lift -them to a higher moral level; that they should become citizens ready and -desirous to perform all the duties of citizenship. The means employed was -to consolidate and organise the power of the Trades Societies, through the -institutions of the annual Congress and its Parliamentary Committee; to -use this power, as occasion served, for the general welfare as well as for -trade interests. That the measures adopted or proposed by the Congress -should be thoroughly discussed in the branches, and delegates well posted -in the principal questions. To express it shortly—organisation of collective -labour and political education of individual workmen.</p> - -<p>“The condition of this effective force was that, while it was being used -in furtherance of political action, it should be kept quite clear and independent -of political parties. The divergence came with the advent of the -Gladstonians to office. The Liberal Government began a policy of coercion -in Ireland. Combination was to be put down by the very same mechanism -which had been invented to repress labour combinations—by the law of -conspiracy. The very ruling of Baron Bramwell as to the Tailors’ strike -was employed to concoct a law to convict Mr. Parnell and his coadjutors. -As a result law was laid down by the Irish judges as to political combinations, -which is binding in England, and has still to be resisted or abolished. -The Positivists endeavoured to the utmost of their ability to rouse the -working classes to a sense of the danger of these proceedings, and to offer -an uncompromising resistance to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. -The Parliamentary Committee would have none of it. They no doubt -believed that the interests of their clients would be best served by a -narrower policy, by seeking the help and favour of the eminent statesmen -in office. Instead of a compact, powerful force, holding the balance between -the parties and the key of the situation, dictating its terms, they -preferred to be the tag end of a party. In the end they did not get much, -but the Congress was successfully captured and muzzled by the Gladstonian -Government.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_516" href="#FNanchor_516" class="label">[516]</a>Report of Trades Union Congress, Dublin, 1880, p. 15.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_517" href="#FNanchor_517" class="label">[517]</a>The working of the Trade Union Act of 1871 revealed some technical -defects in the law, which were remedied by an amending Act in 1876 (39 -and 40 Vic. c. 22). Rules for the execution of the Employers and Workmen -Act were framed by the Lord Chancellor in the same year.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_518" href="#FNanchor_518" class="label">[518]</a>This defence of “common employment,” which practically deprived -the workman in large undertakings of any remedy in case of accidents -arising through negligence in the works, was first recognised in the case of -Priestly <i>v.</i> Fowler in 1837 (3 Meeson and Welby). Not until 1868 did the -House of Lords, as the final Court of Appeal, extend it to Scotland. The -growth of colossal industrial undertakings, in which thousands of workmen -were, technically, “in common employment,” made the occasional harshness -of the law still more invidious.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_519" href="#FNanchor_519" class="label">[519]</a>Act 43 and 44 Vic. c. 52 (1880).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_520" href="#FNanchor_520" class="label">[520]</a>The annual Parliamentary returns for the next fifteen years showed -that between three and four hundred cases came into court every year, the -amount of compensation actually awarded reaching between £7000 and -£8000. But a large number of cases were compromised, or settled without -litigation. Meanwhile the relative number of accidents diminished. -Whereas in 1877 one railway employee in 95 was more or less injured, in -1889 the proportion was only one in 195. Whereas between 1873 and 1880 -one coal-miner in 446 met his death annually, between 1881 and 1890 the -proportion was only one in 519; although there was apparently less -improvement, if any, as regards non-fatal accidents in the mine.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_521" href="#FNanchor_521" class="label">[521]</a>By “contracting out” was meant an arrangement between employer -and employed by which the latter relinquish the rights conferred upon -them by the Act, and often also their rights under the Common Law. The -Act was silent on the subject; but the judges decided, to the great surprise -and dismay of the Trade Union leaders, that contracting out was permissible -(see Griffiths <i>v.</i> Earl of Dudley, 9, Queen’s Bench Division, 35). The -usual form of “contracting out” was the establishment of a workman’s -insurance fund to which the workmen were compelled to subscribe, and to -which the employer also contributed. Among the coal-miners, those of -Lancashire, Somerset, and some collieries in Wales generally contracted -out. The employees of the London and North-Western, and London and -Brighton Railway Companies also contracted out. In one or two large -undertakings in other industries a similar course was followed. But in -the vast majority of cases employers did not resort to this expedient. -Particulars are given in the <i>Report and Evidence of the Select Committee on -Employers’ Liability</i>, 1866; the publications of the Royal Commission on -Labour, 1891-94; and <i>Miners’ Thrift and Employers’ Liability</i>, by G. L. -Campbell (Wigan, 1891); and our <i>Industrial Democracy</i>.</p> - -<p>In 1893-94 a further amending Bill passed the House of Commons -which swept away the doctrine of common employment, and placed the -workman with regard to compensation on the same footing as any other -person. A clause making void any agreement by which the workman -forewent his right of action, or “contracted out,” was rejected by the -House of Lords, and the Bill was thereupon abandoned. The question -was settled in 1896 by the passage, under the Unionist Government, of -the Workmen’s Compensation Act, giving compensation in all cases, -irrespective of the employers’ default.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_522" href="#FNanchor_522" class="label">[522]</a>The legal advisers of the Junta realised that the triumph of 1875, -though it resulted in a distinct strengthening of the Trade Union position, -was mainly a moral victory. Though Trade Unions were made legal, the -law of conspiracy was only partially reformed, whilst that relating to -political combinations, unlawful assemblies, sedition, etc., remained, as it -still remains, untouched. Expert lawyers knew in how many ways -prejudiced tribunals might at any time make the law oppressive. The -legal friends of Trade Unionism desired, therefore, to utilise the period of -political quiet in simplifying the criminal law, and in removing as much of -the obsolete matter as was possible. And though State Trials recommenced -in Ireland in 1881, and criminal prosecutions of Trade Unionists -continued in England down to 1891, the interval had been well spent in -clearing away some of the grosser evils.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_523" href="#FNanchor_523" class="label">[523]</a>In the proposed reform of the Jury laws, for instance, the Parliamentary -Committee for several years did not venture to ask explicitly for -that payment of jurymen which alone would enable working men to serve, -and contented themselves with suggesting a lowering of the qualification -for juryman. In 1876, indeed, John Burnett, then a prominent member -of the Committee, strongly opposed the Payment of Jurymen on the ground -that it might create a class of professional jurors (Trades Union Congress -Report, 1876, p. 14).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_524" href="#FNanchor_524" class="label">[524]</a>See, for instance, the report of the 1876 Congress, p. 30; that of the -1882 Congress, p. 37; that of the 1883 Congress, p. 41; and <i>History of the -British Trades Union Congress</i>, by W. J. Davis, vol. i., 1910.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_525" href="#FNanchor_525" class="label">[525]</a>In this connection may be mentioned the extensive agitation promoted -by Samuel Plimsoll for further legislation to prevent the loss of life -at sea. At the 1873 Trades Union Congress Plimsoll distributed copies of -his book, <i>Our Merchant Seamen</i>, and enlisted, during the next three years, -practically the whole political force of the Trade Union Movement in -support of his Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill. The “Plimsoll -and Seamen’s Fund Committee,” of which George Howell became secretary, -received large financial help from the Unions, the South Yorkshire -Miners’ Association voting, in 1873, a levy of a shilling per member, and -contributing over £1000. The Parliamentary Committee gave Plimsoll’s -Bill a place in their programme for the General Election of 1874, and this -Trade Union support contributed largely to Plimsoll’s success in passing -a temporary Act in 1875, and permanent legislation in 1876, against the -combined efforts of a strong Conservative Government and the shipowners -on both sides of the House. (See <i>Labour Legislation, Labour Movements, -and Labour Leaders</i>, by G. Howell, 1902.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_526" href="#FNanchor_526" class="label">[526]</a>Congress Reports, 1882 and 1883.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_527" href="#FNanchor_527" class="label">[527]</a>Parliamentary Committee’s Report, September 17, 1877.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_528" href="#FNanchor_528" class="label">[528]</a>That extending to factory scales and measures the provisions of the -Weights and Measures Act relating to inspection, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_529" href="#FNanchor_529" class="label">[529]</a>The appointment was first offered to Broadhurst, who elected to -continue his work as Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee, and who -suggested Prior (<i>Henry Broadhurst, the Story of his Life</i>, by himself, 1901).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_530" href="#FNanchor_530" class="label">[530]</a><i>Ibid.</i> p. 136.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_531" href="#FNanchor_531" class="label">[531]</a>It may be mentioned that the Trades Union Congress, which at first -had welcomed addresses from the middle and upper class friends of Trade -Unionism, was, between 1881 and 1883, gradually restricted to Trade -Unionists. At the Nottingham Congress in 1883, where Frederic Harrison -read a paper on the “History of Trade Unionism,” and Henry Crompton -one on the “Codification of the Law,” when Frederic Harrison proposed to -take part in the discussion on the Land Question, he was not permitted to -do so; and this rule has since been rigidly adhered to. At the Aberdeen -Congress of 1884 Lord Rosebery was allowed to deliver an address on the -“Federalism of the Trades Union Congress,” but this was the last time -that any one has been invited to read a paper.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_532" href="#FNanchor_532" class="label">[532]</a><i>Times</i> leader on the Congress of Belfast, September 11, 1893, which -deplores the remarkable “subservience to Mr. John Burns and his friends” -manifested by the Congress—a subservience marked by the election of -Mr. Burns for the Parliamentary Committee at the head of the poll, and -by the adoption of a programme which included the nationalisation of the -land and other means of production and distribution.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_533" href="#FNanchor_533" class="label">[533]</a>The following description of the rise of the “New Unionism” of -1889 is based on minutes and reports of Trade Union organisations, the files -of <i>Justice</i>, the <i>Labour Elector</i>, the <i>Trade Unionist</i>, the <i>Cotton Factory Times</i>, -the <i>Workman’s Times</i>, and other working-class journals. The documentary -evidence has been elucidated and supplemented by the reminiscences -of most of the principal actors in the movement, and by the personal -recollections of the authors themselves, one of whom, as a member of the -Fabian Society, observed the transformation from the Socialist side, whilst -the other, as a disciple of Herbert Spencer and a colleague of Charles Booth, -was investigating the contemporary changes from an Individualist -standpoint.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_534" href="#FNanchor_534" class="label">[534]</a>See Mr. H. M. Hyndman’s <i>England for All</i>, 1881.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_535" href="#FNanchor_535" class="label">[535]</a><i>Report of the International Trades Union Congress at Paris, 1886</i>, by -Adolphe Smith, 1886.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_536" href="#FNanchor_536" class="label">[536]</a><i>Flint Glass Makers’ Magazine</i>, November 1884.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_537" href="#FNanchor_537" class="label">[537]</a><i>Report of the Industrial Remuneration Conference</i>, 1885.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_538" href="#FNanchor_538" class="label">[538]</a>The results of twenty years of patient labour by Charles Booth and -his assistants are embodied in the magnificent work, <i>Labour and Life of the -People</i>(London, 1st edition, 2 vols., 1889-91; 2nd edition, 4 vols., 1893), -reissued in greatly enlarged form as <i>Life and Labour in London</i>, 18 vols.; -<i>Pauperism and the Endowment of Old Age</i>(London, 1893); <i>The Aged Poor</i> -(1894); <i>Old Age and the Aged Poor</i>(1899); <i>Industrial Unrest and Trades -Union Policy</i>(1913). In <i>Charles Booth: a Memoir</i>(1918) Mrs. Booth -has given a personal biography (1840-1914) of a tireless investigator who, -merely by the instrument of social diagnosis, got accomplished reforms of -a magnitude that seemed at first wholly impracticable.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_539" href="#FNanchor_539" class="label">[539]</a>The funds of the Stonemasons had been completely exhausted by the -great strike of 1878. In January 1879 the Society determined, on a -proposition submitted by the Central Executive, to close all pending -disputes (including a general strike at Sheffield against a heavy reduction -without due notice); and between that date and March 1885, though -many of the branches struggled manfully, and in some cases successfully, -against repeated reductions of wages, increases of hours, or infringements -of the local bye-laws, no strike whatever was supported from the Society’s -funds. The case of the Stonemasons is typical of the other great trade -friendly societies.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_540" href="#FNanchor_540" class="label">[540]</a><i>What a Compulsory Eight Hours Working Day means to the Workers</i>, -by Tom Mann (1886), 16 pp.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_541" href="#FNanchor_541" class="label">[541]</a>Mr. Tom Mann, one of the outstanding figures in the New Unionist -Movement, was born at Foleshill, Warwickshire, in 1856, and apprenticed -in an engineering shop at Birmingham, whence he came to London in 1878, -and joined the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. Eagerly pursuing his -self-education, he became acquainted first with the Co-operative Movement, -and then with the writings of Henry George. In 1884 he visited the United -States, where he worked for six months. On his return he joined the -Battersea Branch of the Social Democratic Federation, and quickly became -one of its leading speakers. His experience of the evils of overtime made -the Eight Hours Day a prominent feature in his lectures, and in 1886 he -published his views in the pamphlet, <i>What a Compulsory Eight Hours -Working Day means to the Workers</i>(1886, 16 pp.), of which several editions -have been printed. In the same year he left his trade in order to devote -himself to the provincial propaganda of the Social Democratic Federation, -spending over two years incessantly lecturing, first about Tyneside, and -then in Lancashire. Returning to London early in 1889, he assisted in -establishing the Gas-workers’ Union and in organising the great dock strike, -on the termination of which he was elected President of the Dockers’ Union. -For three years he applied himself to building up this organisation, deciding -to resign in 1892, when he became a candidate for the General Secretaryship -of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. After an exciting contest, -during which he addressed meetings of the members in all the great -engineering centres, he failed of success only by 951 votes on a poll of -35,992. In the meantime he had been appointed, in 1891, a member of -the Royal Commission on Labour, to which he submitted a striking scheme -for consolidating the whole dock business of the port of London, by cutting -a new channel for the Thames across the Isle of Dogs. On the establishment -in 1893 of the London Reform Union he was appointed its secretary, -a post which he relinquished in 1894 on being elected secretary of the -Independent Labour Party. This he presently relinquished to emigrate -to New Zealand; and there and in Australia he threw himself energetically -into Trade Union agitation. Returning to England in 1911, he became a -fervent advocate of Syndicalism; and then became an organiser for -various General Labour Unions. In 1919 he was elected General Secretary -of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, after an exhaustive ballot of -its great membership.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_542" href="#FNanchor_542" class="label">[542]</a>Article in <i>Justice</i>, September 3, 1887.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_543" href="#FNanchor_543" class="label">[543]</a>Mr. John Burns, in many respects the most striking personality in -the Labour Movement, was born at Battersea in 1859, and was apprenticed -to a local engineering firm. Already during his apprenticeship he made his -voice heard in public, in 1877 being actually arrested for persistently -speaking on Clapham Common, and in 1878 braving the “Jingo” mob at -a Hyde Park demonstration. As soon as he was out of his time (1879) he -joined the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and became an advocate -of shorter hours of labour. An engagement as engineer on the Niger, -West Africa, during 1880-81, gave him leisure to read, which he utilised by -mastering Adam Smith and J. S. Mill. Returning to London, he worked -side by side with Victor Delahaye, an ex-Communard, who was afterwards -one of the French representatives at the Berlin Labour Conference, 1891, -and with whom he had many talks on the advancement of labour. In -1883 he joined the Social Democratic Federation, and at once became its -leading working-class member, championing its cause, for instance, in an -impressive speech at the Industrial Remuneration Conference in 1885. In -the same year he was elected by his district of the Amalgamated Society -of Engineers as its representative at the quinquennial delegate meeting of -the Society, where he found himself the youngest member. At the General -Election of 1885 he stood as Socialist candidate for West Nottingham, -receiving 598 votes. For the next two years he became known as the -leader of the London “unemployed” agitation. His prosecution for -sedition in 1886 (with three other prominent members of the Social Democratic -Federation) aroused considerable interest, and on his acquittal his -speech for the defence, <i>The Man with the Red Flag</i>, had a large sale in -pamphlet form (1886; 16 pp.). At the prohibited demonstration at -Trafalgar Square on “Bloody Sunday” (November 13, 1887), in conjunction -with Mr. Cunninghame Graham, M.P., he broke through the police -line, for which they were both sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment. In -January 1889 he was elected for Battersea to the new London County -Council, on which he became one of the most useful and influential members. -His magnificent work in the dock strike and in organising the -unskilled labourers is described in the text. At the General Election of -1892 he was chosen, by a large majority, M.P. for Battersea, and at the -Trades Union Congress in 1893 he received the largest number of votes -for the Parliamentary Committee, of which he accordingly became Chairman. -In 1906 he was appointed President of the Local Government -Board in Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman’s Government, with a seat in the -Cabinet—thus becoming the first working-man Cabinet Minister—a -post which he held until August 1914, when he resigned on the outbreak of -war. He retained his seat in Parliament until 1918, when he retired.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_544" href="#FNanchor_544" class="label">[544]</a>Address to Trade Unionists in <i>Justice</i>, January 24, 1885.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_545" href="#FNanchor_545" class="label">[545]</a>Weiler was the delegate of the Alliance Cabinetmakers’ Society, and -came from London. The Congress Report gives the following account of -his paper: “After reviewing the position of the working classes under -the present system, and comparing it with the state of things eighty years -ago, he contended that the best means of bettering their position was to -reduce the hours of toil. The result of this would be, first, to give every -worker a better chance of employment, and thus lessen that sort of competition -which was caused by hunger and want; secondly, it would give -them time and opportunity for rest and amusement, and that cultivation -of their minds which would enable them to prepare themselves for the time -when the present system of production would collapse, and the time of -this collapse was not so distant as some supposed.” The paper was -received with much applause, and Weiler received the thanks of Congress. -No resolution was passed.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_546" href="#FNanchor_546" class="label">[546]</a><i>History of the British Trades Union Congress</i>, by W. J. Davis, vol. i. -p. 133.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_547" href="#FNanchor_547" class="label">[547]</a>The Return moved for by George Howell regarding the Woolwich -and Enfield engineering works showed that, during 1884 and 1885, more -than half the artisans worked overtime, the average per week for each man -varying from 9.4 hours in some shops to 17.8 in others.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_548" href="#FNanchor_548" class="label">[548]</a>11,966 of its members voted for an Eight Hours Day, and of these -9209 declared in favour of the enforcement of the eight hours limit by -law. The total votes given for an Eight Hours Law was 17,267; against -it, 3819.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_549" href="#FNanchor_549" class="label">[549]</a>The votes in favour of an Eight Hours Day were 39,656; against -it, 67,390, of which 56,541 were cast on behalf of the Cotton-spinners and -Weavers. In favour of an Eight Hours Law, 28,511; against it, 12,283. -The votes of the different trades, and a summary of the Congress proceedings -on this subject, are given in <i>The Eight Hours Day</i>, by Sidney Webb -and Harold Cox, 1891; see also <i>History of the British Trades Union Congress</i>, -by W. J. Davis, vol. ii. pp. 7-8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_550" href="#FNanchor_550" class="label">[550]</a>The clause was moved by S. Williamson, Liberal Member for Kilmarnock, -and seconded by J. H. C. Hozier, Conservative Member for -South Lanarkshire. It received no support from the “Labour Members,” -and was rejected by 159 to 104. See the <i>Eight Hours Day</i>, by Webb and -Cox, 1891, p. 23.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_551" href="#FNanchor_551" class="label">[551]</a>The “National Conferences” of the miners are a feature peculiar to -the industry. Besides the periodical gatherings of the separate federations, -the miners, since 1863, have had frequent conferences of delegates from all -the organised districts in the kingdom. These conferences were, until -1889, held under the auspices of the National Union; subsequently they -were summoned by the Miners’ Federation. The meetings, from which -reporters are now excluded, are consultative only, and their decisions are -not authoritative until adopted by the separate organisations. See <i>Die -Ordnung des Arbeitsverhältnisses in den Kohlengruben von Northumberland -und Durham</i>, by Dr. Emil Auerbach (Leipzig, 1890, 268 pp.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_552" href="#FNanchor_552" class="label">[552]</a>The “Fair Trade” attack had arisen in the following manner. At -the Bristol Congress in 1878, certain delegates, who were strongly suspected -of being the paid agents of the organisation then agitating for the abolition -of the foreign bounties on sugar, attempted to force this question upon -the Congress, and made a serious disturbance. These delegates afterwards -became the paid representatives of the “Fair Trade League,” an association -avowedly composed of landlords and capitalists with the object of -securing a reimposition of import duties. The Front Bench steadfastly -refused to allow the Congress to be used for promotion of this object, and -were exposed in return to what the Congress in 1882 declared to be “a -cowardly, false, and slanderous attack, ... an attempt at moral assassination.” -Instead of fighting the question of Free Trade <i>versus</i> Protection, -the emissaries of the Fair Trade League developed an elaborate system of -personal defamation, directed against Broadhurst, Howell, Shipton, and -other leaders. For instance, Broadhurst’s administration of the Gas -Stokers’ Relief Fund in 1872 was made the pretext for vague insinuations -of malversation which were scattered broadcast through the Trade Union -world. At the Congress of 1881 the “Fair Trade” delegates were expelled, -on it being proved that their expenses were not paid by the Trade Union -organisations which they nominally represented. A renewed attack on -the Congress of 1882 ended in the triumphant victory of the Parliamentary -Committee, the complete exoneration of Broadhurst and his colleagues, and -the final discomfiture of the “Fair Trade” delegates. See <i>Henry Broadhurst: -the Story of his Life</i>, by himself, 1901; <i>History of the British Trades -Union Congress</i>, by W. J. Davis, vol. i., 1910.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_553" href="#FNanchor_553" class="label">[553]</a>Report to Congress of 1884. This is another instance of the abandonment -of the more generous views of Applegarth and Odger.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_554" href="#FNanchor_554" class="label">[554]</a>Mr. Drummond, who resigned his secretaryship in 1892, was in the -following year appointed to the staff of the Labour Department of the -Board of Trade, from which he retired in 1918.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_555" href="#FNanchor_555" class="label">[555]</a>See its Circular of June 1886.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_556" href="#FNanchor_556" class="label">[556]</a>Some isolated protests against the employment of non-Unionists are -of earlier date. Thus, the minutes of the Birmingham Trades Council -show that, on July 3, 1880, at the instance of a painters’ delegate, it passed -a resolution protesting against the employment of “non-Union and -incompetent men” by the local hospital. And in the same month the -Wolverhampton Trades Council had successfully protested against the -employment of non-Unionist printers upon a new Liberal newspaper about -to be established.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_557" href="#FNanchor_557" class="label">[557]</a>The chief medium for the attack was the <i>Labour Elector</i>, a penny -weekly journal published, from September 1888 to April 1890, by Mr. -H. H. Champion, an ex-officer of the Royal Artillery, who (prosecuted in -1886, as we have seen, with H. M. Hyndman, J. Burns, and Williams, for -sedition) had at one time been a leading member of the Social Democratic -Federation, from which he was excluded on a difference of policy. He -afterwards emigrated to Melbourne, where he still (1920) resides.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_558" href="#FNanchor_558" class="label">[558]</a><i>Henry Broadhurst: the Story of his Life</i>, by himself, 1901, pp. 218-24; -<i>History of the British Trades Union Congress</i>, by W. J. Davis, vol. i., 1910.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_559" href="#FNanchor_559" class="label">[559]</a>The men employed by two of the gas companies in London, and -most of those engaged by provincial municipalities, have retained this -boon. But in December 1889 the South Metropolitan Gas Company -insisted, after a serious strike, on a return to the twelve hours’ shift. A -scheme of profit-sharing was used to break up their men’s Union and induce -them to accept individual engagements inconsistent with Collective -Bargaining. This example (which is not unique) confirmed the Trade -Unions in their objection to schemes of “Profit-sharing” or “Co-partnership.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_560" href="#FNanchor_560" class="label">[560]</a>This strike had the good fortune to find contemporary historians who -were themselves concerned in all the phases of the struggle. <i>The Story of -the Dockers’ Strike</i>, by Mr. (afterwards Sir) Hubert Llewellyn Smith and -Vaughan Nash (1890, 190 pp.), gives not only a detailed chronicle of the -highly dramatic proceedings, but also a useful description of the organisation -of the London Docks.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_561" href="#FNanchor_561" class="label">[561]</a>This movement was much assisted by the “Red Van” campaigns -of the English Land Restoration League, 1891-94, which coupled Land -Nationalisation propaganda with the formation of local unions of the -labourers in the Southern and Midland Counties of England. In the -agricultural depression of 1894-95, when staffs were further reduced and -wages again lowered, nearly all these new Unions sank to next to nothing, -or entirely dissolved. Most information as to them is to be gained from -<i>The Church Reformer</i> for 1891-95; <i>History of the English Agricultural -Labourer</i>, by W. Hasbach, 1907; and Ernest Selley’s <i>Village Trade Unions -of Two Centuries</i>, 1919.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_562" href="#FNanchor_562" class="label">[562]</a>Short-lived and turbulent combinations among seamen have existed -at various periods for the past hundred years, notably between 1810 and -1825, on the north-east coast, where many sailors’ benefit clubs were also -established. In 1851, again, a widespread national organisation of seamen -is said to have existed, having twenty-five branches between Peterhead and -London, and numbering 30,000 members. This appears to have been a loose -federation of practically autonomous port Unions, which for some years -kept up a vigorous agitation against obnoxious clauses in the Merchant -Shipping Acts of 1851-54, and fought the sailors’ grievances in the law courts. -In 1879 the existing North of England Sailors and Sea-going -Firemen’s Friendly Association was established, but failed to maintain -itself outside Sunderland. In 1887 its most vigorous member, J. Havelock -Wilson, convinced that nothing but a national organisation would be -effective, started the National Amalgamated Sailors and Firemen’s Union, -which his able and pertinacious “lobbying” made, for some years, an -effective Parliamentary force.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_563" href="#FNanchor_563" class="label">[563]</a>Address to members in First Half-Yearly Report (London, 1889). -The spirit of the uprising is well given in <i>The New Trade Unionism</i>, by -Tom Mann and Ben Tillett, 1890; on which George Shipton was moved -to write <i>A Reply to Messrs. Tom Mann and Ben Tillett’s Pamphlet -entitled “The New Trade Unionism,”</i> 1890.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_564" href="#FNanchor_564" class="label">[564]</a><i>Speech delivered by John Burns on the Liverpool Congress, September -21, 1890</i>(1890, 32 pp.).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_565" href="#FNanchor_565" class="label">[565]</a><i>Justice</i>, November 7, 1885.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_566" href="#FNanchor_566" class="label">[566]</a>Printed in <i>Justice</i>, September 6, 1884.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_567" href="#FNanchor_567" class="label">[567]</a>“The Decay of Trade Unions,” by H. M. Hyndman, <i>Justice</i>, June 18, -1887.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_568" href="#FNanchor_568" class="label">[568]</a>“The Trade Union Congress,” by John Burns, <i>Justice</i>, September 12, -1885.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_569" href="#FNanchor_569" class="label">[569]</a><i>Justice</i>, July 11, 1885.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_570" href="#FNanchor_570" class="label">[570]</a><i>Justice</i>, July 18, 1885. The identity of purpose and methods between -the two movements is indeed elsewhere directly asserted; see “Socialism -in ’34,” <i>ibid.</i>, April 19, 1884, and the extracts from the Owenite journals -in the issue for July 25, 1885.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_571" href="#FNanchor_571" class="label">[571]</a><i>Ibid.</i>, August 6, 1887.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_572" href="#FNanchor_572" class="label">[572]</a><i>Justice</i>, July 25, 1885.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_573" href="#FNanchor_573" class="label">[573]</a>From 1889 onwards the columns of <i>Justice</i> abound in abuse and -denunciation of the leaders of the New Unionism. We may cite, not so -much because it summarises this denunciation and abuse, but because of -the details of the movement that it incidentally gives, <i>The Rise and Progress -of a Right Honourable</i>, by Joseph Burgess (1911).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_574" href="#FNanchor_574" class="label">[574]</a>In this development some share is to be attributed to the work of -the Fabian Society, which, established in 1883, began in 1887 to exercise -a growing influence on working-class opinion. The publication, in 1889, -of <i>Fabian Essays in Socialism</i>, the circulation between 1887 and 1893 of -three-quarters of a million copies of its series of “Fabian tracts,” and -the delivery of several thousand lectures a year in London and other -industrial centres, contributed largely to substitute a practical and -constitutional policy of Collectivist reform for the earlier revolutionary -propaganda. Tom Mann, Ben Tillett, and other Trade Union leaders -were, from 1889 onwards, among the members of the parent Fabian -Society, whilst the ninety independent local Fabian Societies in the provincial -centres usually included many of the delegates to the local Trades -Councils. Some account of the Society and its work will be found in -<i>Zum socialen Frieden</i>, by Dr. von Schulze Gaevernitz (Leipzig, 1891, -2 vols.); in <i>Englische Socialreformer</i>, by Dr. M. Grunwald (Leipzig, 1897); -in <i>La Société Fabienne</i>, by Edouard Pfeiffer (Paris, 1911); in <i>Geschichte -des Socialismus in England</i>, by M. Beer (Stuttgart, 1913), republished in -different English form as <i>History of British Socialism</i>(vol. i., 1918; vol. ii., -1920); in <i>Socialism, a Critical Analysis</i>, by O. D. Skelton, 1911; and in -<i>Political Thought in England from Herbert Spencer to the Present Day</i>, by -Ernest Barker, 1915. A superficial survey of the development of opinion -is given in <i>Socialism in England</i>, by Sidney Webb (1st edition, 1889; 2nd -edition, 1893). See <i>History of the Fabian Society</i>, by Edward R. Pease (1915).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_575" href="#FNanchor_575" class="label">[575]</a><i>Trade Unionism Old and New</i>, 1891, <i>passim</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_576" href="#FNanchor_576" class="label">[576]</a>Thus the Dock, Wharf, and Riverside Labourers’ Union soon gave -Funeral Benefit—usually the first to be added; whilst many of the -branches started their own sick funds. Some of the branches of the -National Union of Gas-workers and General Labourers promptly added -local benefit funds, and the addition of Accident Benefit by the whole -society was presently adopted.</p> - -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_422">[Pg 422]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VIII">CHAPTER VIII</h2> -</div> - -<p class="h2sub">THE TRADE UNION WORLD<br /> -[1890-1894]</p> - -<p>When we were engaged, between 1890 and 1894, in investigating -the history and organisation of all the several -Unions, no complete statistics as to the extent of the -membership were in existence. We accordingly sought to -obtain, not only an analysis of the Trade Union world as it -then was, but also a complete census of Trade Unionism -from one end of the kingdom to the other. We retain this -analysis practically as it stood in the first edition of the -book in 1894, as a record of the position as it then was—in -subsequent chapters tracing the principal changes and -developments of the last thirty years.</p> - -<p>To deal first with the aggregate membership, we were -convinced in 1894 that, although a certain number of small -local societies might have escaped our notice, we had -included every Union then existing which had as many as -1000 members, as well as many falling below that figure. -From these researches we estimated that the total Trade -Union membership in the United Kingdom at the end of -1892 certainly exceeded 1,500,000 and probably did not -reach 1,600,000. Our estimate was presently confirmed. -Working upon the data thus supplied, the Labour Department -of the Board of Trade extended its investigations, -and now records a Trade Union membership for 1892 of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_423">[Pg 423]</span> -1,502,358.<a id="FNanchor_577" href="#Footnote_577" class="fnanchor">[577]</a> The Trade Unionists of 1892 numbered, therefore, -about 4 per cent of the Census population.</p> - -<p>But to gauge the strength of the Trade Union world of -1892 we had to compare the number of Trade Unionists, not -with the total population, but with that portion of it which -might conceivably be included within its boundaries. Thus -at the outset we had to ignore the propertied classes, the -professions, the employers and the brain-workers of every -kind, and confine our attention exclusively to the wage-earners -engaged in manual work. Even of the working-class -so defined we could exclude the children and the -youths under twenty-one, who are not usually eligible for -Trade Union membership. The women present a greater -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_424">[Pg 424]</span> -difficulty to the statistician. The adult female wage-earners -engaged in manual labour in 1891 were estimated to number -between two and three millions, of which only about 100,000 -were even nominally within the Trade Union ranks. To -what extent the men’s Trade Unionism was weakened by -its failure to enrol the women workers was a matter of -dispute. From the industrial point of view the answer -depends on complicated economic considerations, such as -the extent to which women compete with men in particular -industries, or women’s trades with those in which men are -employed. Owing to the exclusion of women from the -Parliamentary franchise until 1918 their absence from the -Trade Union world detracted little from its political force. -We have dealt elsewhere<a id="FNanchor_578" href="#Footnote_578" class="fnanchor">[578]</a> with the relation of women -workers to the Trade Union organisation. Meanwhile we -omit the women as well as the young persons under twenty-one -from our estimate of the place occupied by Trade -Unionism in working-class life.</p> - -<p>We know of no exact statistics as to the total numbers -of the manual-working class. The figures collected by Leone -Levi, and those of Sir Robert Giffen, together with the -inferences to be drawn from the census and from Charles -Booth’s works, led us to the conclusion—at best only -hypothetical—that of the nine millions of men over twenty-one -years of age in 1891, about seven millions belonged to -the manual-working class. Out of every hundred of the -population of all ages we could roughly estimate that -about eighteen are in this sense working men adults. -Accepting for the moment this hypothetical estimate, we -arrived at the conclusion that the Trade Unionists numbered -at this date about 20 per cent of the adult male manual-working -class, or, roughly, one man in five.</p> - -<p>But this revised percentage is itself misleading. If the -million and a half Trade Unionists were evenly distributed -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_425">[Pg 425]</span> -among all occupations and through all districts, a movement -which comprised only 20 per cent of working men -would be of slight economic or industrial importance, and -of no great weight in the political world. What gave the -Trade Union Movement its significance even thirty years -ago and transformed these million and a half units into an -organised world of their own, was the massing of Trade -Unionists in certain industries and districts in such a way -as to form a powerful majority of the working-class world. -The Trade Unionists were aggregated in the thriving industrial -districts of the North of England. The seven -counties of England north of the Humber and the Dee contained -at least 726,000 members of trade societies, or almost -half of the total for the United Kingdom. At a considerable -distance from these followed the industrial Midlands, -where the seven counties of Leicester, Derby, Notts, Warwick, -Gloucester, Northampton, and Stafford included a total -Trade Union membership of at least 210,000, whilst South -Wales, including Monmouthshire, counted another 89,000 -members of trade societies. The vast agglomeration of the -London district, in which we must reckon Middlesex, the -subsidiary boroughs of West Ham, Croydon, Richmond, and -Kingston, as well as Bromley in Kent, yielded not more -than 194,000 Trade Unionists.</p> - -<p>These four districts, comprising nearly 21,000,000 inhabitants, -or rather more than two-thirds of the population -of England and Wales, possessed in 1892 twelve-thirteenths -of its Trade Unionists. The total Trade Union membership -in the remainder of the country, with its 8,000,000 of population, -did not exceed 105,000, largely labourers. The only -county in England in which in 1892 we found no trace of -Trade Union organisation was Rutland, which did not, at -this date, contain a single branch of any Union whatsoever. -But Huntingdonshire, Herefordshire, and Dorsetshire, containing -together over 350,000 inhabitants, included, according -to our estimate, only about 710 Trade Unionists between -them. Scotland, with four millions of population, had -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_426">[Pg 426]</span> -147,000 Trade Unionists, nearly all aggregated in the narrow -industrial belt between the Clyde and the Forth, two-thirds -of the total, indeed, belonging to Glasgow and the neighbouring -industrial centres. Ireland, with three-quarters of -a million more population, counted but 40,000, nine-tenths -of whom belonged to Dublin, Belfast, Cork, and -Limerick.</p> - -<p>Of particular counties, Northumberland and Durham at -that date took the lead, closely followed by Lancashire. -The table on following page supplies particulars of this date -for the strongest Trade Union counties in England and -Wales.</p> - -<p>This superficial investigation shows us at once that Trade -Unionism coincided in 1892, as it does in 1920, in the main -with density of population. The thinly peopled plains of -Dorsetshire, the Highlands of Scotland, the West of Ireland, -the Cumberland and Westmorland Hills, were practically -devoid of Trade Unionism; the valleys of the Tyne and -Tees, Lancashire and London, and the busy industrial -villages of the Midlands showed a comparatively high percentage. -But the correspondence of Trade Unionism with -density of population is by no means exact. Oldham, for -instance, with a population of 201,153, had 25,000 male -Unionists,<a id="FNanchor_579" href="#Footnote_579" class="fnanchor">[579]</a> or 12.43 per cent, whereas Birmingham (including -the suburbs of Aston, Handsworth, and Solihull), -with 621,253, had only 26,000, or 4.19 per cent. Newcastle -(including Gateshead), with 328,066 inhabitants, had 26,500 -Trade Unionists, or 8.08 per cent, whilst Leeds (including -Wortley, Hunslet, and Burley) had but 16,000 to a population -of 415,243, or 3.85 per cent. And, most striking exception -of all, the crowded five and a half millions of the -Metropolitan area had but 194,000 Trade Unionists, or only -3.52 per cent of its population, whilst Lancashire, even -including its northern moorlands and its wide agricultural -districts, had 332,000 for less than four millions of people, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_427">[Pg 427]</span> -or 8.63 per cent of its population. Reckoning that 18 out -of every 100 of the population are adult male workmen, -Trade Unionism thus counted among its adherents in some -counties over 50 per cent of the total number of working -men.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i>Table showing, for certain counties in England, and for South Wales, the -total population in 1891, the ascertained number of Trade Unionists -in 1892, and the percentage to population in each case. (In the first -edition of this book the student will find a coloured map of England and -Wales, showing, in five tints, the percentage of Trade Union membership -to Census population in 1891 in the several counties, as estimated in -this table.)</i></p> -</div> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc bt bb">County.</td> -<td class="tdc bt bb bl">Total Population in 1891.</td> -<td class="tdc bt bb bl">Ascertained Number of Members of Trade Societies in 1892.</td> -<td class="tdc bt bb bl">Percentage of Trade Unionists to Population.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Northumberland</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">506,030</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">56,815</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">11.23</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Durham</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,024,369</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">114,810</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">11.21</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Lancashire</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3,957,906</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl"><a id="FNanchor_580" href="#Footnote_580" class="fnanchor">[580]</a> 331,535</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">8.63</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Yorkshire, E. Riding</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">318,570</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">23,630</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">7.42</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Leicestershire</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">379,286</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">27,845</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">7.34</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Derbyshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">432,414</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">29,510</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">6.82</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">South Wales and Monmouthshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,325,315</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">88,810</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">6.70</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Nottinghamshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">505,311</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">31,050</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">6.14</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Yorkshire, W. Riding</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,464,415</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">141,140</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">5.73</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Gloucestershire</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">548,886</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">26,030</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">4.74</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cheshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">707,978</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">32,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">4.52</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Staffordshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,103,452</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">49,545</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">4.49</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Suffolk</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">353,758</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">14,885</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">4.21</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Warwickshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">801,738</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">33,600</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">4.19</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Northampton</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">308,072</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">12,210</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3.96</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cumberland</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">266,549</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">10,280</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3.86</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">London District (including Middlesex, Croydon, West Ham, Richmond, Kingston, and Bromley)</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">5,517,583</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">194,083</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3.52</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Yorkshire, N. Riding with York City</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">435,897</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">15,215</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3.49</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">—————</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">—————</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">——</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl bb">Totals</td> -<td class="tdr bb bl">20,957,529</td> -<td class="tdr bb bl">1,232,993</td> -<td class="tdr bb bl">5.89</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>No other county had 15,000 Trade Unionists, nor as much as 3 per -cent of its population in trade societies.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_428">[Pg 428]</span></p> - -<p>But this percentage itself fails to give an adequate idea -of the extent to which Trade Unionism, even in 1892, -dominated the industrial centres in which it was strongest. -Within the concentration by localities, there was a further -concentration by trades—a fact which to a large extent -explains the geographical distribution. The following table -shows in what proportion the leading industries contributed -to the total Trade Union forces:</p> - -<p><i>Table showing the approximate number of members of trade societies in 1892 -according to industries, in the different parts of the United Kingdom.</i></p> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc bb bt">Trade.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">England<br />and Wales.<a id="FNanchor_581" href="#Footnote_581" class="fnanchor">[581]</a></td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Scotland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Ireland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Total.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Engineering and Metal Trades</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">233,450</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">45,300</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">8,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">287,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Building Trades</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">114,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">24,950</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">8,550</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">148,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Mining</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">325,750</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">21,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">347,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Textile Manufactures</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">184,270</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">12,330</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3,400</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">200,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Clothing and Leather Trades</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">78,650</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">8,400</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,950</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">90,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Printing Trades</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">37,950</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">5,650</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,400</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">46,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Miscellaneous Crafts</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">46,550</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">7,450</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">4,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">58,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Labourers and Transport Workers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">302,880</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">21,670</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">10,450</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">335,900</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">—————</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">————</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">—————</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl bb">Totals</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">1,324,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">147,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">40,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb"><a id="FNanchor_582" href="#Footnote_582" class="fnanchor">[582]</a>1,511,000</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_429">[Pg 429]</span></p> - -<p>For the general reader, this table, together with the foregoing -one showing the geographical distribution of Trade -Unionism, completes our statistical survey of the Trade -Union world of 1892. To the student of Trade Union -statistics a more particular enumeration may be useful. -Before we attempt to picture Trade Union life, we shall -therefore devote a dozen pages (which the general reader -may with a clear conscience skip) to the dry facts of organisation -in each of the eight great divisions into which we -distributed the Trade Union membership of 1892.</p> - -<p>The first division, comprising all the numerous ramifications -of the engineering, metal-working, and shipbuilding -trades, was then characterised by old-established and highly -developed national Unions, with large membership, centralised -administration, and extensive friendly benefits. -The 287,000 Trade Unionists in this division were enrolled -in over 260 separate societies, but almost one-half belonged -to one or other of four great national organisations, the -Amalgamated Society of Engineers (established 1851), the -United Society of Boilermakers and Iron Shipbuilders -(established 1832),<a id="FNanchor_583" href="#Footnote_583" class="fnanchor">[583]</a> the Friendly Society of Ironfounders -of England, Ireland, and Wales (established 1809), and the -Associated Society of Shipwrights, a belated amalgamation -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_430">[Pg 430]</span> -formed in 1882 by the many ancient local Unions of wooden -shipbuilders. Of these great Unions, that of the Boilermakers, -with 39,000 members, was incomparably the -strongest, having no rival for the allegiance of its trade -and including practically the whole body of skilled workmen -engaged in iron shipbuilding and boilermaking from one -end of the United Kingdom to the other. The great Unions -of Ironfounders and Shipwrights, with respectively 15,000 -and 14,000 members, were not quite so universal as the -Boilermakers. The Associated Society of Ironmoulders -(Ironfounders) of Scotland (established 1831), with 6000 -members and a few minor Unions of less skilled ironfounders, -maintained separate organisations; whilst the Shipwrights’ -Provident Union of the Port of London (established 1824, -1400 members), the Liverpool Trade and Friendly Association -of Shipwrights (established 1800, 1400 members), and -a few other old-fashioned port Unions still held aloof -from the Shipwrights’ amalgamation.<a id="FNanchor_584" href="#Footnote_584" class="fnanchor">[584]</a> The Amalgamated -Society of Engineers, the largest centralised Trade Union in -the kingdom, with 66,000 members at home and 5000 -abroad, towered over all its rivals, but had to compete with -compact sectional or local Unions, admitting one or more -of the numerous classes of workmen in the engineering and -machine-making trade.<a id="FNanchor_585" href="#Footnote_585" class="fnanchor">[585]</a> Among the actual producers of -iron and steel, the British Steel Smelters’ Association (established -1886), with 2400 members, originally a Scotch Union, -was extending all over the kingdom; whilst the Associated -Society of Iron and Steel Workers (established 1862), with 1250 -members.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_431">[Pg 431]</span></p> - -<p>7800 members, occupied a unique position in the Trade -Union world from its long and constant devotion to the -sliding scale. The tin and hollow-ware workers,<a id="FNanchor_586" href="#Footnote_586" class="fnanchor">[586]</a> the -chippers and drillers, the Sheffield cutlers, and the craftsmen -in precious metals were split up into innumerable local -societies, with little federal union.</p> - -<p>It is interesting to notice the large proportion which -this division of Trade Unionists in Scotland bore to the -total for that country. Whilst in England and Wales it -formed only one-sixth of the aggregate number, in Scotland -it measured nearly one-third, almost entirely centred about -Glasgow.</p> - -<p><i>Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists in each group of -the Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades.</i></p> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc bb bt">Trade.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">England<br />and Wales.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Scotland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Ireland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Total.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Engineers and Machine Makers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">74,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">8,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,750</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">85,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Smiths and Farriers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">7,350</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">300</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">9,900</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Brass and Copper Workers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">13,350</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">150</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">15,500</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sheet Metal Workers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">16,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,300</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">200</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">17,500</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Ironfounders and Core-makers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">15,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">7,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">23,250</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shipbuilding and Boiler making</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">45,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">13,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3,600</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">62,350</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Iron and Steel Smelters.</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">23,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">25,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Workers in Precious Metals</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3,500</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sundry Metal Workers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">34,750</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">9,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">750</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">45,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">————</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">————</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl bb">Totals</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">233,450</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">45,300</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">8,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">287,000</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>The organisation of Builders and Furniture Makers resembled -in many respects that of the Engineers and Shipbuilders. -The 148,000 Trade Unionists in this division were -sorted into 120 separate Unions; but again we find one-half -of them belonging to one or other of three centralised -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_432">[Pg 432]</span> -Trade Friendly Societies of national scope. Of these the -Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons (established 1832, -16,000 members) was the most powerful, having practically -no rival throughout England or Ireland, and maintaining -friendly relations with the corresponding United Operative -Masons’ Association of Scotland (established 1831, 5000 -members). But the largest and richest Union in this -division was the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and -Joiners (established 1860, 34,000 members at home and -4000 abroad). Although this Society could count but a -small proportion of the total number of carpenters in the -kingdom, it included three-fourths of those who were Trade -Unionists, the remaining fourth being divided between the -Associated Carpenters and Joiners of Scotland (established -1861, 6000 members), the old General Union of Carpenters -and Joiners of England (established 1827, 4000 members), -and a few tiny trade clubs in the Metropolis which had -refused to merge themselves in either of the national organisations. -The Bricklayers were in much the same position -as the Carpenters. The Operative Bricklayers’ Society -(established 1848, 22,000 members) included three-fourths -of the Trade Unionists, the remainder being found either -in the United Operative Bricklayers’ Trade, Accident, and -Burial Society (established 1832, 2500 members), or in a -few isolated local trade clubs in Scotland and Ireland. Of -the other Unions in the Building Trades, the United Operative -Plumbers’ Association of Great Britain and Ireland -(established 1832, reorganised 1865, 6500 members) was by -far the most effective and compact, and was specially interesting -as retaining practically the federal constitution of -the Builders’ Union of 1830-34. With the exception of the -United Operative Plumbers’ Association of Scotland (established -1872, 700 members), a small society resulting from a -secession, no rival organisation existed. On the other hand, -the Painters, Slaters, Packing-case Makers, Upholsterers, -and French Polishers were split up into numberless small -Unions, whilst the Cabinetmakers and Plasterers had each -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_433">[Pg 433]</span> -one considerable organisation<a id="FNanchor_587" href="#Footnote_587" class="fnanchor">[587]</a> and several smaller societies, -which, however, included but a small proportion of the -trade.</p> - -<p><i>Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists in the various -branches of the Building and Furniture Trades.</i></p> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc bb bt">Trade.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">England<br />and Wales.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Scotland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Ireland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Total.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Stonemasons</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">16,750</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">8,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">25,250</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bricklayers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">24,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">700</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,300</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">27,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Carpenters</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">33,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">7,850</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">44,100</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cabinetmakers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">7,200</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">300</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">9,500</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sawyers and other Wood-workers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">4,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">350</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">150</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">4,750</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Plasterers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">7,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">9,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Painters</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">12,400</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,150</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">15,550</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Plumbers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">5,400</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,200</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">400</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">7,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Upholsterers and French Polishers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">450</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">300</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3,250</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sundry Building Trades</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">100</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,600</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">————</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">————</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl bb">Totals</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">114,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">24,950</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">8,550</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">148,000</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>The Miners and Quarrymen, comprising about sixty-five -societies, were in 1892 the best organised of the eight great -divisions into which we classified the Trade Union forces. -Among the coalminers the “county,” or district Union, -without friendly benefits, was the predominating type. -Nearly two-thirds of the whole 347,000 Trade Unionists in -this division were gathered into the Miners’ Federation of -Great Britain (established 1888), a federal Union comprising -about twenty independent organisations, some of which, like -the Yorkshire Miners’ Association (established 1858, 55,000 -members), were highly centralised, whilst others, like the -Lancashire Miners’ Federation (established 1881, 43,000 -members), were themselves federal bodies. The Miners’ -Federation, whilst not interfering with the financial autonomy -or internal administration of its constituent bodies, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_434">[Pg 434]</span> -effectively centralised the industrial and Parliamentary -policy of the whole army of its members from Fife to Somerset. -Outside the Federation at this date stood the powerful -and compact Northumberland Miners’ Mutual Confident -Association (established 1863, 17,000 members), and Durham -Miners’ Association (established 1869, 50,000 members), together -with the solid little Mid and West Lothian Miners’ -Association (established 1885, 3600 members), and the loose -organisations of Sliding Scale contributors which then figured -as Trade Unions in South Wales.<a id="FNanchor_588" href="#Footnote_588" class="fnanchor">[588]</a> The coal and iron miners -of the West of Scotland had scarcely got beyond the ephemeral -pit club and occasional Strike Union. Among the tin, -lead, and copper miners Trade Unionism, as far as we can -ascertain, was absolutely unknown.</p> - -<p><i>Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists among the -persons engaged in or about Mines and Quarries.</i></p> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc bb bt">Trade.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">England<br />and Wales.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Scotland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Ireland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Total.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Coal and Iron Miners</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">301,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">17,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">318,500</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Colliery Enginemen</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">5,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">6,500</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cokemen, Overmen, Colliery Mechanics, &c.</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">9,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">9,750</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Quarrymen</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">10,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">10,500</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shale Oil Workers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,750</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,750</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">————</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">————</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl bb">Totals</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">325,750</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">21,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">347,000</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>The salient fact of Trade Unionism among the textile -operatives in 1892 was that effective organisation was nearly -confined to the workers in cotton, who contributed at least -two-thirds of the 200,000 Trade Unionists in this division. -Like the Miners the Cotton Operatives have always shown -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_435">[Pg 435]</span> -a strong preference for federal Associations with exclusively -trade objects. The powerful Amalgamated Association of -Operative Cotton-spinners (established 1853), a federal -Union of 19,500 members comprising forty separate district -associations, joined with its sister federations, the -Northern Counties Amalgamated Association of Weavers -(established 1884, 71,000 members) and the Amalgamated -Association of Card and Blowing Room Operatives (31,000 -members, established 1886), in the United Textile Factory -Workers’ Association (established 1886). This Association -formed exclusively for Parliamentary purposes, focussed the -very considerable political influence of 125,000 organised -cotton operatives in Lancashire, Cheshire, and Yorkshire, -and was, next to the Miners’ Federation, by far the most -powerful Trade Union organisation in the country. -<a id="FNanchor_589" href="#Footnote_589" class="fnanchor">[589]</a></p> - -<p>The highly developed organisation of the Cotton -Operatives contrasted with the feebleness of the Woollen-workers. -In the other branches of textile manufacture the -extreme localisation of the separate industries had given -rise to isolated county or district organisations of lace, -hosiery, silk, flax, or carpet-workers usually confined to -small areas, and exercising comparatively little influence in -the Trade Union world. Incomparably the strongest among -them was the Amalgamated Society of Operative Lacemakers -(3500 members), which comprised practically all the -adult male workers in the Nottingham machine-lace trade. -If we exclude the constituent organisations of the United -Textile Factory Workers’ Association, the separate Unions -in the various branches of the textile industry numbered 115.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_436">[Pg 436]</span></p> - -<p><i>Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists in the various -branches of the Textile Manufacture.</i></p> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc bb bt">Trade.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">England<br />and Wales.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Scotland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Ireland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Total.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cotton-spinners</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">19,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">19,500</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cotton-weavers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">82,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">83,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cotton Card-room Operatives</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">31,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">31,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Woollen-workers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">6,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">9,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">15,500</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Woolsorters, Combers, &c.</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,500</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Silkworkers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">60</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,560</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Flax and Linen-workers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">150</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">300</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,940</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3,390</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Carpet-weavers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,600</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">400</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Hosiery-workers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">6,350</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">100</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">50</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">6,500</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Lacemakers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">4,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">4,500</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Elastic Webworkers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">700</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">700</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Dyers, Bleachers, and Finishers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">11,820</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">180</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">100</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">12,100</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Overlookers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">4,850</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">200</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">200</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">5,250</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Calico-printers and Engravers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,950</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">50</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,500</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Miscellaneous Textiles</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">7,350</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">650</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">8,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">————</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">————</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl bb">Totals</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">184,270</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">12,330</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">3,400</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">200,000</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>The large section of workers engaged in the manufacture -of clothing and leather goods was, perhaps, the least organised -of the skilled trades. One society, indeed, the National -Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives (established 1874), -counted almost 43,000 members, and exercised a very real -control over the machine boot trade. And although the -hand industry was in this case rapidly declining, the -Amalgamated Association of Boot and Shoemakers (established -1862) maintained and even increased the earnings of -this body of 4700 skilled handicraftsmen. The Tailors, on -the other hand, had succeeded neither in controlling the -new machine industry, nor in upholding the standard earnings -of the hand-workers. The Amalgamated Society of -Tailors (established 1866, 17,000 members), together with -the Scottish National Operative Tailors’ Society (established -1866, 4500 members), had absorbed all the local Unions, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_437">[Pg 437]</span> -but included only a small proportion of those at work in -the trade. The Felt Hatters and Trimmers’ Union (established -1872) had 4300 members, together with a women’s -branch (established 1886) numbering nearly as many. In -other branches of this division some strong organisations -existed in the smaller industries, but the workers for the -most part formed only feeble local clubs or else were totally -unorganised. There were altogether over sixty separate -Unions in this division.</p> - -<p><i>Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists in the Clothing -and Leather Trades.</i></p> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc bb bt">Trade.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">England<br />and Wales.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Scotland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Ireland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Total.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Boot and Shoemakers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">46,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">49,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Other Leather Workers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">5,900</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">550</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">100</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">6,550</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Tailors and other Clothing Makers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">16,100</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">5,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,300</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">23,900</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Hatmakers, Glovers, &c.</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">10,400</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">100</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">50</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">10,550</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">——</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">——</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">——</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl bb">Totals</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">78,650</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">8,400</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">2,950</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">90,000</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>The 46,000 Trade Unionists in the paper and printing -trades were divided between four considerable Unions with -27,000 members, and forty-five little societies numbering -not more than 19,000 altogether. The compositors lead off -with three extensive organisations, the London Society of -Compositors, confined to the Metropolis (established 1848, -9800 members), the Typographical Association (established -1849, 11,500 members), which had absorbed all but four of -the Irish and four of the English local societies outside the -Metropolis, and the Scottish Typographical Association -(established 1852, 3000 members). The Bookbinders and -Machine Rulers’ Consolidated Union (established 1835, 3000 -members), mainly composed of provincial workers, far exceeded -the London Consolidated Bookbinders’ Society, the -largest of half-a-dozen Metropolitan Unions in this trade.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_438">[Pg 438]</span></p> - -<p><i>Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists in the various -branches of the Paper and Printing Trades.</i></p> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc bb bt">Trade.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">England<br />and Wales.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Scotland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Ireland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Total.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Compositors and Press and Machine Men</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">27,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">4,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">33,250</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bookbinders</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">5,150</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">700</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">300</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">6,150</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Papermakers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3,150</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">500</td> -<td class="tdc tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3,650</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Miscellaneous Printing Trades</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,400</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">450</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">100</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,950</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl bb">Totals</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">37,950</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">5,650</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">2,400</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">46,000</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>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. -<a id="FNanchor_590" href="#Footnote_590" class="fnanchor">[590]</a></p> - -<p><i>Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists in the -Miscellaneous Trades.</i></p> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc bb bt">Trade.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">England<br />and Wales.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Scotland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Ireland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Total.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Basket and Brushmakers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,800</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">350</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">100</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3,250</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Coach and Waggon Builders</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">6,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">400</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">600</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">7,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Coopers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">4,400</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,300</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">300</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">6,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Glassworkers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">7,350</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">150</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">8,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Millers and Bakers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">7,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">2,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">12,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Potters</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">6,250</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,650</td> -<td class="tdc tdb bl">...</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">7,900</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sundry Trades</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">12,750</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">750</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">350</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">13,850</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl bb">Totals</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">46,550</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">7,450</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">4,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">58,000</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>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 -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_439">[Pg 439]</span> -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 -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_440">[Pg 440]</span> -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. -<a id="FNanchor_591" href="#Footnote_591" class="fnanchor">[591]</a></p> - -<p><i>Table showing the approximate number of Trade Unionists among the -Labourers and Transport Workers of every kind.</i></p> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc bb bt">Trade.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">England<br />and Wales.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Scotland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Ireland.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Total.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Seamen, Fishermen, Watermen, &c.</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">33,850</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3,900</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">39,250</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Railway Traffic Workers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">43,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">48,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Enginemen, &c. (other than</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl"></td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl"></td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl"></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Colliery or Railway)</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">6,300</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">370</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">100</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">6,770</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Carmen, &c.</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">19,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">3,500</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">1,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">23,500</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Miscellaneous Labourers</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">200,230</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">12,400</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">4,850</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">217,480</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"></td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">————</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">———</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl">————</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl bb">Totals</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">302,880</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">21,670</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">10,450</td> -<td class="tdr tdb bl bb">335,000</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>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<a id="FNanchor_592" href="#Footnote_592" class="fnanchor">[592]</a> 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 -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_441">[Pg 441]</span> -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 -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_442">[Pg 442]</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_443">[Pg 443]</span></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>It is therefore impossible by a statistical survey to give -any adequate idea of the Trade Union world of 1892. We -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_444">[Pg 444]</span> -may note the fact that the thousand separate unions or -branches between Blyth and Middlesborough numbered -some 200,000 members. We may ascertain that within -fifteen miles of the Manchester Exchange at least as many -Trade Unionists lived and worked. But no figures can -convey any real impression of the place which the Trade -Union, even then, filled in the every-day life of the skilled -artisans of the United Kingdom. We are therefore fortunate -in being able to supplement our statistics by a graphic -description of Trade Union life supplied to us in 1893 by a -skilled craftsman, who joined his Union on the expiration -of his apprenticeship, and served for some time in various -official capacities.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>To an apprentice, Trade Unionism is little more than a name. -He may occasionally overhear the men in his shop discussing -their Union and its work; and he knows that after “club night” -a number of stories of the incidents of the meeting will be -related; whilst, if he works in a strong Society shop, he may -even hear heated discussions on resolutions submitted to the -meeting. But the chief topic will always be the personal one—who -was at the meeting, and what old chums were met; for -the “club” is generally the recognised meeting-place for “old -cronies” in the trade. If he works in a shop where any of the -Trade Union officials are also employed he may sometimes receive -a word of advice and exhortation “to be sure to join the Society -when he is a man.” On the whole, however, his knowledge of, -and interest in, the Society will be very slight. But should a -strike occur at his shop whilst he is yet a lad, the presence and -power of the Trade Union will be brought very vividly home to -him; and as he works by himself or with the other lads in an -otherwise deserted shop he will form some opinions of his own. -He will naturally feel a violent antipathy to the “Blacks” brought -into his shop, for the sense of comradeship is strong among boys; -and he will notice with considerable pleasure that they are usually -inferior workmen. But in spite of this, if the employer is “a -good sort,” who treats him well and kindly, he will probably still -think that the men are wrong to strike. For the boy regards -the employer as the one “who finds work for the men to do,” -and hence looks upon a strike as an act of ingratitude; and -further, he has also a vague idea that the men are in the position -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_445">[Pg 445]</span> -of being many to one, and hence he promptly sides with the -weaker party.</p> - -<p>As the youth draws near the end of his apprenticeship he finds -that he is frequently spoken to by Union men and urged to join -the Society. He notices, too, that more attention is paid to him, -and that his opinions are frequently asked upon trade matters. -Finally he is invited round to the little public in which the -club meetings are held, and introduced to the Lodge officials, and -to a number of his fellow-tradesmen. The advantages offered by -the Society are freely dilated upon, great stress being laid upon -the friendly benefits—the sick, superannuation, funeral, and, -above all, the out-of-work pay. For the Trade Society is the -only institution which provides an out-of-work benefit. Against -sickness and death he may already be insured in one or other of -the numerous Friendly Societies; but the out-of-work pay is -never provided except by a Trade Society, since only there is it -possible to know whether a claimant is out of work by reason of -bad trade, or bad character, or inefficiency, or even if he is really -out of work at all. And as the advantages of this provision are -pointed out to him he recollects the time when his father, a staid, -steady-going mechanic, was thrown out of work by slack times; -and the memory of that bitter experience clings very closely to -him. Perhaps he is also in love. The thought of seeing “her” -miserable and their children hungry whilst he himself is helpless -to assist, must always be one of the most harrowing things to -a careful young artisan, with visions of a happy little home in -the near future. There is, however, another view of the club -which appeals with almost equal force to our young artisan just -out of his apprenticeship and finding himself in possession of an -income nearly double that to which he has been accustomed. -The Trade Union Meeting House is the recognised club for the -men in the craft, and thus presents many social attractions. -Friendships are made—numerous “sing-songs” and smoking -concerts arranged; and the joke and friendly glass, the good -cheer and the conviviality, all present great attractions to the -young workman.</p> - -<p>The club is also a centre for obtaining the latest trade news. -Here come the unemployed from other towns; here are to be -heard reports of reductions or advance of wages, increased or -diminished working hours, stories of tyranny, or the first rumours -of that bug-bear to the men—the invention of new machines, -with its probable displacement of their labour; or even worse, -the introduction of women and boys at reduced prices. There -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_446">[Pg 446]</span> -is also an occasional visit from an important official of the central -office to look forward to, and his words to digest afterwards. All -these attractions incline the young artisan to enrol himself in -the Lodge, but it is mainly personal considerations which in the -end decide him to take the step. Are the good men in his trade—those -whom he likes; who have treated him well, helped him -out of his difficulties and given him coppers when a lad; the -powerful men, the foremen, and those whose words carry most -weight with their fellows—are these men members of the Union? -If they are, and if, as is most probable in a Society shop, he has -formed friendships with other young fellows who are already -members, it is not long before he consents, and allows himself to -be duly proposed as a candidate for membership.</p> - -<p>The next club night sees him at the door of the club-room -waiting anxiously, and perhaps timorously, whilst the formalities -go on inside. Usually the ordinary business of the evening is all -disposed of before the election of new members takes place. At -the first mention by the President of the fact that a candidate is -waiting to be elected, the doorkeeper (hitherto posted inside the -door to see that no one comes in or goes out surreptitiously, and -that none of the “worthy brothers” are in an unfit state to enter -the room) slips rapidly outside, and holding the door firmly, -refuses admission to any one while the ceremony lasts. The -President then rising, calls for order, and having read out the -name of the candidate and those of his proposer and seconder, -asks those members to tell the Lodge what they know about him. -Then the proposer rises, and addressing “Mr. President and -worthy brothers,” states what he knows—that the candidate is -a young man, apprenticed in his shop and duly served his time—a -good workman and a steady young fellow—anxious to join the -Society and sure to be a credit to the Lodge. He resumes his -seat amid applause; and the seconder rises and repeats the same -eulogy. Then the candidate is called into the room, the doorkeeper -admitting him with some ceremony. He enters in fear -and trembling; for the formality of admission, though shorn of -its former mysterious rites, is still conducted with sufficient -solemnity to make it loom as something rather terrible. At -once he finds himself the object of the friendly curiosity of the -members, and the cause of applause, all of which adds considerably -to his nervousness and trepidation. But he is agreeably surprised -to find the ceremony a very meagre one. The President, rising, -calls upon all the members to do likewise, and then, all standing, -he reads out an initiatory address, and a portion of the Rules of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_447">[Pg 447]</span> -the Society. Then in a simple affirmation the candidate pledges -himself to abide by the Rules, to study the interests of the Society, -and neither to do, nor, if he can prevent it, allow to be done, -anything in opposition thereto. He has then to formally sign this -pledge. That being done, his name is entered as a member, and -upon paying his entrance fee, he is presented with a card of -membership and a book of Rules of the Society.</p> - -<p>He is now an ordinary member of the Lodge, and this newly -acquired dignity is fully brought home to him in the course of a -week or so, when he receives his first summons to attend a Lodge -meeting. He wends his way to the little public-house in the dirty -back street where the Lodge is held, and arriving shortly before -eight o’clock, the time fixed for the opening of business, finds a -number of his fellow-workmen congregated round the bar discussing -the evening’s programme and trade matters generally. -The men come in by twos and threes, and he notices that, with -few exceptions, all are neat and clean, having been home and had -their tea and a wash in the interval between then and working -hours.<a id="FNanchor_593" href="#Footnote_593" class="fnanchor">[593]</a> The officers of the Lodge arriving, are greeted with a -general recognition as they pass upstairs to prepare the club-room -for the business of the evening. Shortly after the hour fixed for -commencing, the President takes the chair, and, as the men -slowly straggle up into the room, rises and declares the meeting -open for business. The club-room is a long, low-ceilinged room -which constitutes the first floor of the public-house. Down the -centre of the room runs a trestle table with forms along the sides, -on which the members are seating themselves. At the top a -shorter table is placed crosswise, forming a letter T, and here sits -the group of officers. The room is decorated with the framed -“emblems” of various trade societies, interspersed with gilt -mirrors and advertising almanacs. At one end is a throne and -canopy, showing that it is used also as a club-room by one or -other of the friendly societies which still maintain the curious old -rites of their orders. In a corner stands a cottage pianoforte, -indicating that the room is also used for concerts, sing-songs, -and convivial gatherings.</p> - -<p>The first business of the evening is the payment of contributions. -The Secretary, aided by the “Check Secretary,” the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_448">[Pg 448]</span> -Money Steward, and Treasurer, receives the subscriptions from -the men as they come, one by one, up the room, enters the -payment in the books, and signs the members’ cards. In many -cases women and children come to pay the subscriptions of their -husbands or fathers; and he will feel a sense of shame at the idea -of these having to come through the public bar to perform their -errand. When the subscriptions are all received, the unemployed -members, and the wives or other relatives of those who are sick, -present themselves to draw their respective benefits. General -inquiries are made after the health and hopes are expressed for the -speedy recovery of the sick ones; and the sums due are paid out -by the officials with considerable formality. During these proceedings -there has been a constant hum of conversation in the -room, and a continual running in and out of members to the bar, -and back again. But all this now comes to an end. The -President rises and calls for order. Strangers and non-members -are cleared out of the room. The doorkeeper takes up his -position inside the door to watch the comers-in and goers-out; -and the drink-stewards make ready to attend to the members’ -wants, and act as waiters, in order to dispense with strangers in -the room, and to prevent any unnecessary bustle and confusion.<a id="FNanchor_594" href="#Footnote_594" class="fnanchor">[594]</a> -The business of the evening opens with the reading of the -minutes of the last meeting. Questions concerning the enforcement -of some resolution, or the result of some instructions given -to the officers, are asked and answered, and the minutes are -confirmed by a show of hands and signed by the President. Then -letters received, and copies of those despatched by the Secretary -since the last meeting are read. These include letters from the -General Office interpreting some rule as to the payment of -benefits, from the District Committee giving notice of a trade -regulation, and from other branch secretaries asking for particulars -as to the character and ability of some candidate for admission. -Then follows the excitement of the evening—the report of -delegates appointed to interview an employer on some grievance. -They will explain how they waited on Mr. So-and-so, who at -first refused to see them, and ordered them off his premises; how -presently he came round and listened to their complaints; how -he denied the existence of the alleged evil, and demanded the -names of the men who complained, which the delegates of course -refused to give; and how at last, after much dispute, he temporised, -and gave them to understand that the grievance would be -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_449">[Pg 449]</span> -remedied. Then the members present from the shop in question -are called upon to explain what improvements, if any, have been -made in the matters of which they complained. If their report -is satisfactory, the subject is allowed to drop. If not, there is a -heated discussion. Our friend, seated with the young fellows at -the back of the room, finds himself clamouring for a strike. The -officers do their best to hold the meeting back. They suggest -that the District Committee<a id="FNanchor_595" href="#Footnote_595" class="fnanchor">[595]</a> ought first to be communicated -with; or if the grievance is one against which the General Rules -or District Bye-laws permit the men to strike without superior -sanction, they urge further negotiations with the employer. The -discussion is eventually closed by an order to the Secretary to -write to the District Committee for advice, or by an instruction -to the delegates to again interview the offending employer, and -if he “bamboozles” them a second time, to strike the shop.</p> - -<p>This excitement over, the interest of the meeting flags, and -members drop out one by one. Perhaps there is an appeal by -a member to whom the Committee has refused some benefit to -which he thinks himself entitled. Against this decision he -appeals to his fellow-members in Lodge assembled, urging his -long membership, his wife and family, and his work for the -Union as reasons why he should be leniently dealt with. Eloquent -speeches are made on his behalf by personal friends. But -the Committee and the officers declare that they have acted -according to the Rules, and remind the Lodge that if they are -ordered to pay an illegal benefit, the Central Office will disallow -the amount, and order the members to repay it to the Union -funds. With a strong Committee the vote will be against the -man; with a weak one, and especially if the man is a jovial and -“free-and-easy” comrade, his friends will turn up in sufficient -numbers to carry the appeal. It being now ten o’clock, all other -business—such as resolutions proposed by individual members—gets -adjourned to the next club night, and the President declares -the Lodge duly closed. The Secretary hastens home, to sit up -burning midnight oil in balancing the books, entering the minutes, -making reports to the Central Executive or District Committee, -and writing the letters ordered by the meeting.</p> - -<p>The Lodge meeting soon plays an important part in the life of -our active-minded artisan. He feels that he is taking part in the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_450">[Pg 450]</span> -actual government of a national institution. Special meetings -are held to discuss and vote on questions submitted by the -Executive to the whole body of the members, such as the -alteration of a rule, the election of some central official, or a -grant in aid of another trade. But primarily the Lodge is his -Court of Appeal against all industrial tyranny, a court in which -he is certain of a ready and sympathetic hearing. There he takes -complaints of fines and deductions, of arbitrary foremen, of low -piecework prices—of anything, in short, which affects his interest -or comfort as a wage-earner.</p> - -<p>The tendency of this ever-present power and actuality of the -Lodge and its officials is to overshadow in the mind of the -member the larger functions and responsibilities of the Central -Executive. To him they are something far away in the vast -outside world, and their powers are very vague and shadowy. -They are, however, brought home to him in some of the incidents -of his Trade Union and working life. There is, for instance, -the “emblem” of his Society, a large and generally highly-coloured -representation of the various processes of the trade in -which he is engaged, often excellently designed and executed. -This, purchased for a few shillings soon after his admission to -the Society, or more probably at the time of his marriage, is -hung, gaily framed, in his front parlour. On it is recorded his -name, age, and date of admission to the Society, and it bears the -signatures, and perhaps the portraits, of the general officers. To -him it is some slight connecting link with the other men in his -trade and Society. To his wife it is the charter of their rights -in case of sickness, want of work, or death. As such it is an -object of pride in the household, pointed out with due impressiveness -to friends and casual visitors.</p> - -<p>But more important is the Monthly Circular, now a recognised -feature in most of the large Unions. Here the member feels -himself brought into direct contact with the outside world of his -trade. Has he been ill or out of work and drawn relief, his name -and the amount of money drawn are duly recorded. If he has -not himself been so unfortunate, he here learns the names of -those who have, and perhaps hears from this source for the first -time of such a calamity having befallen some friend in another -and distant town. Here also are reports of the state of trade and -the number of unemployed in every place where a branch of the -Society exists; of alterations in hours and rates of wages effected -during the month, by friendly negotiations or by a lock-out or a -strike. Finally, there are letters from lodges or from individual -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_451">[Pg 451]</span> -members on all sorts of topics, including spicy abuse of the -Central Executive, and tart rejoinders from the General Secretary. -As his interest in the Society increases, our artisan himself writes -letters to the Circular, explaining some grievance, suggesting a -remedy for some grievance already explained, or answering criticisms -upon the conduct and policy of his District Committee or -his Lodge.</p> - -<p>In addition to the Monthly Circular there is the Annual -Report. This is a large volume of some hundreds of pages, containing, -in a summarised form, the progress and doings of the -Society for the whole year, with the total income and expenditure -and the balance in hand, the proportionate cost of all the various -benefits, a statement of the accounts of each branch, and many -other figures of interest and importance. He feels a glow of -pride as the growth of his Society in funds and members is -recorded, and perhaps also a longing to see his own name printed -as one of the officers of one of the Lodges, and thus be even -distantly associated with the success of the Society.</p> - -<p>But after a year or two of the comparative freedom of the -journeyman’s life he begins to feel strongly the desire for change -and adventure. The five or seven years’ apprenticeship through -which he has just passed has kept him chained in one place, and -a period of unrest now begins. Moreover, he has heard as a -commonplace among his fellow-workmen, that no man knows -his own ability or what he is worth until he has worked in more -towns or shops than one. They have also expatiated to him -upon the delights of “the road”; and finally he determines to -take advantage of his membership of the Society to go on tramp -on the first opportunity. He is therefore not altogether displeased -when some temporary contraction in his trade causes -his employer to turn him adrift, and thus gives him a right to -draw his travelling card. -<a id="FNanchor_596" href="#Footnote_596" class="fnanchor">[596]</a></p> - -<p>At the close of his first day’s tramp, footsore and weary, he -seeks the public-house at which the local Lodge is held, and -having refreshed himself, starts off to find the Secretary. To -him he presents his tramp card. When, on examination, the -dates upon it are found to be correct, and the distance traversed -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_452">[Pg 452]</span> -is sufficient to entitle the traveller to the full benefit of sixpence -and a bed, the Secretary writes an order to the publican to provide -this relief. The date and place are then clearly marked on the -travelling card, and the Secretary retains the corresponding half -of the receipt form to serve as his own voucher for the expenditure. -Should he know of any suitable situation vacant in the -town, he will tell the tramp to repair there in the morning. But -if no such post offers itself, the wayfarer must start off again in -the morning, in time to arrive before night at the next Lodge -town, at which alone he can receive any further relief.</p> - -<p>If our friend takes to the road during the summer months and -finds a situation within a few weeks, he will have had nothing -worse than a pleasant holiday excursion. But if his tramp falls -during the winter, or if he has to remain for months on the move, -he will be in a pitiable plight. Whilst he is in the thickly-populated -industrial districts, where “relief towns” in his trade -are frequently to be met with, he finds his supper and bed at the -end of every fifteen or twenty miles. But as he one by one -exhausts these towns, he will, by the rule forbidding relief from -the same Lodge at less than three months’ interval, be compelled -to go further afield. He presently finds the Lodges so far apart -that it is impossible for a man to walk from one to another in a -day. The relief afforded becomes inadequate for his maintenance, -and many are the shifts to which he has to resort for food and -shelter. Finally, after a specified period, usually three months, -his card “runs out”; he has become “box-fast,” and can draw -no more from the Society until he has found a job, and resumed -payment of his contributions.</p> - -<p>But our artisan, being an able-bodied young craftsman, has -found a job. Settled in a new town, his tramping for the present -at an end, and himself recovered from the evils, moral and -physical, which that brief period has wrought upon him, his -interest in his Society revives. He attends his new Lodge -regularly, at first because it is the only place in the town where -he meets friends. Presently his old desire to figure as an official -of the Society returns to him. He cultivates the acquaintance of -the officers of the Lodge, mixes freely with the members, and -takes every occasion to speak on exciting questions. At the next -election he is appointed to some minor post, such as auditor -or steward. He makes himself useful and popular, and in the -course of the year finds himself a member of the Lodge Committee.</p> - -<p>From membership of the Branch Committee he succeeds to -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_453">[Pg 453]</span> -the position of Branch Secretary, the highest to which his fellow-tradesmen -in his own town can elect him. On the night of the -election he is somewhat surprised to find that there is no keen -competition for the post. The pay of a Branch Secretary is -meagre enough—from ten to fifty shillings per quarter. Most of -his evenings and part of his Sundays are taken up with responsible -clerical work. Besides attending the fortnightly or weekly committee -meeting, lasting from eight to eleven or twelve at night, -he has to prepare the agenda for the special and general meetings -of the members, conduct the whole correspondence of the Lodge, -draw up reports for the District Committee and Central Executive, -keep the accounts, and prepare elaborate balance-sheets for the -head office. Even his working day is not free from official duties. -At any moment he may be called out of his shop to sign the card -of a tramp, or he may have to hurry away in the dinner-hour to -prevent members striking a shop without the sanction of the -Lodge. When a deputation is appointed to wait on an employer, -he must ask for a day off, and act as leading spokesman for the -men. All this involves constant danger of dismissal from his -work, or even boycott by the employers, as an “agitator.” Nor -will he always be thanked for his pains. Before he was elected -to the Secretaryship, he was probably “hail, fellow, well met” -with all the other members. Now he has constantly to thwart -the wishes and interests of individual members. He must be -always advising the Committee to refuse benefits to members -whose cases fall outside the Rules of the Society, and counselling -Lodge meetings to refuse to sanction strikes. Hence he soon -finds little cliques formed among the malcontents, who bitterly -oppose him. He is charged with injustice, pusillanimity, -treachery, and finally with being a “master’s man.” But after -a while, if he holds steadfastly on his course, and abides strictly -to the Rules of the Society, he finds himself backed up by the -Executive Committee, and gaining the confidence of the shrewd -and sensible workmen who constitute the bulk of the members, -and who can always be called up to support the officers in Lodge -meetings.</p> - -<p>One of the duties or privileges thrust on our Secretary is that -of representing his trade on the local Trades Council. He is not -altogether gratified to find that the Branch has elected, as his co-delegates, -some of the more talkative and less level-headed of its -members. Some older and more experienced men decline to serve, -on the ground that they have no time, and “have seen enough of -that sort of thing.” Nevertheless our Secretary at the outset -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_454">[Pg 454]</span> -takes his position very seriously. To the young Trade Unionist -the Trades Council represents the larger world of labour politics, -and he has visions of working for the election of labour men on -the local governing bodies, and of being himself run by the -Trades Council for the School Board, or the Town Council, or -perhaps even for Parliament itself. When the monthly meeting -of the Council comes round, he therefore makes a point of -arriving punctually at eight o’clock at the Council Chamber. He -finds himself in the large and gaudily decorated assembly room, -over the bar of one of the principal public-houses of the town. -A low platform is erected at one end, with chairs and a small -table for the Chairman and Secretary. Below the platform is -placed a long table at which are seated the reporters of the local -newspapers, and the rest of the room is filled with chairs and -improvised benches for the delegates. Here he meets the thirty -or sixty delegates of the other Unions. He notices with regret -that the salaried officials of the Societies which have their headquarters -in the town, and the District Delegates of the great -national Unions who are located in the neighbourhood—the very -men he hoped to meet in this local “Parliament of Labour”—are -conspicuous by their absence. The bulk of the delegates are -either branch officials like himself, or representatives of the rank -and file of Trade Unionism like his colleagues. The meeting -opens quietly with much reading of minutes and correspondence -by the Secretary. Then come the trade reports, delegate after -delegate rising to protest against some encroachment by an -employer, or to report the result of some negotiations for the -removal of a grievance. A few questions may perhaps be asked -by the other delegates, but there is usually no attempt to go into -the merits of the case, the Council contenting itself with giving -a sympathetic hearing, and applauding any general denunciation -of industrial tyranny. If a strike is in progress, the delegates of -the trade concerned ask for “credentials” (a letter by the Secretary -of the Council commending the strikers to the assistance of -other trades), and even appeal for financial assistance from the -Council itself. This brings about difference of opinion. The -whole Council has applauded the strike, but when it comes to -the question of a levy, the representatives of such old-established -Unions as the Compositors, Engineers, Masons, and Bricklayers -get up and explain that the Rules of their Societies do not allow -them to pledge themselves. On the other hand, the enthusiastic -delegates from a newly-formed Labour Union promptly promise -the assistance of their Society, and vehemently accuse the Council -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_455">[Pg 455]</span> -of apathy. Then follows a still more serious business—a complaint -by one of the several Unions in the engineering or building -trades that the members of a rival Union have lately “black-legged” -their dispute. The delegates from the aggrieved Society -excitedly explain how their men had been withdrawn from a -certain firm which refused to pay the Standard Rate, and how, -almost immediately afterwards, the members of the other Society -had accepted the employer’s terms and got the work. Then the -delegates from the accused Society with equal warmth assert that -the work in question belonged properly to their branch of the -trade; that the members of the other Society had no business to -be doing it at all; and that as the employers offered the rates -specified in their working rules, they were justified in accepting -the job. At once an angry debate ensues, in which personal -charges and technical details are bandied from side to side, to the -utter bewilderment of the rest of the members. In vain the -Chairman intervenes, and appeals for order. At last the Council, -tired of the wrangle, rids itself of the question by referring it to a -Committee, and an old member of the Council whispers to our -friend a fervent hope that the Committee will shirk its job, and -never meet, since its report would please neither party, and -probably lead to the retirement of one if not both trades from -the Council.</p> - -<p>The next business brings the Council back to harmony. The -delegates appointed at the last meeting to urge on the Town -Council or the School Board the adoption of a “fair wage -clause” now give in their report. They describe how Mr. -Alderman Jones, a local politician of the old school, talked about -wanton extravagance and the woes of the poor ratepayer; and -the Council will be moved to laughter at their rejoinder, “How -about the recent increase in the salary of your friend, the Town -Clerk?” They repeat, with pleasure, the arguments they used on -the deputation, and their final shot, a bold statement as to the -number of Trade Unionists on the electoral register, is received -with general applause. But in spite of all this they report that -Alderman Jones has prevailed, and the Town Council has rejected -the clause. Our new member notes with satisfaction that the -Council is not so ineffective a body as he has been fearing. After -a good deal of excited talk the Secretary is instructed to write to -the local newspapers explaining the position, and calling attention -to the example set by other leading municipalities. The members, -new and old alike, undertake to heckle the retiring Town Councillors -who voted against the interests of labour; and the best -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_456">[Pg 456]</span> -men of the Council, to whichever political party they belong, join -in voting for a Committee to run Trade Union candidates against -their most obdurate opponents.</p> - -<p>Passing, rejecting, or adjourning resolutions, of which notice -has been given at a previous meeting, takes up the remainder of -the evening. First come propositions submitted on behalf of the -Executive Committee, composed of five or seven of the leading -men in the Council. The Secretary explains that an influential -member of the Trade Union Congress Parliamentary Committee -has intimated that if they want a certain measure passed into law, -they had better carry a particular resolution, which is thereupon -read to the meeting. It is briefly discussed, carried unanimously, -and handed to the reporters, the Secretary being ordered to send -copies to the local M.P.’s and possibly to the Cabinet Minister -concerned. Resolutions by other members are not so easily disposed -of. The delegate from the Tailors, a fanatical adherent of -the Peace Society, proposes a strong condemnation of increased -armaments, ending up with a plea for international arbitration. -But the engineer and the shipwright vehemently object to the -resolution as impracticable, and one of them moves an amendment -calling on the Government to find employment for hardworking -mechanics in times of industrial depression by building additional -ironclads. The Socialist Secretary of a Labour Union submits a -resolution calling on the Town Council to open municipal workshops -for the unemployed—a project which is ridiculed by the -Conservative compositor (who is acting also as one of the reporters). -During the debate the Chairman, Secretary, and -Executive Committeemen lie low and say nothing, allowing -the discussion to wander away from the point. The debate -drops, and if a vote on a popular but impracticable resolution -becomes imminent, some “old Parliamentary hand” suggests its -adjournment to a fuller meeting. For the next few evenings our -friend finds all this instructive and interesting enough. Before -the year is up he has realised that, except on such simple issues as -the Fair Wages Clause, and the payment of Trade Union wages -by the local authorities, the crowded meeting of tired workmen, -unused to official business, with knowledge and interest strictly -limited to a single industry, is useless as a Court of Appeal, and -ineffective even as a joint committee of the local trades. At the -best the Council becomes the instrument, or, so to speak, the -sounding-board, of the experienced members, who are in touch -with the Trade Union Parliamentary leaders, and who (at a pay -of only a few shillings a quarter) conduct all the correspondence -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_457">[Pg 457]</span> -and undertake all the business which the Trade Unions of the -town have really in common.</p> - -<p>But our friend receives a sudden check in his career. One -pay-day he is told by his employer that he will not be wanted -after next week. It may be that he has had some words with the -foreman over a spoilt job, or that he has been making himself too -prominent in Trade Union work, or simply that his employer’s -business is slack. But whatever the cause he is discharged, and -must seek employment elsewhere. At once he declares himself -on the funds of the Society, sending notice to the President and -Treasurer of his position and signing the out-of-work book at -the club daily, like any other unemployed member. For the next -two or three weeks he tramps from shop to shop in his district -seeking work, and eagerly scans the daily papers in hopes of -finding an advertisement of some vacant situation. Then comes -the news from a friend of a vacancy in a distant town. He resigns -his position as Secretary of the Lodge, draws the balance of -out-of-work pay due to him, and departs regretfully from the -town where he has made so many friends to start upon a new -situation.</p> - -<p>On arriving at his new place he is surprised to find that there -is no branch of his Society in the town. There are a few odd -members, but not enough to support a branch—hence they send -their contributions to the nearest Lodge town. As soon as he -has settled down he takes steps to alter this. In his own workshop -he argues and cajoles the men into a belief in Trade -Unionism. At night he frequents their favourite haunts, and by -dint of argument, promises and appeals, finally gets enough of -them to agree to join a Lodge to make it worth while opening one -in the town. He forthwith communicates with the Central -Executive Committee, and they, knowing his previous work, -appoint him Secretary <i>pro tem.</i> A meeting of all the trade is -then called by handbills sent round to the shops, and posted in -the men’s favourite public-houses. On the eventful night the -General Secretary and perhaps another Central officer, come down -to the town. They bring a Branch box containing sets of Rules -and cards of membership, a full set of cash and other books, a -number of business papers, and even a bottle of ink—in fact all -that is needful to carry on the business of a Lodge. The room -will be crammed full of the men in the trade interested in hearing -what the Society is and what it wants to do. Speeches are -made, the advances of wages and reduction of hours gained by the -Society are enumerated, the friendly benefits are explained, and -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_458">[Pg 458]</span> -instances are given of men disabled from working at their trade, -receiving £100 accident benefit from the Society, and setting up -in a small business of their own. Then the General Secretary -opens the Lodge, and entrance fees and contributions are paid by -a large number of those present, and the meeting changed from a -public to a private one. Officers are elected, our friend again -finds himself chosen as Secretary, a friendly foreman accepts the -post of Treasurer, while the other old members present at the -meeting are elected to the remaining offices. Addresses from the -Central officials start the Lodge on its way, and the meeting -breaks up at a late hour with cheers for the Society and the -General Secretary.</p> - -<p>Within the next three months the Branch Secretary finds that -all that glitters is not gold. At least half of those who joined at -the beginning have lapsed, and at times the branch looks like -collapsing altogether. But by dint of much hard work, persuasion, -and perhaps the formation of friendships, it is kept together -until a time of prosperity for the trade arrives. This is the -Secretary’s opportunity to make or break his Lodge, and being a -wise man he takes it. He puts a resolution on the agenda paper -for the next Lodge meeting in favour of an advance of wages, or -a reduction of hours, or both. The next meeting carries it -unanimously, and it at once becomes the talk of the whole trade -in the town. Men flock down and join the club in order to -assist and participate in the proposed improvements. Then the -Secretary appeals to the General Executive for permission to ask -for the advance. They consider the matter seriously, and want -to know what proportion of the men in the town are members, -and how long they have been so; what is the feeling of the non-Unionists -towards the proposed movement, and whether there is -any local fund to support non-Unionists who come out, or buy -off tramps and strangers who come to the town during the -probable strike. All these questions being more or less satisfactorily -answered, permission to seek the improvement is at length -given, and now comes the Secretary’s first taste of “powder” in -an official capacity.</p> - -<p>During this agitation the number of members in the Lodge has -been steadily increasing, until it comes to include a good proportion -of the trade in the town. The non-Unionists have also -been approached as to their willingness to assist the movement, -and the bulk of them readily agree to come out with the Society -men if these undertake to maintain them. A special Committee -is formed to conduct the “Advance Movement,” including -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_459">[Pg 459]</span> -delegates from the non-Society shops prepared to strike. A -local levy is put on the members of the Lodge, in order to form -a fund from which to pay such strike expenses as may not be -charged to the Union. At length all is ready, and our Secretary -is instructed to serve notices upon all the employers in the -town, asking for the advance in wages or the reduction of hours -claimed by the men.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile the employers have not been idle. They have -heard rumours of the coming storm and have met together and -consulted as to what should be done, and have formed a more or -less temporary association to meet the attack. Upon receiving -the notices from the men’s Secretary they invite a deputation of -the men to wait upon them and discuss the matter. To this the -men of course agree, and on the appointed night the Secretary -and the “Advance Committee” appear at the joint meeting. The -leading employer having been elected to the chair, asks the men -to open their case for an advance of wages and reduction of hours. -This they do, emphasising the facts that wages are lower and hours -longer here than in the same trade in neighbouring towns; that -the cost of living is increasing; and that some men are always -unemployed who would be absorbed by the proposed change. -The employers retort by urging the smallness of their profits and -the difficulty of securing orders in competition with other towns -where wages are even less than they are here; and also by -urging that the cost of living is decreasing and not increasing—an -assertion which they support by statements of the price of -various articles at different times compared with the present. -The men’s Secretary has as much as he can do to keep his men -in order. The new members—the “raw heads” of the Committee—are -almost hoping that the employers will not agree, -for to them a strike means merely a few weeks’ “play,” at the -expense of the Union. And the ordinary workman is so little -used to discussing with his adversaries that any statement of the -other side of the case is apt to arouse temper. The employers, -too, unaccustomed to treating with their men, and still feeling it -somewhat derogatory to do so, are not inclined to mince matters, -or smooth over difficulties. Hence the meeting becomes noisy; -discussion turns into recrimination; and the conference breaks -up in confusion.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile the Central Executive has watched with anxiety -the approach of a dispute which will involve the Union in expense, -and end possibly in defeat. The General Secretary, accompanied -by one of the Executive Council, appears on the scene, and -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_460">[Pg 460]</span> -endeavours to mediate. But as the town has been a non-Union -one, the employers refuse to see any but their own workmen, and -thus lose the chance of the very moderate compromise which the -General Secretary is almost sure to offer. This slight to their -Official naturally incenses the local Unionists, and on the following -Saturday, when their notices have expired, they “pick up” -their tools as they leave the works and the strike is begun.</p> - -<p>Then follows a period of intense excitement and hard work for -the men’s officials. The employers advertise in all directions for -men at “good wages” to take “steady employment,” and counter -advertisements are inserted giving notice of the strike. All the -streets are closely picketed by men, who take it in turns to do duty -in twos and threes outside a factory or workshop for so many -hours each day; pickets are sent to meet all trains, and by dint -of promises, bribes, and appeals to their “manliness and brotherhood,” -workmen who have been attracted to the town by the -employers’ advertisements are induced to depart. Perhaps a few -“blacks” may escape their vigilance and get into some shop. -Every time they come out they are followed and urged to abandon -their dirty calling and join their fellows in the good work. -Some give way, and their fares are at once paid to the place whence -they came. Subscription boxes and sheets are sent out to raise -the funds necessary for the extra expenses, which must not be -taken from the Society’s funds. If the strike drags on for many -weeks delegates go from town to town addressing meetings of -Trade Unions and Trades Councils soliciting aid, and usually -succeed in getting a good deal more than their own expenses, the -surplus being remitted to the Lodge. There are the non-Unionists -who have come out on strike to be supported; “blacks” to bribe -and send away; printing and delivering of bills and placards to -be paid for, and numerous other subsidiary expenses to be met, -all of which must be defrayed from the local fund.</p> - -<p>But even the most protracted strike comes to an end. If trade -is good and the men are well organised, the employers will not -have succeeded in getting any good workmen, and not even -sufficient bad ones, to continue their works, and their plant and -reputation are alike suffering from unskilled workmanship. So -one by one they give in, and accept the men’s terms, until at -length the men are again at work. On the other hand, if -business be slack the strike may end in another way. One by -one the employers obtain enough men of one sort or another to -carry out what orders they have in hand. As week succeeds -week the strikers lose heart, until at last the weak ones suddenly -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_461">[Pg 461]</span> -return to work at the old terms. The officers and committeemen -and a few dogged fighters may remain out, hoping against hope -that something will turn up to make the employers give in. -But the Central Executive will probably object to the continued -drain of strike-pay, and may presently declare the strike closed. -This will cause some little resentment among the local stalwarts, -but the strike-pay being now at an end, those who are still -unemployed must tramp off to another town in search of work.</p> - -<p>If the strike results thus in failure the newly formed Lodge will -soon disappear and the men in the trade remain unorganised until -the advent of another leader of energy and ability. But if it has -resulted in victory the prosperity of the Lodge is assured. The -workmen in the trade flock to the support of an institution which -has shown such practically beneficial results. Meanwhile the -Secretary, to whom most of the credit is due, begins to be known -throughout the trade, and spoken of as the man who changed -such and such a place from a non-Union to a Union town. -Short eulogistic notices of his career appear in the Monthly -Circular, and thus the way is paved for his future advancement.</p> - -<p>Having thus succeeded in organising his own trade, he finds -an outlet for his energies in doing the same for others in his town. -Perhaps there are other branches of his own industry without -organisations, and if so he begins among them exactly the same -work as he pursued among his own members. When the time -is ripe a meeting is called and a branch of the society, which embraces -the particular body of men, opened, and he accepts the post -of President to help it along until its members have gained some -experience. Then he will begin again with other trades and go -through the same process, and thus in the course of time succeed -in turning a very bad Trade Union town into a very good one. -When that is accomplished he determines to start a Trades -Council. He attends meetings of all the Unions and branches in -the town and explains the objects and urges the importance of -such a body. He writes letters to the local Press, and agitates -among his own personal following until his object is well advertised. -Finally a joint meeting of delegates from the majority of -the local societies and branches is got together. The Rules of a -neighbouring Trades Council are discussed and adopted, and at -length a Trades Council is definitely established, if only by the -two or three branches which he has himself organised. He is of -course appointed its Secretary, and gradually by hard work, and -perhaps by successfully agitating for some concession to labour -by the Town Council or local School Board, he wins the approval -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_462">[Pg 462]</span> -of all the societies, and the Council then becomes a thoroughly -representative body. As Secretary of a newly established Trades -Council he becomes rapidly well known. He is in constant request -as a speaker in both his own and neighbouring towns; and -he is sent to the Trade Union Congress and instructed to move -some resolution of his own drafting. But as the work gradually -increases, our friend, who has all the time to be earning a -livelihood at his trade, finds that he must choose between the -Trades Council and his own Lodge. Through the Trades Council -he can become an influential local politician, and may one day -find himself the successful “Labour Candidate” for the School -Board or the Town Council. But this activity on behalf of labour -generally draws him ever further away from the routine duties -of Branch Secretary of a National Society, and he will hardly -fail to displease some of the members of his own trade. He may -therefore prefer to resign his Secretaryship of the Trades Council, -take a back seat in politics, and spend all his leisure in the work -of his own Society, with the honourable ambition of eventually -becoming one of its salaried officers. In this case he not only -conducts the business of his Lodge with regularity, but also -serves on the District Committee. Presently, as the most -methodical of its members, he will be chosen to act as its Secretary, -and thus be brought into close communication with the Central -Executive, and with other branches and districts.</p> - -<p>All this constitutes what we may call the non-commissioned -officer’s service in the Trade Union world, carried out in the -leisure, and paid for by the hour, snatched from a week’s work at -the bench or the forge. But now the fame of our Secretary and -his steady work for the Society have spread throughout the -district, and when it is decided to appoint a District Delegate -with a salary of £2 or £2: 10s. per week, many branches request -him to run for the post. His personal friends and supporters -among them raise an election fund for him, and for a few weeks -he dashes about his district and attends all the branch meetings -to urge his candidature upon the members. Finally the votes are -taken in the Lodges by ballot and sent to the general office to be -counted, and he finds himself duly elected to the post. Again he -moves his home, this time to some central town, so that he can -visit any part of his district with ease and rapidity. His district -stretches over three or four counties, and includes many large -industrial centres, and he finds himself fully occupied. Let us -see how he spends his days, and what is the work he will do for -his Society.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_463">[Pg 463]</span></p> - -<p>Every morning he receives a whole batch of letters on Society -business. The General Secretary orders him immediately to -visit one of the branches in his district and inspect the books, a -report having reached the office of some irregularity. A Branch -Secretary telegraphs for him to come over at once and settle a -dispute which has broken out with an important firm. Another -writes asking him to summon a mass meeting of the trade in the -district to take a vote for or against a general strike against some -real or fancied grievance. The Secretary of the Employers’ -Association in another town fixes an appointment with him to -discuss the piecework prices for a new sort of work. Finally the -Secretary of his District Committee instructs him to attend a joint -meeting which they have arranged with the District Committee -of another Union to settle a difficult question of overlap or -apportionment of work between the members of the two societies.</p> - -<p>Our friend spends the first half an hour at his correspondence, -fixes a day for a special audit of the accounts of the suspected -branch, drops a hasty line to the General Secretary informing him -of his whereabouts for the next few days, and writes to the -Branch Secretary strongly objecting to the proposed mass -meeting to vote on a strike on the ground that “an aggregate -meeting is an aggravated meeting,” and appointing, instead, a -day for a small conference of representatives from the different -branches. Then he is off to the railway station so as to arrive -promptly on the scene of the dispute just reported to him. -Here he finds that a number of his members have peremptorily -struck work and are hanging about the gates of the works. He -will half persuade, half order them to instantly resume work, -whilst he goes into the office to seek the employer. If it is a -“Society shop” in a good Trade Union district he is heartily -welcomed, and the matter is settled in a few minutes. The next -train takes him to the neighbouring town, where he spends two -or three hours with the Employers’ Secretary, using all his wits -to manipulate the new prices in such a way as at least to maintain, -if not to increase, the weekly earnings of his members. In -the evening he has to be back at the centre of his district, -thrashing out, in the long and heated debate of a joint meeting, -the difficult question of whose job the work in dispute between -the two Unions properly is, and what constitutes a practical line -of demarcation between the two trades. Thus he rushes about -from day to day, finishing up at night with writing reports on the -state of trade, organisation, and other matters to the Executive -Committee sitting at the headquarters of his Union.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_464">[Pg 464]</span></p> - -<p>He has now been for many years the devoted servant of his -fellow-workmen, re-elected at the end of each term to his post of -District Delegate. Upon the removal by resignation or death of -the General Secretary he is pressed on all sides to put up for the -post. The members of the District Committee, and all the -secretaries of the local branches, urge on him his fitness, and the -advantages the district will derive from his election as General -Secretary. Again a committee of his friends and supporters -raises a fund to enable him to travel over the whole country and -visit and address all the branches of the Society. Meanwhile the -Executive Committee prepares for the election of the new -General Secretary. At the removal of the late head officer they -at once meet to appoint one of their number to carry on the -duties <i>pro tem.</i>, and to issue notices asking for nominations for -the post (generally confined to members who have been in the -Society a certain number of years and are not in arrears with -their subscriptions). Printed lists of candidates are forthwith sent -to the branches in sufficient numbers to be distributed to all the -members. A ballot-box is placed in the club-room, the election -standing over at least two meeting nights in order to allow every -member full opportunity to record his vote. The boxes are -then sent from the branches to the central office, where the -members of the Executive Committee count the papers and -declare the result.</p> - -<p>Our District Delegate having been declared duly elected to -the post of General Secretary is again compelled to remove. -This time it is to one of the great cities—London, Manchester, -or Newcastle—the headquarters of his Society. He is now -entitled to a salary ranging from £200 to £300 per annum, and -has attained the highest office to which it is in the power of his -fellow-tradesmen to appoint him. We will there leave him to -enjoy the dignity and influence of the position, to struggle -through the laborious routine work of a central office, and to -discover the new difficulties and temptations which beset the life -of the general officer of a great Trade Union.</p> -</div> - -<p>The foregoing narrative gives us, in minute detail, the -inner life of Trade Union organisation of thirty years ago. -But this picture, on the face of it, represents the career of -an officer, not a private soldier, in the Trade Union army. -Nor must it be supposed that the great majority of the -million and a half Trade Unionists rendered, even as privates, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_465">[Pg 465]</span> -any active service in the Trade Union forces. Only in the -crisis of some great dispute do we find the branch meetings -crowded, or the votes at all commensurate with the total -number of members. At other times the Trade Union -appears to the bulk of its members either as a political -organisation whose dictates they are ready to obey at -Parliamentary and other elections, or as a mere benefit -club in the management of which they do not desire to take -part. In the long intervals of peace during which the constitution -of the Society is being slowly elaborated, the -financial basis strengthened, the political and trade policy -determined, less than a half or perhaps even a tenth of the -members will actively participate in the administrative and -legislative work. Practically the whole of this minority -will, at one time or another, serve on branch committees or -in such minor offices as steward, trustee, auditor or sick-visitor. -These are the members who form the solid nucleus -of the branch, always to be relied on to maintain the -authority of the committee. From their ranks come the -two principal branch officers, the President and the Secretary, -upon whom the main burden of administration falls. -Though never elected for more than one year, these officers -frequently remain at their posts for many terms in succession; -and their offices are in any case filled from a narrow -circle of the ablest or most experienced members.</p> - -<p>Besides the active soldiers in the Trade Union ranks, -to be counted by hundreds of thousands, we had therefore, -in 1892, a smaller class of non-commissioned officers made -up of the Secretaries and Presidents of local Unions, branches -and district committees of national societies, and of Trades -Councils. Of these we estimate that there were, in 1892, -over 20,000 holding office at any one time. These men form -the backbone of the Trade Union world, and constitute the -vital element in working-class politics. Dependent for their -livelihood on manual labour, they retain to the full the -workman’s sense of insecurity, privation, and thwarted -aspirations. Their own singleness of purpose, the devotion -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_466">[Pg 466]</span> -with which they serve their fellows in laborious offices with -only nominal remuneration, and their ingenuous faith in -the indefinite improvement of human nature by education -and better conditions of life, all combine to maintain their -enthusiasm for every kind of social reform. Thus they are -always open to new ideas, provided these are put forward -in a practical shape, by men whose character and intelligence -they respect. This class of non-commissioned officers it is -which has, in the main, proved the progressive element in -the Trade Union world, and which actually determines the -trend of working-class thought. Nevertheless these men -are not the real administrators of Trade Union affairs except -in the little local Unions, run by men working at their -trade, which are fast disappearing. In the great national -and county Unions the branch or lodge officials are strictly -bound down by detailed rules, and are allowed practically -no opportunity of acting on their own initiative. The actual -government of the Trade Union world rests exclusively in -the hands of a class apart, the salaried officers of the great -societies.</p> - -<p>This Civil Service of the Trade Union world, non-existent -in 1850, numbered, in 1892, between six and seven hundred. -<a id="FNanchor_597" href="#Footnote_597" class="fnanchor">[597]</a> -Alike in the modern organisation of industry, and in the -machinery of Democratic politics, it was, even in 1892, -taking every day a position of greater influence and importance. -Yet if we may judge from the fact that we have -not met with a single description of this new governing -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_467">[Pg 467]</span> -class, the character of its influence, and even its existence, -had hitherto remained almost unobserved. To understand -the part played by this Civil Service, both in the Trade -Union Movement and in the modern industrial State, the -reader must realise the qualities which the position demands, -the temptations to which its holders are exposed, and the -duties which they are called upon to perform.</p> - -<p>The salaried official of a great Trade Union occupies a -unique position. He belongs neither to the middle nor to -the working class. The interests which he represents are -exclusively those of the manual working class from which he -has sprung, and his duties bring him into constant antagonism -with the brain-working, property-owning class. On -the other hand, his daily occupation is that of a brain-worker, -and he is accordingly sharply marked off from the typical -proletarian, dependent for his livelihood on physical toil.</p> - -<p>The promotion of a working man to the position of a -salaried brain-worker effects a complete and sudden change -in his manner of life. Instead of working every day at a -given task, he suddenly finds himself master of his own time, -with duties which, though laborious enough, are indefinite, -irregular, and easily neglected. The first requisite for his -new post is therefore personal self-control. No greater misfortune -can befall an energetic and public-spirited Trade -Unionist, who on occasions takes a glass too much, than to -become the salaried officer of his Union. So long as he is -compelled, at least nine days out of every fourteen, to put -in a hard day’s manual work at regular hours, his propensity -to drink may not prevent him from being an expert craftsman -and an efficient citizen. Such a man, elected General -Secretary or District Delegate, is doomed, almost inevitably, -to become an habitual drunkard. Instead of being confined -to the factory or the mine, he is now free to come and go -at his own will, and drink is therefore accessible to him -at all hours. His work involves constant travelling, and -frequent waiting about in strange towns, with little choice -of resort beyond the public-house. The regular periods of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_468">[Pg 468]</span> -monotonous physical exertion are replaced by unaccustomed -intellectual strain, irregular hours, and times of anxiety and -excitement, during which he will be worried and enticed to -drink by nearly every one he meets. And in addition to -this the habitual drunkenness of a Trade Union official, -though it involves discredit, seldom brings dismissal from -his post. No discovery is more astounding to the middle-class -investigator than the good-natured tolerance with -which a Trade Union will, year after year, re-elect officers -who are well known to be hopeless drunkards. The rooted -dislike which working men have to “do a man out of his -job” is strengthened, in the case of a Trade Union official, -by a generous recognition of the fact that his service of his -fellows has unfitted him to return to manual labour. Moreover, -the ordinary member of a Trade Union overlooks the -vital importance of skilled and efficient administration. He -imagines that the drunkenness and the consequent incompetency -of his General Secretary means only some delay in -the routine work of the office, or, at the worst, some small -malversation of the Society’s funds. So long as the cash -keeps right, and the reports appear at regular intervals, it -seems never to occur to him that it is for lack of headship -that his Society is losing ground in all directions, and forgoing, -in one week, more than a dishonest Secretary could -steal in a year.</p> - -<p>Fortunately the almost invariable practice of electing -the salaried officials from the ranks of the non-commissioned -officers tends to exclude the workman deficient in personal -self-control. The evenings and holidays spent in clerical -duties for the branch do not attract the free liver, whilst the -long apprenticeship in inferior offices gives his fellow-workmen -ample opportunity of knowing his habits. Thus we -find that the salaried officials of the old-established Unions -are usually decorous and even dignified in their personal -habits. An increasing number of them are rigid teetotalers, -whilst many others resolutely refuse, at the risk of personal -unpopularity, all convivial drinking with their members.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_469">[Pg 469]</span></p> - -<p>But another danger—one which would not immediately -have occurred to the middle-class investigator—besets the -workman who becomes a salaried official of his Union. -The following extract, taken from the graphic narrative we -have already quoted, explains how it appears to a thoughtful -artisan:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>And now begins a change which may possibly wreck his whole -Trade Union career. As Branch Secretary, working at his trade, -our friend, though superior in energy and ability to the rank and -file of his members, remained in close touch with their feelings -and desires. His promotion to a salaried office brings him wider -knowledge and larger ideas. To the ordinary Trade Unionist the -claim of the workman is that of Justice. He believes, almost as -a matter of principle, that in any dispute the capitalist is in the -wrong and the workman in the right. But when, as a District -Delegate, it becomes his business to be perpetually investigating -the exact circumstances of the men’s quarrels, negotiating with -employers, and arranging compromises, he begins more and more -to recognise that there is something to be urged on the other side. -There is also an unconscious bias at work. Whilst the points at -issue no longer affect his own earnings or conditions of employment, -any disputes between his members and their employers -increase his work and add to his worry. The former vivid sense -of the privations and subjection of the artisan’s life gradually fades -from his mind; and he begins more and more to regard all complaints -as perverse and unreasonable.</p> - -<p>With this intellectual change may come a more invidious -transformation. Nowadays the salaried officer of a great Union -is courted and flattered by the middle class. He is asked to dine -with them, and will admire their well-appointed houses, their fine -carpets, the ease and luxury of their lives. Possibly, too, his wife -begins to be dissatisfied. She will point out how So-and-so, who -served his apprenticeship in the same shop, is now well-off, and -steadily making a fortune; and she reminds her husband that, -had he worked half as hard for himself as he has for others, he -also might now be rich, and living in comfort without fear of the -morrow. He himself sees the truth of this. He knows many -men who, with less ability and energy than himself, have, by -steady pursuit of their own ends, become foremen, managers, or -even small employers, whilst he is receiving only £2 or £4 a -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_470">[Pg 470]</span> -week without any chance of increase. And so the remarks of -his wife and her relations, the workings of his own mind, the -increase of years, a growing desire to be settled in life and to see -the future clear before him and his children, and perhaps also -a little envy of his middle-class friends, all begin insidiously, -silently, unknown even to himself, to work a change in his views -of life. He goes to live in a little villa in a lower middle-class -suburb. The move leads to his dropping his workmen friends; -and his wife changes her acquaintances. With the habits of his -new neighbours he insensibly adopts more and more of their -ideas. Gradually he finds himself at issue with his members, -who no longer agree to his proposals with the old alacrity. All -this comes about by degrees, neither party understanding the -cause. He attributes the breach to the influences of a clique of -malcontents, or perhaps to the wild views held by the younger -generation. They think him proud and “stuck-up”, over-cautious -and even apathetic in trade affairs. His manner to -his members, and particularly to the unemployed who call for -donation, undergoes a change. He begins to look down upon -them all as “common workmen”; but the unemployed he -scorns as men who have made a failure of their lives; and his -scorn is probably undisguised. This arouses hatred. As he -walks to the office in his tall hat and good overcoat, with a smart -umbrella, curses not loud but deep are muttered against him by -members loitering in search of work, and as these get jobs in -other towns they spread stories of his arrogance and haughtiness. -So gradually he loses the sympathy and support of those upon -whom his position depends. At last the climax comes. A great -strike threatens to involve the Society in desperate war. Unconsciously -biased by distaste for the hard and unthankful work -which a strike entails, he finds himself in small sympathy with -the men’s demands, and eventually arranges a compromise on -terms distasteful to a large section of his members. The -gathering storm-cloud now breaks. At his next appearance -before a general meeting cries of “treachery” and “bribery” are -raised. Alas! it is not bribery. Not his morality but his intellect -is corrupted. Secure in the consciousness of freedom from outward -taint, he faces the meeting boldly, throws the accusation -back in their faces, and for the moment carries his point. But -his position now becomes rapidly unbearable. On all sides he -finds suspicion deepening into hatred. The members, it is true, -re-elect him to his post; but they elect at the same time an Executive -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_471">[Pg 471]</span> -Committee pledged to oppose him in every way.<a id="FNanchor_598" href="#Footnote_598" class="fnanchor">[598]</a> All this -time he still fails to understand what has gone wrong, and probably -attributes it to the intrigues of jealous opponents eager for -his place. Harassed on all sides, distrusted and thwarted by his -Executive Committee, at length he loses heart. He looks out -for some opening of escape, and finally accepting a small appointment, -lays down his Secretaryship with heartfelt relief and -disappears for ever from the Trade Union world.</p> -</div> - -<p>The Trade Union official who became too genteel for his -post was, like the habitual drunkard, an exception. The -average Secretary or District Delegate was too shrewd to -get permanently out of touch with his constituents. Nevertheless -the working man who became a salaried officer had -to pick his way with considerable care between the dangers -attendant on the <i>rôle</i> of boon companion and those inseparable -from the more reputable but more hated character -of the superior person. To personal self-control he had to -add strength and independence of character, a real devotion -to the class from which he had sprung, and a sturdy contempt -for the luxury and “gentility” of those with whom -he was brought in contact. All this remains as true to-day -as it was in 1892, but the general advance in education and -sobriety, and the steady tendency towards an assimilation -of manners among all classes, render the contrasts of the -social nineteenth century daily less marked. The Trade -Union official of 1920 finds it much easier to maintain a -position of self-respecting courtesy both among his own -members and among the employers, officials, and middle-class -politicians with whom he is brought in contact.</p> - -<p>We break off now to describe, in the following chapters, -the development of the Trade Union Movement from 1890 -to 1920, and to discuss some of its outstanding features.</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_577" href="#FNanchor_577" class="label">[577]</a>During the whole course of the nineteenth century the Government -failed to ascertain, with any approach to accuracy, how numerous the -Trade Unionists were. Until the appointment of Mr. John Burnett as -Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade in 1886, no attempt was -made to collect, officially, any information about Trade Unionism. The -five annual volumes published by Mr. Burnett between 1886 and 1891 -contained a fund of information on Trade Union statistics, and the returns -became year by year more complete. The report for 1891 gave particulars -of 431 Unions with 1,109,014 members, whilst that for 1892 covered a -slightly larger total. But, restricted as he was to societies making returns -in the precise form required, Mr. Burnett was unable to get at many -existing Unions, whilst a considerable deduction had to be made from -his total for members counted both in district organisations and in federations. -The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies gave particulars, in his -Report for 1892 (House of Commons Paper, 146—II. of March 28, 1893), -of 1,063,000 members in 442 registered Trade Unions alone, after deducting -organisations which are not Trade Unions, and many duplicate entries. -A large number of societies, such as the Northern Counties Amalgamated -Weavers’ Association, many of the Miners’ Unions, the English and -Scottish Typographical Associations, the United Kingdom Society of -Coachmakers, the Flint Glass Makers, the Yorkshire Glass Bottle Makers, -and others were then (as most of them still are) unregistered. Thus our -own statistics revealed a 50 per cent greater Trade Union membership -than the Government figures. It is difficult to state with exactness the -number of separate organisations included, as this must depend upon the -manner in which federal bodies are regarded. These exhibit almost -infinite variations in character, from the mere “centre of communication” -maintained by the thirty-two completely independent local societies -of Coopers, to the rigid unity of the forty district organisations which make -up the Amalgamated Association of Operative Cotton-spinners. The -number of independent societies may be reckoned at either 930 or at -anything up to 1750, according to the view taken of federal Unions and -federations. We put it approximately at 1100.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_578" href="#FNanchor_578" class="label">[578]</a>See our <i>Industrial Democracy</i> and <i>Problems of Modern Industry</i>: -also <i>Men’s and Women’s Wages, should they be Equal?</i> by Mrs. Sidney -Webb, 1919.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_579" href="#FNanchor_579" class="label">[579]</a>There were, at this date, altogether about 45,000 Unionists in Oldham, -but of these some 20,000 were women.</p> - -</div> - - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_580" href="#FNanchor_580" class="label">[580]</a> Of these, some 80,000 were women. Fully four-fifths of all the -organised women workers were, at this date, included in the Lancashire -textile Trade Unions.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_581" href="#FNanchor_581" class="label">[581]</a>Including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which contained -together about 1285 Trade Unionists.</p> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> -<p><a id="Footnote_582" href="#FNanchor_582" class="label">[582]</a>Included in the above total were 99,650 women in 52 Unions, distributed -among the groups as follows:</p> - -<table summary="Women in Unions"> -<tr><td class="tdl">Engineering and Metal Trades</td> - <td class="tdr">2,850</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Building and Furniture Trades</td> - <td class="tdr">300</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Mining</td> - <td class="tdr">...</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Textile Manufactures</td> - <td class="tdr">80,900</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Clothing and Leather Trades</td> - <td class="tdr">8,650</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Printing Trades</td> - <td class="tdr">400</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Miscellaneous Crafts</td> - <td class="tdr">3,450</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Labourers and Transport Workers</td> - <td class="tdr">3,100</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl"></td> - <td class="tdr">———</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl"></td> - <td class="tdr">99,650</td></tr> -</table> - -<p>We may add that the subsequently published Board of Trade statistics -for 1892, arranged on a slightly different classification, gave the following -totals by industrial groups:</p> - -<table summary="Alternate Classification"> -<tr><td class="tdl">Metal, Engineering and Shipbuilding</td> - <td class="tdr">279,534</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Building</td> - <td class="tdr">157,971</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Mining and Quarrying</td> - <td class="tdr">315,272</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Textile</td> - <td class="tdr">204,022</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Clothing</td> - <td class="tdr">83,299</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Transport</td> - <td class="tdr">154,947</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl">Other Trades</td> - <td class="tdr">307,313</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl"></td> - <td class="tdr">—————</td></tr> -<tr><td class="tdl"></td> - <td class="tdr">1,502,358</td></tr> -</table> - -<p>See Report on Trade Unions for 1901 (Cd. 773).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_583" href="#FNanchor_583" class="label">[583]</a>The Boilermakers claim only to have been established since 1834, -but there is evidence of the existence of the Society in 1832. In a few -other cases, notably those of the Stonemasons, Plumbers, and Bricklayers, -we have been able to carry the history of the organisation further back -than has hitherto been suspected.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_584" href="#FNanchor_584" class="label">[584]</a>The equally archaic port Unions of the Sailmakers, dating, like those -of the Shipwrights, from the last century, were united in the Federation -of Sailmakers of Great Britain and Ireland (established 1890), with 1250 -members.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_585" href="#FNanchor_585" class="label">[585]</a>Of these the most important were the Steam-Engine Makers’ Society -(established 1824, 6000 members), the Associated Blacksmiths’ Society -(a Scottish organisation, established 1857, 2300 members), the United -Kingdom Pattern Makers’ Association (established 1872, 2500 members), -the National Society of Amalgamated Brassworkers (established 1872, -6500 members), the United Journeymen Brassfounders’ Association of -Great Britain and Ireland (established 1866, 2500 members), and the -United Machine Workers’ Association (established 1844, 2500 members).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_586" href="#FNanchor_586" class="label">[586]</a>The makers of tin plates had a Union in South Wales (established -1871, and reorganised 1887) which claimed a membership of 10,000. The -National Amalgamated Tinplate Workers’ Association of Great Britain -(established 1876) had 3000 members, and the General Union of Sheet -Metal Workers (established 1861) had 1250 members.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_587" href="#FNanchor_587" class="label">[587]</a>The Alliance Cabinetmakers’ Association (established 1865, 5500 -members) and the National Association of Operative Plasterers (established -1862, 7000 members).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_588" href="#FNanchor_588" class="label">[588]</a>The South Wales miners were, at this date, in a transition state. -The Miners’ Federation had gained a considerable following in Monmouthshire -and Glamorgan, but the bulk of the men still adhered to the Sliding -Scale machinery, claiming 36,000 members, for the maintenance of which -a fortnightly contribution was usually deducted by the employers from -the miners’ earnings. The Forest of Dean Miners’ Association (4000 -members) seceded from the Federation in 1893. A small Miners’ Union -(2250 members) at West Bromwich also held aloof.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_589" href="#FNanchor_589" class="label">[589]</a>The Cotton-spinners’ Union was then composed exclusively of adult -males, the boy “piecers” being brigaded in subordinate organisations. -In the Cotton-weavers and Card-room Operatives’ Unions women formed -a large majority of the members.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_590" href="#FNanchor_590" class="label">[590]</a>The United Kingdom Society of Coachmakers (established 1834) had -5500 members. The Mutual Association of Coopers (established 1878) was -then a loose federation of old-fashioned local Unions, with about 6000 -members.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_591" href="#FNanchor_591" class="label">[591]</a>We did not include in the above statistics the Unions in classes not -included among the manual workers. The National Union of Teachers, -established 1870, was, already in 1892, a powerful organisation with -23,000 members. The Telegraph Clerks, Life Assurance Agents, and -Shop Assistants also had Unions varying from 1000 to 5000 members, -and there were two organisations of postal employees. The National -Unions of Clerks and Domestic Servants were less definitely established. -There were also small societies among the London Dock Foremen and -Clerks and the Poplar Ships’ Clerks.</p> - -<p>Nor did we include such essentially benefit societies as the Marine -Engineers’ Union (9500 members) and the United Kingdom Pilots’ -Association, which were composed largely of workmen belonging for trade -purposes to particular Trade Unions.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_592" href="#FNanchor_592" class="label">[592]</a>The census figures for 1891 merge, for each trade, “workmen, assistants, -apprentices, and labourers.” They do not, for instance, distinguish -between Bricklayers and Bricklayers’ Labourers, who belong to very -different Trade Unions. Under Hosiers or Hatters are included shop-keepers -and their assistants, as well as the manufacturing operatives.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_593" href="#FNanchor_593" class="label">[593]</a>Old members often recall the days when the men used to come to -the club straight from work, and “in their dirt.” They frequently ascribe -the orderly behaviour at club meetings at the present time, as compared -with the rowdiness of the past, largely to this change of habit, itself a -direct result of the reduction of the hours of labour.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_594" href="#FNanchor_594" class="label">[594]</a>Many Unions forbid all drinking during the branch meeting.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_595" href="#FNanchor_595" class="label">[595]</a>In the great Amalgamated Societies District Committees, composed -of representatives of local branches, are formed in the great industrial -Centres, and decide on the trade policy to be adopted by their constituent -branches. These decisions must be confirmed by the Central Executive.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_596" href="#FNanchor_596" class="label">[596]</a>The travelling card, formerly called a “blank,” is now, in most cases, -a small book of receipt forms. On it is recorded the particulars of his -membership, and the date to which he has paid his contributions. Along -with it he receives a complete list of the public-houses which serve as the -Society’s Lodge-houses, and also a list of the names and addresses of the -Lodge secretaries.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_597" href="#FNanchor_597" class="label">[597]</a>We did not include in this figure a large class of men who are -indirectly paid officials of Trade Unions, such as the checkweighers -among the coal-miners, and the “collectors” among the cotton-weavers, -cardroom-workers, etc. The checkweigher, as we have stated (p. 305), -is elected and paid weekly wages, not by the members of the Trade -Union, but by all the miners in a particular coal-pit. But as Trade -Unionism and the election of a checkweigher are practically coincident, -he frequently serves as lodge secretary, etc. The collectors employed by -certain Trade Unions to go from house to house and collect the members’ -contributions are remunerated by a percentage on their collections. -Though not strictly salaried officials, they serve as Trade Union recruiting -agents, as well as intermediaries between members and the central office, -for complaints, appeals, and the circulation of information.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_598" href="#FNanchor_598" class="label">[598]</a>We have here another instance of the deeply rooted objection on the -part of workmen to “sack” their officials. A Society will make the life -of an unpopular official unbearable, and will thwart him in every direction; -but so long as he hangs on he has a safe berth.</p> - -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_472">[Pg 472]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IX">CHAPTER IX</h2> -</div> - -<p class="h2sub">THIRTY YEARS’ GROWTH<br /> -[1890-1920]</p> - -<p>In 1892, after more than two centuries of development, -Trade Unionism in the United Kingdom numbered, as we -have seen, little more than a million and a half of members, -in a community approaching forty millions; or about 4 per -cent of the census population and including possibly 20 per -cent of the adult male manual-working wage-earners. At -the beginning of 1920, as we estimate, the number of Trade -Unionists is well over six millions, in a community that does -not quite reach forty-eight millions; being over 12 per cent -of the census population and including probably as many as -60 per cent<a id="FNanchor_599" href="#Footnote_599" class="fnanchor">[599]</a> of all the adult male manual-working wage-earners -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_473">[Pg 473]</span> -in the kingdom. With the exception of slight pauses -in 1893-95, 1902-4, and 1908-9, this remarkable growth in -aggregate membership has been continuous during the whole -thirty years.</p> - -<p>It is important to notice the continuous acceleration of -this increase. For a few years after the high tide of 1889-92 -the aggregate membership dropped slightly. When in 1897 -it started to rise again it took a whole decade to add half a -million to the total of 1892-96. Three years more brought -a second half million: a total growth in the eighteen years -from 1892 to 1910 of about a million, or only about 66 per -cent. It then took only three or four years to add another -million; whilst during the last few years the increase has -not fallen far short of half a million a year, or of the order -of 10 per cent per annum. Trade Union membership has, -in fact, doubled in the last eight years. -<a id="FNanchor_600" href="#Footnote_600" class="fnanchor">[600]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_474">[Pg 474]</span></p> - -<p>No less significant is the fact that the increase has not -been confined to particular industries, particular localities, -or a particular sex, but has taken place, more or less, over -the whole field. It is common in varying degrees to the -skilled, the semi-skilled, and the unskilled workers. Even -the women, still much less organised than the men, have in -1920 five or six times as many Trade Unionists as they had -thirty years previously; and have trebled or quadrupled -the then proportion of Trade Union membership to the -adult women manual-working wage-earners. Financially, -too, the Trade Unions have, on the whole, greatly advanced; -and their aggregate accumulated funds in 1920 (apart from -the assets of their Approved Society sections under the -National Insurance Act) exceed fifteen millions sterling; -being about ten times as much as in 1890, and constituting -a “fighting fund” unimaginably greater than ever entered -the mind of Gast or Doherty, Martin Jude or William -Newton, or any other Trade Union leader of the preceding -century. It is the stages and incidents of this past thirty -years’ growth that we have now to describe. We shall refer -incidentally to half-a-dozen of the more important strikes -of the generation; but nowadays it is not so much industrial -disputes that constitute landmarks of Trade Union -history as the steps, often statutory or political in -character, by which the Movement advances in public influence -and in a recognised participation in the government -of industry. During the present century, at any rate, the -action of Trade Unionism on legislation, and of legislation -on Trade Unionism, has been incessant and reciprocal. -The growing strength of the Movement has been marked by -a series of legislative changes which have ratified and -legalised the increasing influence of the wage-earners’ combinations -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_475">[Pg 475]</span> -in the government both of industry and political -relations. And every one of these statutes—notably the -Trade Disputes Act of 1906, the Trade Boards Act of 1908, -the Coal Mines Regulation (Eight Hours) Act of 1908, the -National Insurance Act of 1911, the Trade Union Act of -1913, the Corn Production Act of 1917, and the Trade -Boards Extension Act of 1918—have been marked by -immediate extensions of Trade Union membership and -improvements in Trade Union organisation in the industries -concerned.</p> - -<p>During the thirty years which have elapsed since 1890 -the progress of the Trade Union Movement, enormous as it -has been, has been accompanied by relatively little change -in the internal structure of the several Unions. What has -occurred has been a marked change in the relative position -and influence of the different sections of the Trade Union -world, and even in its composition. Some sections have -declined relatively to others. Even more significant is the -vastly greater consolidation of the Trade Unionism of 1920 -than that of 1890. Not only have many more of the -societies grown into organisations of numerical and financial -strength, but there has also been developed, especially -during recent years, an interesting network of federations -among Unions in the same industry, and often among -cognate or associated industries, some of which, undertaking -negotiations on a national scale for a whole industry, -have become more influential and important than any but -the largest Unions.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Cotton Operatives</span></h3> - -<p>The most notable of these changes is the decline in -relative influence of the cotton operatives. It is not that -the Unions of Spinners, Weavers and Card-room Operatives -have decreased in membership or in accumulated funds. On -the contrary, they have in the aggregate during the past -thirty years more than doubled their membership; and the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_476">[Pg 476]</span> -Amalgamated Association of Operative Cotton Spinners, -with three-quarters of a million pounds belonging to its -25,000 members (exclusive of 26,000 piecers), is, now as -formerly, the wealthiest Trade Union of any magnitude. -Nor have these Unions in any sense lost their hold on -their own trade, at least in its central district of Lancashire -and Cheshire, though its outlying areas in Derbyshire, -Yorkshire, and Glasgow are still somewhat neglected. But -the growth of Trade Unionism in other industries has reduced -the “Cotton Men” from ten or twelve to four or five per -cent of the Trades Union Congress; and, owing partly to -internal differences, their leading personalities no longer -dominate the counsels of the Movement. The excellent -organisation of the Cotton Trade Unions has been maintained; -but it has not been copied by other trades, and -their internecine dissensions have detracted from the influence -of their various federations. There has been, in -fact, during the whole thirty years, only two or three important -incidents. A general strike of cotton-spinners took -place in 1893, when all the mills were stopped for no less -than twenty weeks. The employers had demanded a reduction -of 10 per cent, whilst the Trade Union urged that -the depression should be met by placing all the mills on -short time. This stoppage was at last brought to an end -by agreement between the employers and the Trade Union, -arrived at without external intervention in a fourteen hours -continuous session, which made the reduction in rates only -7d. in the £ (2.916 instead of 10 per cent), and included -elaborate arrangements for future adjustment of wages and -other differences by mutual discussion without cessation of -work.<a id="FNanchor_601" href="#Footnote_601" class="fnanchor">[601]</a> This “Brooklands Agreement,” which we described -in our <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, governed the spinning trade -from 1893 to 1905, but was in the latter year formally -terminated by the Unions concerned, on the ground that -the machinery worked both slowly and in such a way as -to hamper the operatives in obtaining the advantage of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_477">[Pg 477]</span> -good times. Provisional arrangements were made, but these -did not prevent a strike of seven weeks in 1908, which ended -in a compromise advantageous to the operatives. Apart -from minor and local disputes, frequently about bad material -or refusal to work with a non-Unionist, there was, however, -no forward movement, notably with regard to the hours of -labour. In 1902 a slight amendment of the Factory Act -was secured by agreement with the employers, by which -the factory week was reduced from 56½ to 55½ hours; and -with this the trade remained contented. Right down to -1919 there was no important trade movement, but in -February of that year all sections of the cotton operatives -claimed their share in the general reduction of hours that -was proceeding; and, after prolonged negotiations, 300,000 -operatives struck in June. When it was seen that the -stoppage of the mills had become general, the employers -gave way and conceded a Forty-eight Hours week, which has -not yet been embodied in law, accompanied by a 30 per cent -advance in piece rates so as to involve no reduction of earnings.</p> - -<p>The organisation of the cotton operatives, whilst remaining -essentially as described in our <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, has -gone on increasing in federal complexity. The various -sections—notably spinners with their attendant piecers; -weavers, including winders, and in some towns also warpers, -beamers, and reelers; card, blowing and ring-room operatives; -warp-dressers and warpers; tape-sizers; beamers, -twisters and drawers; and overlookers—continue to be -organised in very autonomous local bodies, which are styled -sometimes societies or associations, and sometimes merely -branches, and which vary in number in the different sections -from half-a-dozen to ten times as many. But these are -nearly all doubly united, first in a federal body for the whole -of each section (which may be styled an amalgamation, a -federation, an association, or a General Union of the section), -and also in a local “Cotton Trades Federation” or “Textile -Trades Federation,” which combines the local organisations -of the weavers and sometimes other sections in each of a -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_478">[Pg 478]</span> -couple of dozen geographical districts in Lancashire and -Cheshire. The weavers’ “amalgamation,” and other sections -of the “manufacturing” trade, are further united in -the Northern Counties Amalgamated Association, with -175,000 members. Finally, all the federal organisations -of the several sections are brought together in the United -Textile Factory Workers’ Association, which focuses the -opinion of all the cotton operatives, including the Amalgamated -Association of Bleachers and Dyers, on those fundamental -issues on which they are conscious of a common -and an equal interest. -<a id="FNanchor_602" href="#Footnote_602" class="fnanchor">[602]</a></p> - -<p>The officials of the Cotton Trade Unions—herein differing -from those of the greatly developed General Union of Textile -Workers, which has organised the (principally women) woollen -weavers—have remained predominantly technicians, devoting -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_479">[Pg 479]</span> -themselves almost entirely to the protection of their -members’ trade interests, without taking much part in the -wider interests now largely influencing the Trade Union -world, and showing little sympathy either in larger federations -or in the new spirit. They have been slow to take an -active part in the political development of the Trade Union -world, which has manifested itself, as we shall describe in a -subsequent chapter, in the organisation of the Labour -Party. This backwardness may be ascribed, in some degree, -to the political history of Lancashire, where an ancestral -Conservatism still lingers, and where it was possible, even -in the twentieth century, for so prominent a Trade Union -official as the late James Mawdsley, the able leader of -the cotton-spinners, to stand for Parliament in 1906 as a -member of the Conservative Party. The influence of an -exceptionally large proportion of Roman Catholics among -the cotton operatives must also be noted. It is a unique -feature of the technical officials of the Cotton Unions that -they have frequently been willing to serve the industry as -the paid officials of the Employers’ Associations when they -have been offered higher salaries. Their main duty, whether -acting for the employers or the workmen, is to secure uniformity -in the application of the Collective Agreements as -between mill and mill; and such a duty, it is argued, like -that of the valuer or accountant, is independent of personal -opinion or bias, and can be rendered with equal fidelity to -either client. This was not at first resented by the workmen, -who even saw some advantage in the Employers’ -Association being served by officers thoroughly acquainted -with the complicated technicalities as the operatives saw -them. There has, however, latterly been a change of feeling; -and though such transfers of services cannot be prevented -(the Employers’ Associations constantly finding the Trade -Union official the best man available), they are now resented. -<a id="FNanchor_603" href="#Footnote_603" class="fnanchor">[603]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_480">[Pg 480]</span></p> - -<p>It is felt in some quarters that many of the “cotton men” -have fallen out of harmony with the newer currents of -thought in the Trade Union world. It is alleged that they -accept too implicitly the employers’ assumptions, and do not -sympathise with aspirations of more fundamental change -than a variation of wages or hours. But the influence of -the “cotton men” is, in the Trade Union world, still important -for their specific contribution, to Trade Union theory -and practice, of equal piecework rates for both sexes; of -a rigid refusal to allow an employer to make the inferiority -either of any workers or of any machines that he chooses to -employ an excuse for deductions from the Standard Rate, -and of the utmost possible improvement of machinery so -long as the piecework rates are strictly controlled by -Collective Bargaining and firmly embodied in rigidly enforced -lists—points on which many Trade Unionists who would -deem themselves “advanced” have not yet attained the -same level. -<a id="FNanchor_604" href="#Footnote_604" class="fnanchor">[604]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_481">[Pg 481]</span></p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Building Trades</span></h3> - -<p>The Building Trades have lost their relative position in -the Trade Union world to nearly as great an extent as the -cotton operatives. Thirty years ago their representatives -stood for 10 per cent of the Trades Union Congress, whereas -to-day they probably do not represent 3 per cent of its -membership. They have, for a whole generation, supplied -no influential leader. The only large society in this section, -the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters, Cabinetmakers, and -Joiners (133,000 members), has more than doubled its -membership since 1890, drawing in various small societies of -cabinetmakers, and carpenters, but not yet the older General -Union of Carpenters and Joiners, which counts 15,000 -members; and so, too, has the small but solid United -Operative Plumbers’ Society, with 14,000 members—neither -of them, however, commanding the allegiance of anything -like the whole of its craft. The numerous small societies -of painters have, for the most part, drawn themselves -together in the National Amalgamated Society of Operative -House and Ship Painters and Decorators (30,000 members); -whilst the National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades -Association (12,500 members) represents a union of many -small societies. Altogether the Trade Unions in the building -trades, including all the little local societies, have probably -done no more than double their membership of 1892, and -the increase has been relatively least in the most skilled -grades. This is due, in part, to an actual decline in the -trade, the total numbers enumerated in the 1911 census -being actually less than in that of 1901, the fall being even -greater down to 1919, when it was estimated that only seven-twelfths -as many men were at work at building as in 1901.</p> - -<p>The story of the Building Trade Unions during the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_482">[Pg 482]</span> -thirty years is one of innumerable small sectional and -local disputes with their employers—taking the form, -during 1913, of repeated sudden strikes in the London -area against non-Unionists, forced on by the “hot-heads” -and discountenanced by the Executive Committees, and -leading, in 1914, to a general lock-out by the London -Master Builders’ Association. The employers demanded -that the Trade Unions should penalise members who struck -without authority, and that the Unions should put up a -pecuniary deposit which might be forfeited when a strike -occurred in violation of the Working Rules. They also -insisted on each workman signing a personal agreement to -work quietly with non-Unionists, under penalty of a fine of -20s. In the lock-out that ensued the whole building trade -of the Metropolis was stopped for over six months. Efforts -at a settlement in June were rejected on ballot of the operatives; -and whilst signs of weakening occurred among the -operatives the National Federation of Building Trade -Employers had decided on a national lock-out throughout -the kingdom in order to secure the employers’ terms, when -the outbreak of war brought the struggle to an end, and -work was resumed practically on the old conditions.</p> - -<p>During the war, when the bulk of the operatives were -enrolled in the army, and building was restricted to the -most urgently needed works, disputes remained in abeyance. -At the beginning of 1918 a new start was made in the -organisation of the industry by the establishment of a -National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, itself -a development from a previous National Building Trades -Council, in which all the national Trade Unions, 13 in -number, for the first time joined together. Notwithstanding -great differences in numerical strength, the Unions agreed -to constitute the Federation Executive of two representatives -from each national union. The Federation is formed -of local branches, each of which is composed of the branches -in the locality of the nationally affiliated Unions, governed -by the aggregate of the “Trades Management Committee” -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_483">[Pg 483]</span> -of such branches, acting under the direction and control of -the Federation Executive. A significant new feature, -recalling an expedient of the Trade Unionism of 1834, is -the establishment of “Composite Branches” of individual -building trades operatives in localities where no branch of -the separate national unions exists. What success may -attend this renewed effort at unified national organisation -of the whole industry it is impossible to predict; there are -signs of a movement for actual amalgamation. The four -principal Builders’ Labourers’ Unions are on the point of -uniting in a strong amalgamation with 40,000 members. -Other attempts at amalgamation, including one among the -“house builders,” the societies of bricklayers, masons and -plasterers, have been voted. The Furnishing Trades Association -was only prevented from merging in the Amalgamated -Society of Carpenters by technical difficulties. On the -other hand the separate Scottish and Irish Unions (except -for the merging of the Associated Carpenters) stubbornly -maintain their independence. Down to the present it must -be said that combination in the building trades, torn by -internecine conflicts and financially weakened by unsuccessful -strikes, has, on the whole, been falling back. The -gradual change of processes, and the introduction of new -materials, with an actual decline in the numbers employed, -has not been met by any improvement in the organisation -of the older craft unions, whilst the workers in the new -processes have failed to achieve effective union. With the -great demand for building since the Armistice, the Building -Trades Unions have, however, shown increased vitality; -and the position in the negotiating Joint Boards, at which -they are now regularly meeting the employers’ representatives, -has considerably improved. The latest achievement -of the industry is the establishment, jointly with the employers, -of a “Builders’ Parliament”—largely at the -instance of Mr. Malcolm Sparkes—which is the most noteworthy -example of the “Whitley Councils,” to which we -shall refer later.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_484">[Pg 484]</span></p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">Engineering and the Metal Trades</span></h3> - -<p>The large and steadily increasing army of operatives in -the various processes connected with metals (who are combined -in Germany in a single gigantic Metal Workers’ -Union) can be noticed here only in its three principal -sections, the engineering industry, boilermaking and ship-building, -and the production of iron and steel from the ore.</p> - -<p>Trade Unionism in the engineering industry, though it -has, during the past thirty years, greatly increased in -aggregate membership, notably among the unskilled and -semi-skilled workmen employed in engineering shops, can -hardly be said to have grown in strength, whether manifested -in effect upon the engineering employers, who have become -very strongly combined throughout the whole kingdom, or -in influence in the Trade Union world. This relative decline -must be ascribed to the continued lack of any systematic -organisation of the industry as a whole; to a failure to -cope with the changing processes and systems of remuneration -which the employers have introduced; and to the -persistence of internecine war among the rival Unions -themselves.</p> - -<p>The trouble in the engineering world came to a head in -1897, precipitated perhaps by the employers, who wanted, -as they said, to be “masters in their own shops.” The -Amalgamated Society of Engineers, which had maintained its -predominant position among the engineering workmen, but -only commanded the allegiance of a part of them, after a -series of bickerings with the employers about the technical -improvement of the industry, in which the workmen had -shown themselves, to say the least, very conservative, found -itself involved in a general strike and lock-out in all the -principal engineering centres, nominally about the London -engineering workmen’s precipitate demand for an Eight -Hours Day, but substantially over the employers’ insistence -on being masters in their own workshops, entitled to introduce -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_485">[Pg 485]</span> -what new methods of working they chose, and whatever -new systems of remuneration according to results that they -could persuade the several workmen to accept. The Union, -to which apparently it did not occur to use the methods of -publicity on which William Newton and John Burnett -would have relied, failed to make clear its case to the public; -and public opinion was accordingly against the engineering -workmen, believing them to be at the same time obstructive -to industrial improvements and unable to formulate conditions -that would safeguard their legitimate interests. The -result was that the prolonged stoppage, which reduced the -funds of the A.S.E. down to what only sufficed to meet the -accrued liabilities for Superannuation Benefit, ended in a -virtual victory for the employers. The A.S.E. quickly resumed -its growth and stood, in the autumn of 1919, at 320,000 -members, or over five times its membership of 1892. But the -sectional societies also increased in size, and down to 1919 -they counted in the aggregate, as in 1892, about half as -many members as the A.S.E. itself.<a id="FNanchor_605" href="#Footnote_605" class="fnanchor">[605]</a> Meanwhile, the great -development of the engineering industry, and the successive -changes in the machinery employed, have been accompanied -by the introduction of various forms of “Payment by -Results,” in which the engineering Trade Unions have not -known how to prevent the reintroduction of individual -bargaining. Owing to its quarrels with the various sectional -societies in the industry, the A.S.E. has been alternately in -and out of the Trades Union Congress; and, on general -issues, has seldom sought to influence the Trade Union -world as much as its magnitude and position would have -entitled it to do. The same may be said of the other Trade -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_486">[Pg 486]</span> -Unions in the engineering industry, which were contented -to hold their own against their greater rival, and to see -their membership progress with the growth of the industry -itself.</p> - -<p>The elaborate constitution of the Amalgamated Society -of Engineers, which we described in a preceding chapter, -has been, during the past thirty years, repeatedly tinkered -with by delegate meetings, but without being substantially -changed. There has been a perpetual balance and deadlock -of opinion, which has led to successive modifications and -reactions. Alongside the skilled engineering craftsmen, of -different specialities in technique, there has grown up a -vast number of unapprenticed and semi-skilled men, whom -the Union has failed to exclude, not only from the workshops -but also from the jobs formerly monopolised by the -legitimate craftsmen. Should these interlopers be admitted -to membership? At one delegate meeting (1912) the rules -were altered so as to admit (“Class F”) not only all varieties -of skilled engineering craftsmen, but also practically any one -working in an engineering shop. This was counteracted by -the tacit refusal of most branches to carry out the decision -of their own delegates; and “Class F,” which never obtained -as many as 2000 members, was abolished by the next -delegate meeting (1915.) The method of remuneration has -been another bone of contention. Especially since the disastrous -conflict of 1897, the employers have more and more -insisted on the adoption of systems of “payment by results” -instead of the weekly time rates, to which the engineering -operatives, like those of most of the building trades, devotedly -cling. What is to be the Union policy with regard -to these varieties of piecework and “premium bonus” -systems? Failing to discover any device by which (as -among the cotton operatives, the boot and shoe makers, -and the Birmingham brassworkers) “payment by results” -can be effectively safeguarded by being subjected to collective -bargaining, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers has -wavered, in its decisions and in the policy of its various -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_487">[Pg 487]</span> -districts, between (<i>a</i>) refusing to allow any other system -than timework; (<i>b</i>) limiting systems of payment by results -to “those shops in which they have already been introduced”; -(<i>c</i>) insisting, as a condition of permitting payment -by results, on the “Principle of Mutuality,” which -amounts to no more than the claim that the workman shall -not have the piecework rates or “bonus times” arbitrarily -imposed upon him, but shall be permitted individually to -bargain with the foreman or rate-fixer for better terms. -The result is a chaos of inconsistent customs and practices -varying from shop to shop; and withal, a tendency to a -continuous decline in piecework rates (mitigated only by -the greater or less extent to which collective “shop bargaining” -prevails, and by its efficiency) which leads, in sullen -resentment, to “ca’ canny,” or slow working. The third -bone of contention has been how to deal with the competing -Trade Unions, which are either societies of varieties -of skilled engineers who prefer to remain unabsorbed in the -A.S.E., or societies of new classes of operatives such as -machine workers, workers in brass and copper, electrical -craftsmen, and others, with whom the A.S.E. found itself -disputing the control of the industry. Should these much -smaller organisations be (<i>a</i>) ignored and their members -treated as non-unionists; or (<i>b</i>) admitted to joint deliberation -and action in trade matters with the view to formulating -a common policy; or (<i>c</i>) dealt with by amalgamation -on a still broader basis than that of the A.S.E.? It would -be useless to trace the results of the ebb and flow of these -contrary views, which were, in the autumn of 1919, for the -time being, partly reconciled by an agreement by which six -of the competing Unions<a id="FNanchor_606" href="#Footnote_606" class="fnanchor">[606]</a> are in 1920, with the A.S.E., -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_488">[Pg 488]</span> -to be merged in the Amalgamated Engineering Union with -a membership of 400,000 and accumulated funds amounting -to nearly four millions sterling. It remains to be seen -whether this wider amalgamation will bring to engineering -Trade Unionism the formulation of a systematic policy, -national organisation, and competent leadership.</p> - -<p>Underlying all these issues, and aggravating all the disputes -to which they give rise, is the fundamental divergence -between those who insist on an extreme local autonomy—the -district being free to strike, and free to refuse to settle -a local strike,—and those who maintain the importance of -a national unity in trade policy, and the necessity, with -centralised funds, of centralised control. Still more keen -is the controversy between those who wish to maintain the -present craftsmen’s organisation, and those who seek to -enlarge it into an organisation comprising all the workers -in the industry, whether skilled or unskilled. During the -past decade the discontent against the Central Executive, -especially on the Clyde, has led to a so-called “rank and -file” movement; the development of the shop steward -from a mere “card inspector” and membership recruiting -officer into an aggressive strike leader; and the joining -together of the shop stewards (as at Glasgow, Sheffield, and -Coventry) into such new forms of organisation as the -“Clyde Workers’ Committee,” actively promoting their -own local trade policies irrespective of the views of the -Union as a whole.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_489">[Pg 489]</span></p> - -<p>The “Shop Stewards’ Movement,” which assumed some -importance in the engineering industry in 1915-19, was a -new development of an old institution in Trade Unionism—we -have referred elsewhere to the “Father of the Chapel” -among the compositors, and to the checkweighman among -the coal-miners—which acquired a special importance -owing to the growing lack of correspondence between the -membership of the Trade Union Branch or District Council -and the grouping of the workmen in the different establishments, -and also from the fact that the workmen in each -establishment found themselves belonging to different -Trade Unions. “The shop steward,” it has been pointed -out, “was originally a minor official appointed from the -men in a particular workshop and charged with the duty -of seeing that all the Trade Union contributions were paid. -He had other small duties. But gradually, as the branch -got more and more out of touch with the men in the shop, -these men came to look to the official who was on the spot -to represent their grievances. During the war the development -of the shop steward movement was very rapid, particularly -in the engineering industry. In some big industrial -concerns, composed of a large number of workshops, the -committees of stewards from the various shops very largely -took over the whole conduct of negotiations and arrangement -of shop conditions. Further, a national organisation -of shop stewards was formed, at first mainly for propagandist -purposes. The existing unions have considered -some of the activities of shop stewards to be unofficial, and -there has been a good deal of dissension within the unions -on this score. Attempts have been made to reach an -agreement by which Shop Stewards’ Committees shall be -fully recognised at once by the unions and by the managements. -So far there has been no final settlement. An -agreement was made in the early summer of 1919 between -the Engineering Employers’ Federation and the Unions; -how this will work in practice is not yet certain.” -<a id="FNanchor_607" href="#Footnote_607" class="fnanchor">[607]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_490">[Pg 490]</span></p> - -<p>It must, in fact, be said that although the Engineering -Trade Unions have during the past thirty years not taken -much part in general Trade Union issues, they have (in -contrast with some other sections) contributed freely in -both men and ideas. We have already dwelt upon the -activities of Mr. John Burns and Mr. Tom Mann. We shall -mention the political progress of Mr. George Barnes, who -is also of the A.S.E.; whilst the Friendly Society of Ironfounders -has given Mr. Arthur Henderson to the Movement. -And, in the long run possibly more important even than -men, the ideas emanating from the engineering workshops -have had a more than proportionate share in the ferment -of these years. The vacancy in the office of General Secretary, -occasioned by the election to the House of Commons -of Mr. Robert Young, was filled in the autumn of 1919 -by the election of Mr. Tom Mann; and this election, together -with the great amalgamation of competing Unions -brought about at the same time, may perhaps open up a -new era in engineering Trade Unionism.</p> - -<p>In contrast with the failure of Trade Unionism in the -engineering trades either to develop a systematic organisation -or to cope with the changes in processes and methods -of remuneration, the two powerful Unions of boilermakers -and shipwrights have gone from strength to strength, -doubling their numbers, absorbing practically all the remaining -local societies in their industry, and closely combining -with each other in policy and other activities, concluding, -indeed, in the autumn of 1919 an agreement to -submit to their respective memberships a proposal for a -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_491">[Pg 491]</span> -formal amalgamation which may be joined by the strong -society of Associated Blacksmiths. This would mean the -consolidation, in one powerful Union of 170,000 members, -of practically all the skilled craftsmen working in the -construction of the hulls of ships, of boilers and tanks, and -of steel bridge-work of all sorts. Concentrated largely in -the ports of the north-east coast and those of the Clyde, -with strong contingents in the relatively small number of -other shipbuilding centres, the boilermakers and shipwrights -have held their own in face of all the changes in their industry, -and have known how to maintain a fairly uniform -national policy.</p> - -<p>Passing from engineering and shipbuilding to the smelting -of the iron and steel from the ore, the one marked -advance in organisation is that of the British Steel Smelters, -which, established in 1886, and in 1892 having still only -2600 members, had by 1918, under the prudent leadership -of Mr. John Hodge, drawn to itself over 40,000. The -British steel smelters have the credit of equipping themselves -with the most efficient office in the Trade Union world, -with a real statistical department and a trained staff, including, -for all their legal business, especially that connected -with compensation for accidents, a qualified professional -solicitor. Already before the outbreak of war a far-seeing -policy of amalgamation had been virtually decided on; -and in 1915 a scheme was prepared for the merging of -all the six important Unions in the industry of obtaining -the metal from the ore, including the operatives in the -tinplate and rolling mills. The plan for surmounting the -legal and other difficulties of amalgamation, of which we -may ascribe the authorship to Mr. John Hodge, Mr. Pugh, -and Mr. Percy Cole, the able officials of the British Steel -Smelters’ Union, was one of extreme ingenuity as involving -no more than a bare majority of the members voting, which -deserves the attention of other societies as a “New Model.” -Three only out of the six societies (the British Steel -Smelters’ Association, the Associated Iron and Steel Workers -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_492">[Pg 492]</span> -of Great Britain, and the National Steel Workers’ Association) -were able to go forward in 1917,<a id="FNanchor_608" href="#Footnote_608" class="fnanchor">[608]</a> when a new society, -the British Iron, Steel, and Kindred Trades Association, -was formed. The four societies then created the Iron and -Steel Trades Confederation, to which they formally ceded -powers and functions affecting the members of more than -one of the constituent bodies, and therefore all general -negotiations with the employers. The three old societies -continued formally in existence, but they bound themselves -not to enrol any new members, who were all to be taken -by the new society, to which all the existing members were -to be continuously urged to transfer themselves voluntarily. -This process has already gone so far that the new society -has swallowed up the British Steel Smelters’ Society, which -has been wound up and completely merged in the new body, -into which the empty shells of the other two old bodies -will presently fall. The Iron and Steel Trades Confederation -will then be composed of one society only, and may -be kept alive only to serve the same transitional purpose -for other incoming societies.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Compositors</span></h3> - -<p>The printing trades have remained, during the past thirty -years, curiously stationary so far as Trade Unionism, is concerned, -the London Society of Compositors, the Typographical -Association, the Scottish Typographical Association, and the -Dublin Typographical Society having, in the aggregate, increased -their membership by three-fifths and steadily increased -their rates of pay and strategic strength against -their own employers, but commanding little influence in -the Trade Union Movement as a whole, and in many small -towns still leaving a considerable portion of the trade outside -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_493">[Pg 493]</span> -their ranks. The less-skilled workers in the papermaking -and printing establishments have greatly improved -their organisation; and the National Union of Printing and -Paper Workers and the Operative Printers Assistants’ Society—both -of them including women as well as men—have -become large and effective Trade Unions. All the societies -are united in the powerful Printing and Kindred Trades -Federation, to which the National Union of Journalists, -now a large society, has recently affiliated.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">Boot and Shoemaking</span></h3> - -<p>Among the other constituents of the Trade Union world -in which a relative decline in influence is to be noted, is -that of the boot and shoemakers. Thirty years ago the -National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives had achieved -a position of great influence in the trade. It had joined -with the Employers’ Associations in building up, as described -in our <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, an elaborate system -of Local Boards of Conciliation and Arbitration, united -in a National Conference of dignity and influence, with -resort to Lord James of Hereford as umpire, by means of -which stoppages of work were prevented, and, more important -still, the illegitimate use of boy labour was restrained -and standard piecework rates were arrived at by collective -bargaining, and authoritatively imposed on the whole trade. -In 1894 the whole machinery was broken up, at the instance -of the very employers who had agreed to it, and had co-operated -for years in its working, because they found that, -under the rules and at the piecework rates prescribed, the -men were “making too much.”</p> - -<p>After a prolonged stoppage in 1894 the dispute was -patched up by the intervention of the Labour Department -of the Board of Trade; and the National Union of Boot -and Shoe Operatives, with 80,000 members, has, on the -whole, held its own with the employers, with less elaborate -formal relations; but the work of the Union is impaired -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_494">[Pg 494]</span> -by the weakness of the organisation in the smaller workshops -and the less important local centres of the trade.</p> - -<p>On the other side, we have the rise to influence, not only -in the Trade Union counsels but also in those of the nation, -of the Women Workers, the General Labourers, the “black-coated -proletariat” of shop assistants, clerks, teachers, -technicians, and officials, the miners and the railwaymen, -which has been the outstanding feature of the past thirty -years.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">Women Workers</span></h3> - -<p>In no section of the industrial community has the -advance of Trade Unionism during the last thirty years -been more marked than among the women workers. For -the first half of this period, indeed—though the aggregate -women membership of Trade Unions approximately doubled—this -meant only a rise from about 100,000 in 1890 to about -200,000 in 1907, mostly in the textile industries; and the -number of women Trade Unionists outside those industries -was in the latter year still under 30,000. But the long-continued -patient work of the Women’s Trade Union League -was having its effect; and the idea of Trade Unionism -was being established among the women workers in many -different industries. Much is to be ascribed to the efforts -during these years of Sir Charles and Lady Dilke, who were -unwearied in their assistance. In 1909, largely at the -instance of Sir Charles Dilke and the women’s leaders, -especially Miss Mary Macarthur, Miss Gertrude Tuckwell, -and Miss Susan Lawrence, Mr. Winston Churchill, as President -of the Board of Trade, carried through Parliament -the Trade Boards Bill, which enabled a legal minimum -wage to be prescribed by joint boards in four specially -low-paid industries, in which mainly women were employed. -This measure not only considerably improved the position -of the sweated workers in the chain and nail trades, the -slop tailoring trade, paper box making and machine lace-making, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_495">[Pg 495]</span> -but—as had been predicted on one side and -denied on the other—greatly stimulated independent -organisation among the women whose industrial status -was raised. The extension of the Trade Boards and of -the legal minimum wage in 1913 to half a dozen other -trades had like effects, and the further extension of 1918 -is already promising in the same direction. Trade Union -membership was further greatly increased during 1912-14 -as a result of the National Insurance Act, which brought -many thousand recruits to the Approved Society sections -of the Unions. It was, however, the Great War, with its -unprecedented demand for women workers, and their -admission, in “dilution” of or in substitution for men, to -all sorts of occupations and processes into which they -had not previously penetrated, at earnings which they -had never before been permitted to receive, that brought -the women into Trade Unionism by the hundred thousand. -The National Federation of Women Workers—the largest -exclusively feminine Union—rose from 11,000 in 1914 to -over 60,000 in 1919. A small number of new Trade Unions -exclusively for women were established in particular sections, -such as the interesting little society of Women Acetylene -Welders. The bulk of the women, however, continued -to be organised in Trade Unions admitting both sexes. -Besides the various Textile Unions, there are now thousands -of women in the National Union of Railwaymen, the Railway -Clerks’ Association, Boot and Shoe Operatives, and the -Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. Most of the general -labour Unions, and others like the National Union of -Printing and Paper Workers, the National Union of Shop -Assistants, Warehousemen and Clerks, the Amalgamated -Union of Co-operative and Commercial Employees and -Allied Workers, had for a couple of decades been enrolling -women members; and the female membership of these -societies now grew by leaps and bounds. But the greater -part of the field of women’s employment is still uncovered. -In 1920, though it may be estimated that the total women -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_496">[Pg 496]</span> -membership of Trade Unions is nearly three-quarters of a -million, this still represents less than 30 per cent of the -adult women wage-earners.</p> - -<p>The outstanding feature in women’s Trade Unionism -during the past decade has been its advance, not merely in -numbers and achievements, but also in status and influence. -This has come with accelerating speed. To the first Treasury -Conference in 1915, at which the Government sought the -help of the Trade Unions in the winning of the war, it -apparently did not occur to any official to invite the National -Federation of Women Workers; but in all subsequent proceedings -of the same nature Miss Mary Macarthur and Miss -Susan Lawrence, on behalf of the women Trade Unionists -in this and other societies, occupied a leading position. -Whether before the Munitions Act Tribunals, the Committee -on Production, or the Special Arbitration Tribunal set up by -the Government to deal with the conditions of employment -of women munition-workers, the women’s case, whether -put by the representatives of the Women’s Unions, or by -those of the principal Unions of general workers that included -women, was so ably conducted as to secure for the women -workers, almost for the first time, something like the same -measure of justice as that which the men had wrested from -the employers for themselves. The result was not only -a marked rise in the standard of remuneration for women, -the opening up to them of many fields of work from which -they had hitherto been excluded, and a general improvement -in their conditions of employment, but also a rapid -development of Trade Unionism among them—nine-tenths -of the women Trade Unionists being in societies enrolling -both men and women—and the winning, for women’s Trade -Unions, of the respect of the Trade Union world. For the -first time a woman was elected in 1919 by the Trades Union -Congress to its Parliamentary Committee, Miss Margaret -Bondfield, of the National Federation of Women Workers, -receiving over three million votes. On the reconstitution -in 1918 of the Labour Party, in which women had always -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_497">[Pg 497]</span> -been accorded equal rights, provision was made so that -there should always be at least four women elected to the -Executive Committee. A Standing Joint Committee of -Women’s Industrial Organisations, established in 1916, now -initiates and co-ordinates the action of the principal women’s -Trade Unions, the Women’s Co-operative Guild (which organises -the women of the Co-operative movement), the Railway -Women’s Guild, composed of the wives of railwaymen, and -the Women’s Labour League, now the women’s section of -the Labour Party itself.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The General Workers</span></h3> - -<p>In 1888 the leaders of the skilled craftsmen and better-paid -workmen were inclined to believe that effective or -durable Trade Unionism among the general labourers and -unskilled or nondescript workmen was as impracticable as -it had hitherto proved to be among the mass of women -wage-earners. The outburst of Trade Unionism among the -dockers and gasworkers in 1888-89 was commonly expected -to be as transient as analogous movements had been in 1834 -and 1871. In 1920 we find the organisations of this despised -section, some of them of over thirty years’ standing, accounting -for no less than 30 per cent of the whole Trade Union -membership, and their leaders—notably Mr. Clynes, Mr. -Thorne, and Mr. Robert Williams—exercising at least their -full share of influence in the counsels of the Trade Union -Movement as a whole. For a few years after 1889, indeed, -the aggregate membership of the newly-formed labourers’ -Unions declined, and some of the weaker ones collapsed, or -became merged in the larger societies. But the Gas-workers’ -and General Labourers’ Union (established 1889), which -changed its name in 1918 to the National Union of General -Workers; and the Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General -Workers’ Union (established 1887) maintained themselves in -existence; and already in 1907 there were as many as -150,000 organised labourers in half-a-dozen well-established -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_498">[Pg 498]</span> -societies. The outburst of Trade Unionism among the farm -labourers in 1890 gradually faded away. But in 1906 a -new society, the National Agricultural Labourers and Rural -Workers’ Trade Union, was formed, which at once made -headway in Norfolk and the adjacent counties; to be -followed in 1913 by the energetic Scottish Farm Servants’ -Trade Union. Organisation was, between 1904 and 1911, -steadily extending in all directions, when the passing of the -National Insurance Act, which practically compelled every -wage-earner to join an “Approved Society” of some kind, -led to a dramatic expansion of Trade Union membership, -from which the various Unions of general workers, as they -now prefer to be styled, obtained their share of advantage. -The Workers’ Union, in particular, which had been established -in 1898, for the enrolment of members among the -nondescript and semi-skilled workers of all sorts not catered -for by the craft Unions, had, after twelve years’ existence, -only 5000 members in 111 branches in 1910, but grew -during 1911-13 to 91,000 members in 567 branches. In -three years more it stood at 197,000 members in 750 branches, -and by the end of 1919 its membership had risen to about -500,000 in nearly 2000 branches, comprising almost every -kind and grade of worker, of any age and either sex, from -clay-workers and tin miners to corporation employees and -sanitary inspectors, from domestic servants and waiters -to farm labourers and carmen, and every kind of nondescript -worker in the factory, the yard, or on the road. The -organising of the rural labourers has been shared by nearly -all the principal Unions of General Workers. The passing -of the Corn Production Act in 1917, with its incidental -establishment of Joint Boards in every county of the United -Kingdom, empowered to fix a legal minimum wage for -a prescribed normal working day, had the result of greatly -extending Trade Union membership among all sections of -agricultural labourers, who are now (1920), for the first -time in history, more or less organised in every county of -Great Britain—partly in the very successful Agricultural -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_499">[Pg 499]</span> -Labourers’ Union, which had, at the end of 1919, 180,000 -members in no fewer than 2700 branches; partly in the -Workers’ Union, which has a large number of agricultural -branches; partly in the National Union of General Workers, -the Dock, Wharf and Riverside Labourers’ Union, and the -National Amalgamated Union of Labour; in all the Scottish -counties, in the powerful Scottish Farm Servants’ Union; -whilst in Ireland the agricultural wage-earners have been -enrolled in the Transport and General Workers’ Union. -The total number of agricultural labourers in Trade Unions -in 1920 probably reaches more than three hundred thousand, -being about one-third of the total number of men employed -in agriculture at wages.</p> - -<p>Throughout the years of war the membership of the -various Unions classified under the head of Transport and -General Labour (including the dockers and seamen), which -in 1892 was only 154,000, continued to increase by leaps -and bounds until, in 1920, their aggregate membership -considerably exceeds that of the entire Trade Union world -of 1890, and does not fall far short of a couple of millions.</p> - -<p>Of recent years there has been a steady pressure towards -amalgamation and consolidation of forces. Many small and -local Unions have been merged, and several of the larger -bodies seem to be on the point of union. Meanwhile the -movement towards closer federation is strong. In 1908 all -the big general Labour Unions became associated in the -General Labourers’ National Council, a useful consultative -body, having for its principal function the prevention of -overlapping and conflict among the different Unions. It -was successful in arranging for freedom of transfer and -mutual recognition of each other’s membership among its -constituent Unions, and in promoting a certain amount of -demarcation of spheres, and even of amalgamation. This -Council in May 1917 developed into a National Federation -of General Workers, which includes eleven important general -Unions of General Workers, having an aggregate membership -of over 800,000. This important federation took a -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_500">[Pg 500]</span> -significant step towards unification in November 1919, in -appointing ten District Committees, consisting of two -representatives of each of the affiliated societies, charged to -consult with regard to any local trade dispute involving -more than one society.</p> - -<p>Recent years have seen the rise of a new grouping. The -several Unions of seamen, lightermen, dock and wharf -labourers, coal-porters and carmen have asserted themselves -as Transport Workers, seeking not merely to take -common action in matters of wages and hours, but also -to formulate regulations for the government of the whole -industry of transport (apart from that of railways), which -is one more example of the tendency to create “industrial” -federations on a national basis. The organisation for the -purpose is the National Transport Workers’ Federation, -comprising three dozen of the Unions having among their -members men engaged in waterside transport work, including -seamen, dockers, and carters. It was formed in -November 1910 at the instance of the Dockers’ Union, and -came at once into prominence during the London strike of -1911, which it handled with great vigour.<a id="FNanchor_609" href="#Footnote_609" class="fnanchor">[609]</a> This was the -first great fight in the Port of London since the upheaval of -1889. The National Union of Sailors and Firemen, which -had in vain appealed to the Shipping Federation to unite -in constituting a Conciliation Board, in June 1911 struck for -a uniform scale at all ports and various minor ameliorations -of their conditions. Largely as a result of the excitement -caused by the seamen’s strike, the dockers in July came -out for a rise from 6d. to 8d. per hour, with 1s. per hour -for overtime. The stevedores, the gasworkers, the carmen, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_501">[Pg 501]</span> -the coal-porters, the tug-enginemen, the grain porters, and -various other bodies of men engaged in or about the port, -put forward their own claims. Amid great excitement the -whole port was stopped, great meetings on Tower Hill were -held daily, and processions of strikers, said to have been -as many as 100,000 in number, paraded through the City. -The unrest spread to most other ports, and there were some -local disturbances. The Port of London Authority, under -Lord Devonport, refused all parley, and the Government -for some time practically supported this great corporate -employer, which had failed (and has to this day failed) to -comply with the section of the Act of Parliament by which -it was constituted directing it to institute a scheme for -more civilised conditions of employment for its labourers. -The War Office, at the request of Mr. Winston Churchill, -who was then at the Home Office, accumulated troops in -London, and actually threatened to put 25,000 soldiers to -break the strike by doing the dockers’ work—a step which -would undoubtedly have led to bloody conflict in the streets. -Finally, however, the Cabinet gave way, and persuaded -Lord Devonport and his colleagues, together with shipowners, -wharfingers, and granary proprietors, to meet the representatives -of the Unions with a view to agreement. For three -whole days they sat and argued, ultimately arriving at an -agreement under which the men returned to work on the -immediate concession of about half their demand and the -remission of the other half to arbitration. This was undertaken -by Sir Albert Rollit, M.P., at the instance of the -London Chamber of Commerce, his award eventually conceding -to the men substantially their whole claim; summed -up in 8d. per hour for the dockers, with 1s. per hour for -overtime, other trades, and the men at other ports, obtaining, -in one or other form, analogous advantages.<a id="FNanchor_610" href="#Footnote_610" class="fnanchor">[610]</a> In May -1912 the dispute flared up again in the Thames and Medway, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_502">[Pg 502]</span> -when a combined strike and lock-out, in which 80,000 men -were involved, stopped the work of the port for six weeks. -Sympathetic strikes in other ports led to some 20,000 men -being idle for a few days. The men asserted that the -employers had not in all cases fulfilled the agreement of -the previous year, and were discriminating against Trade -Unionists. The employers seem to have been concerned, -in the main, to avoid recognition of the Transport Workers’ -Federation, and to check its growing authority. In spite -of the vigorous support of the <i>Daily Herald</i>; of pecuniary -help, not only from Australia and the United States, but -also from the German Trade Unions; and of the mediation -of the Government, the strike failed owing to the men -breaking away, and to the stubborn obstinacy of Lord -Devonport, as Chairman of the Port of London Authority, -who insisted on a resumption of work upon the employers’ -assurance that they would respect all agreements and -consider any grievances put forward by the representatives -of any section. Notwithstanding the failure of this somewhat -premature effort of the Transport Workers’ Federation, -its formation, together with that of the National Federation -of General Workers, have gone far to transform the position. -For a couple of decades the efforts of the General Labourers’ -Unions took the form of innumerable local and sectional -demands, not merely for higher rates of pay, though advances -of several shillings per week have continually been -secured, but for mutual agreement of piecework rates, a -reduction of working hours, insistence on compensation for -accidents, the provision of better accommodation or greater -amenity in work, and extra allowances for tasks of peculiar -strain or discomfort. The efforts of the federations have -raised these local and sectional arrangements to the level -of national questions; and the agreements now concluded -with the employers’ national representatives amount to an -increasingly effective control over the industry.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_503">[Pg 503]</span></p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The “Black-Coated Proletariat”</span></h3> - -<p>If Trade Unionism has, in the past thirty years, successfully -progressed downward to the women and the unskilled -labourers, its advance, in a sense upwards, among the -various sections of the “black-coated proletariat,” has been -no less remarkable. In 1892 there were only the smallest -signs of Trade Union organisation among the clerks and -shop assistants, the various sections of Post Office and -other Government employees, the municipal officers, and -the life assurance agents. Among wage-earners in these -various occupations, numbering in the United Kingdom -possibly several millions—badly paid, working under -unsatisfactory conditions, and sometimes subject to actual -tyranny—there were, thirty years ago, a few dozen small -and struggling Trade Unions, with only a few tens of -thousands of aggregate membership. In 1920 these -have developed into powerful amalgamations in most of -the several sections, nearly all fully recognised by their -employers, whether private or public, with whom they -enter into collective agreements; and enrolling a total -membership falling not far short of three-quarters of a -million.</p> - -<p>We may note first the army of shop assistants, warehousemen, -and other employees in the distributive trades, -wholesale and retail.<a id="FNanchor_611" href="#Footnote_611" class="fnanchor">[611]</a> The National Amalgamated Union of -Shop Assistants, Warehousemen, and Clerks, established -in 1891, made at first slow progress, and counted in 1912, -after a couple of decades of growth, fewer than 65,000 -members. Partly as a result of the National Insurance -Act, which practically compelled all employees under £160 -to join some organisation, the Union went ahead by leaps -and bounds, multiplying its branches and swelling its numbers, -until it counts now over 100,000 members. Meanwhile -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_504">[Pg 504]</span> -the Amalgamated Union of Co-operative Employees (also -established in 1891)—in 1918 adding to its title also “Commercial -Employees and Allied Workers”—has benefited -by a similar expansion, counting, in 1920, also about 100,000 -members. This society started on the basis of enrolling all -employees of the Co-operative Societies, whatever their -crafts, and no other persons, a constitution now disapproved -of by the Trades Union Congress. It is, however, not now -confined to persons employed by co-operative societies; -and whilst it includes a number of carmen, tailors, bakers, -bootmakers, and others in co-operative employment who -should more appropriately belong to other Unions, the -negotiations that have been for some time in progress for -the merging of both organisations in a single great Union of -persons employed in the distributive trades, and the transfer -of those belonging to specific crafts to their own societies, -may probably presently be successful.</p> - -<p>Of clerks, the most effective organisation is that of the -clerical service of the railway companies, the Railway -Clerks’ Association, which takes in also stationmasters, -inspectors, and ticket-collectors (who are all eligible also for -the National Union of Railwaymen, which some of them -have joined). Established in 1897, it continued for a decade -insignificant in magnitude, and had not by 1910 enrolled -as many as 10,000 members. After the railway strike of -1911 it began to forge ahead, passing from 30,000 in 1914 -to 42,000 in 1915—a total doubled by 1920, and with increasing -strength it obtained gradually increasing recognition from -the railway companies, successfully maintaining its right -to enrol, not only clerks in the General Managers’ offices, but -also inspectors and stationmasters. As its membership -grew, it was able successfully to contest the elections for -representatives on the committees of the various superannuation -funds instituted by the companies, and thereby -to demonstrate its right to speak for the whole body of -railway clerks. Whilst acting in friendly association with -the National Union of Railwaymen, the Railway Clerks’ -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_505">[Pg 505]</span> -Association has latterly drawn to itself an ever-increasing -proportion of the inspectors and stationmasters; and in 1920, -when it can count on a membership of nearly 90,000, it is -claiming to speak for all grades of the Railway Clerical Administrative -and Supervisory Staff. Since 1913, at least, it has -been asserting a claim, as soon as the railways are nationalised, -to some participation in their management; and at -the end of 1919, it is understood, some promise was made by -the Minister of Transport that, in any Railway Board or -National Advisory Committee that may be constituted, the -Railway Clerks’ Association would, with the National Union -of Railwaymen and the Associated Society of Locomotive -Engineers and Firemen, be accorded its due share of -representation.</p> - -<p>The great army of clerks in commercial offices has -made less progress in organisation than the shop assistants -and the railway clerks. For years, indeed, it seemed as if -commercial clerks would not form a Trade Union; and the -National Union of Clerks (established 1890) made little -headway. In 1912 it had still under 9000 members. In -the past seven years it has bounded up to 55,000 members.<a id="FNanchor_612" href="#Footnote_612" class="fnanchor">[612]</a> -There is also a small Irish Clerical Workers’ Union, principally -in Dublin, resulting from a secession from the National -Union. Most remarkable of all has been the formation, -during the war, of a Bank Officers’ Guild and an Irish Bank -Officials’ Association, having definitely Trade Union objects -(though not yet seeking to join the Trades Union Congress), -both of them being independent of the Bankers’ Institute, -which retains the character of a scientific and educational -society. There is now even a Guild of Law Court Officials, -having definitely Trade Union objects.</p> - -<p>The great body of teachers of all kinds and grades, -numbering altogether about 300,000 men and women in -the United Kingdom, have, during the past thirty years, -become strongly and very elaborately organised in many -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_506">[Pg 506]</span> -different societies.<a id="FNanchor_613" href="#Footnote_613" class="fnanchor">[613]</a> What is significant is the extent to -which many of these professional associations have latterly -adopted the purposes, and even the characteristic methods, -of Trade Unionism. The largest of these bodies, the -National Union of Teachers, established in 1890, has now -over 102,000 members, and exercises great influence upon -the conditions of employment of the teachers in elementary -schools. During the past few years it has supported -various district or county strikes for better salary-scales. -The teachers in secondary schools are organised in four -societies, for headmasters, headmistresses, assistant masters, -and assistant mistresses respectively, united in a Federal -Council of Secondary School Associations, which, though -it has not yet fomented or supported a strike, has of late -organised effective pressure to obtain greater security of -tenure for assistants, better salary-scales, and a universal -superannuation scheme.</p> - -<p>Equally significant is the recent development of organisation -among the industrial technicians, whether engineers, -electricians, chemists, or merely foremen and managers; -among the workers in scientific laboratories, whether for -research, medical, teaching, or administrative purposes; -and among the junior lecturers and assistants at University -institutions. These organisations overlap in their spheres, -if not also in their memberships, and are not yet stabilised, -but most of them are united in the National Federation of -Professional Workers of even wider scope. What is important -is the growing divergence between what are essentially -Trade Unions of the brain-working professionals and -the purely “scientific societies” to which such persons have, -until recent years, restricted their tendency to professional -association. Some of the new bodies (such as the Society of -Technical Engineers) have actually registered themselves -as Trade Unions, a step taken also by the Medico-Political -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_507">[Pg 507]</span> -Union, a vigorous association of medical practitioners; -whilst the newly formed Actors’ Association, like the National -Union of Journalists, has applied for affiliation to the -Trades Union Congress.</p> - -<p>The life assurance agents—principally those employed -in “industrial” insurance—number 100,000, and they have -become organised in a score of societies, restricted to the -staffs of particular companies. These organisations vary in -their nature and in their degree of independence, from mere -“welfare societies,” dominated by the management, up to -aggressive Trade Unions—the strongest being the National -Association of Prudential Assurance Agents. They are -mostly united in two different federations. Another, and -perhaps wholesomer, basis of organisation is adopted by -the National Union of Life Assurance Agents, which has -now some thousands of members.</p> - -<p>But the greatest development of Trade Unionism among -the “black-coated proletariat” has been among the employees -of the National and Local Government. This has -been entirely a growth of the past thirty years. Beginning -among the manual working staff of the Postmaster-General, -and among the artisans and labourers of the Government -dockyards, arsenals, and other manufacturing departments, -there are now a hundred and seventy separate Trade Unions -of State employees, from the crews of the Customs launches -and the boy clerks, up to the Admiralty Constructive -Engineers and the Superintendents of Mercantile Marine -Offices. Of recent years, organisation has spread to the -higher grades of the Civil Service, even to the “Class I.” -clerks; and practically no one below the rank of an Under-Secretary -of State is held to be outside the scope of the -Society of Civil Servants. All the various societies are -grouped in federations, from the “Waterguard Federation” -and the Prison Officers’ Federation of the United Kingdom; -through the United Government Workers’ Federation and -the Federal Council of Government Employees, combining -the various kinds of manual working operatives; up to the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_508">[Pg 508]</span> -Customs and Excise Federation, the Civil Service Federation, -the Civil Service Alliance, and even the “National -Federation of Professional Workers,” which includes also -teachers. The strongest of all these bodies is probably -that of the various employees of the Postmaster-General, -whose fight to secure “recognition” and the opportunity -for “Collective Bargaining” has extended over a couple -of decades. There are about fifty separate Unions of Post -Office employees, mostly small and sectional bodies; but -the three principal societies (the Postal and Telegraph -Clerks’ Association, the Postmen’s Federation, and the -Fawcett Association) were amalgamated in 1919 into one -powerful Union of Post Office Workers, with 90,000 members -with eleven salaried officers, and affiliated both to the -Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party, which can -now meet the managing officials of the Post Office on something -like equal terms.</p> - -<p>The employees of the Local Authorities—thirty years -ago entirely without organisation—are still not so well -combined as those of the National Government. A score -of different societies, from such grades as school-keepers, -police and prison officers and asylum attendants, up to -municipal clerks, share the work with the National Union -of Corporation Workers and the Municipal Employees’ Association. -A large proportion of the wage-earners employed -by Local Authorities are to be found in the Unions of -General Workers. The National Association of Local -Government Officers and Clerks is a large and powerful -body, composed mainly of the clerical and supervisory -grades.</p> - -<p>Trade Unionism in the public service received a great -fillip after 1906, when Mr. Herbert Samuel at the Post -Office, together with some other Ministers, “recognised” -the Unions of their employees, considered their corporate -representations, and agreed to meet their officials. It was -still further promoted when, in 1912, the Government consented -to the establishment of an independent Arbitration -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_509">[Pg 509]</span> -Tribunal for determining the terms of employment in the -Civil Service for all grades and sections under £500 a year. -Before this tribunal, whose awards were definitively authoritative, -the representatives of any association could appear -as plaintiffs, those of the Treasury appearing always as -defendants. Finally, after the promulgation in 1917 of the -“Whitley Report,” which the Government, in impressing -on other employers, found itself constrained to adopt in its -own establishments, there was established during 1919 an -elaborate series of joint councils (including even the civil -departments of the War Office and the Admiralty) for -particular branches of establishments; for whole departments, -and for whole grades of the service throughout all -departments, in which equal numbers of persons nominated -by the employees’ associations, and of superior officers -chosen by the Government, representing the management, -meet periodically to discuss on equal terms questions of -office organisation, professional training, conditions of -service, methods of promotion, and what not. -<a id="FNanchor_614" href="#Footnote_614" class="fnanchor">[614]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_510">[Pg 510]</span></p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Miners</span></h3> - -<p>The outstanding feature of the Trade Union world between -1890 and 1920 has been the growing predominance, -in its counsels and in its collective activity, of the organised -forces of the coal-miners. Right down to 1888, as we have -seen, the coal-miners of England, Scotland, and Wales, -though sporadically forming local associations and now and -again engaging in fierce conflicts with their employers, first -in this coalfield and then in that, had failed to maintain -any organisation of national scope. Though their representatives -participated from time to time in the general -activities of the Trade Union Movement, and sat in the -Trades Union Congress; though with the guidance of W. P. -Roberts in the ’forties, and under the successive leadership -of Alexander Macdonald and Thomas Burt in the ’sixties -and ’seventies, they exercised intermittently a considerable -influence on its Parliamentary action—the miners, for the -most part, kept to themselves, framed their own policy, and -fought their own battles, in which, owing to an apparently -incurable “localism,” their success was not commensurate -with their strength. The change came with the growing -dissatisfaction with the policy of the Sliding Scale. This -device for making the rate of wages vary in proportion to -the selling price of coal, the adoption of which between -1874 and 1880—against the wish of Alexander Macdonald, -and contrary to the advice of such friends as Professor -Beesly and Lloyd Jones—we have already described, produced -in the ’eighties an ever-increasing discontent. In -1881 the miners of Yorkshire merged their two Unions of -South and West Yorkshire into the Yorkshire Miners’ -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_511">[Pg 511]</span> -Association, which began its successful career by terminating -the local Sliding Scale agreement, and resolutely refused all -future attempts to make wages depend on selling prices. -The Lancashire and Cheshire Miners’ Federation, a less well-organised -body, presently followed its example. In 1885 -a Midland Federation was formed by a number of smaller -local associations for the purpose both of abolishing the -Sliding Scale and of promoting the movement for an Eight -Hours Day by legislative enactment. Three years later, at -a conference at Manchester, the associations of Yorkshire, -Lancashire and Cheshire, the Midlands, and Fifeshire, with -a nascent local organisation in South Wales, established the -Miners’ Federation of Great Britain.<a id="FNanchor_615" href="#Footnote_615" class="fnanchor">[615]</a> The aggregate membership -of all these bodies was amazingly small—at the -start only 36,000—but the new Federation had, from the -first, a definite policy and great driving force. Outside it -there remained the solid and numerically strong Durham -Miners’ Association and the Northumberland Miners’ Mutual -Confident Association, which (together with a surviving -remnant of the Amalgamated Association in South Staffordshire, -and the purely nominal Sliding Scale Associations -which then characterised most of the South Wales coalfield) -still clung together as the National Union. It was the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_512">[Pg 512]</span> -National Union which played the leading part in securing -reforms in the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887, which -firmly established the checkweigher in practically every -colliery of any importance. But this was its last constructive -effort. Its subsequent history is little more than -the long-drawn-out resistance of the able and respected -leaders of the Northumberland and Durham miners to the -new ideas of Labour policy which were, as we have described, -becoming dominant in the Trades Union Congress, -and which were from the first adopted, if not by all the -leaders, at least by the successive delegate conferences of -the Miners’ Federation.</p> - -<p>The establishment of the Federation coincided with a -period of rapid expansion in the coal-mining industry. The -number of persons employed rose considerably year after -year, and Trade Unionism spread rapidly among them. An -effective local organisation was built up in district after -district, everywhere based on the autonomy in local concerns -of the “lodge” or branch, consisting of the workers -at a given colliery, and governed by mass meetings of the -members, who elect a committee, which usually meets at -least weekly. But although the National Union declined -steadily in influence, it took twenty years to bring all the -district associations into the Miners’ Federation, the aggregate -membership of which did not reach 200,000 until 1893, -and seven years later was still only 363,000. Even so, the -miners were, as we described them in 1892, in some ways -the most effectively organised of the industrial groups into -which we divided the Trade Union world of that date. -With the adhesion of Northumberland and Durham in 1908, -when the National Union came finally to an end, the membership -of the Federation rose to nearly 600,000, whilst the -next twelve years’ growth of the industry, and the inclusion -of a large proportion of the sectional unions among different -grades of mine-workers,<a id="FNanchor_616" href="#Footnote_616" class="fnanchor">[616]</a> have brought it in 1920 to nearly -900,000.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_513">[Pg 513]</span></p> -<p>Meanwhile issue was joined by the mine-owners, who -insisted everywhere in 1893 on considerable reductions in -the wage-rates, on the plea that selling prices had fallen. -The great strike that followed involved 400,000 men, and -lasted from July to November. In the end the men had -to submit to reductions, though they gained the important -point of the practical though not explicit recognition of a -minimum below which there was to be no fall. The next -great achievement of the Federation was the carrying into -law of the Eight Hours Bill, which, mainly owing to the -opposition of the leaders of the Northumberland and Durham -Miners, was not accomplished until 1908; and their -influence in improving the Mines Regulation Act of 1911. -Their third success, the outcome of a decade of successful -organisation and intellectual leadership by Mr. Robert -Smillie, who since 1912 has been annually elected to the -presidency, was attained only at the cost of the greatest -industrial struggle that Great Britain had yet experienced.</p> - -<p>The national strike of miners in 1912, when practically -every mine was stopped, and nearly a million miners suspended -work for more than a month, arose out of the failure -of the colliery companies to make adequate provision for -repeated cases of individual hardship and injustice. The -piecework rates of the hewers or getters of coal might be -satisfactorily adjusted to the agreed day-wage standard of -the district, though the arrangements for this adjustment -vary from district to district, and even from mine to mine, -and are very far from complete or satisfactory. But what -was to happen when, from circumstances beyond his own -control, the miner found himself unable to get enough coal -to produce a subsistence wage? If he is assigned an -“abnormal place”—where the seam is thin or crushed -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_514">[Pg 514]</span> -into small coal (for which, in South Wales, the hewer is -not paid at all); or where exceptional timbering is required -to prevent dangerous falls; or where there is much “stone” -or water: or if, in “normal places,” the colliery management -does not keep him regularly supplied with “trams” -or “tubs” into which to load the coal; or with a sufficient -provision of timber for props and sleepers; or of rails—no -amount of skill, strength, or assiduity will prevent -his earnings from falling away, it may be to next to nothing. -What had long been customary was, in some coalfields, -the casting of lots for “places,” and thus a periodical -exchange of opportunities; and in others the granting -of an allowance, or “consideration,” to hewers who complained -of insufficient earnings. These allowances were -granted irregularly, without the protection of Collective -Bargaining, with insufficient provision for ensuring the -avoidance of injustice; and it is not now denied that, in -some collieries, particularly in South Wales, the owners -resorted to the simple expedient of restricting the manager -to a fixed maximum sum each “measuring-up day,” irrespective -of the number and extent of the men’s reasonable -claims. These sums, moreover, were much reduced in -times of bad trade, when profits were at a minimum, -especially in collieries which were actually working at a loss. -The agitation for securing a prescribed minimum of daily -earnings for all the piece-workers continued for a whole -decade without much result, producing not a few local -stoppages, especially in South Wales. These flared up, in -the latter part of 1910, in the Aberdare and Rhondda -valleys, into an almost continuous series of disputes. The -Miners’ Federation found itself compelled in July 1911 to -take the matter up as a national question; and a ballot of -its whole membership decided for a national strike if the -universal adoption of the principle of a prescribed daily -minimum, not merely for hewers but for all grades, was not -conceded. The owners quibbled and eventually refused; -and after a further ballot a national strike was decided on, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_515">[Pg 515]</span> -which the Government negotiations failed to avert, and -which, after long and repeated notice, began at the end of -February 1912, and rapidly extended to practically every -colliery in the kingdom. As neither the employers nor the -workmen would give way, the Government then announced -its intention of introducing a Bill to provide for the payment, -to all underground workers in the mine, not of the prescribed -minimum rates which the several districts had formulated, -nor yet of the overriding national minima of 5s. for a man -and 2s. for a boy which were being demanded, but of district -minima, to be prescribed in each coalfield by a Joint Board -of employers and workmen, presided over by an impartial -chairman. These provisions were bitterly opposed, not only -by the coal-owners, who objected to any legal minimum, -but also by the workmen’s representatives in the House of -Commons, who demanded a prescribed national minimum; -but they were carried into law by substantial majorities. -The Federation Executive was perplexed as to the line to -take, as half the membership wanted to carry on the struggle; -but it was eventually decided to give the Act and the Joint -Boards a chance, and the strike was declared at an end. -The district minima and the rules applicable thereto had, -in most cases, to be decided by the impartial chairmen; -and they varied considerably from district to district, being -usually a little less than the workmen had claimed. But -when the working of the system was understood, and it -was got smoothly into operation, it was recognised that the -Miners’ Federation had achieved a very substantial victory. -The miners had brought to their aid, in enforcing the payment -of a periodically prescribed Minimum Day Wage to -all underground workers, the strong arm of the law—not, -it is true, as under the Mines Regulation Acts and the -Factory and Workshop Acts, the criminal law, enforced by -Government inspectors and prosecutions, but the civil law -of contract, which they could themselves enforce by actions -in the County Court. What the Federation extorted from -the Government and the Legislature was “an extraordinary -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_516">[Pg 516]</span> -piece of hastily prepared legislation rushed through Parliament -in the shadow of an unprecedented national calamity.”<a id="FNanchor_617" href="#Footnote_617" class="fnanchor">[617]</a> -It has been found by experience that this Act, which is -nominally only temporary, does secure to the hewers a -substantial minimum of day wages, however unremunerative -their conditions of work; and the fixing of rates by -the Joint Boards has, on the whole, considerably increased -the wages of the various grades of the less skilled workers. -But more important than these immediate results was -the demonstration and the consolidation of the national -strength of the Miners’ Federation itself; and the respect -which its great power henceforth secured for it, alike in -the Trade Union Movement, with the employers, and at the -hands of the Government and the House of Commons.</p> - -<p>The miners’ organisations were fully occupied for a year -or two in putting into operation the Act of 1912, and in -enforcing the determinations of the Joint Boards. But in -1913 the delegate conference made a new move in authorising -the Executive Committee to enter into relations with -other Trade Unions with a view to joint action for mutual -assistance. A formal alliance had been made between the -Miners’ Federation, the National Union of Railwaymen, and -the Transport Workers’ Federation—commonly referred to -as the Triple Alliance—when everything was suddenly -changed by the breaking out of the Great War. The 1500 -colliery companies and individual colliery owners, most -of whom are united in the Mining Association of Great -Britain, as well as in district associations, have, throughout, -steadfastly refused to meet the Miners’ Federation for the -negotiation of any national agreement, or the concession -of national advances; although there has long been elaborate -machinery for negotiation in each district.</p> - -<p>During the four and a quarter years that the world -conflict lasted (1914-18), the miners, like the rest of -the British working class, patriotically subordinated their -interests to those of the nation as a whole. They volunteered -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_517">[Pg 517]</span> -for military service in such numbers that they had -to be forbidden to leave the mines, and numbers of them -were sent back from the armies in order to maintain the -output of coal. Where, as in Durham, they had agreements -securing them advances of wages in proportion to the rise -in the selling price, they forewent these advances; and they -contented themselves everywhere with less substantial -percentages of rise in rates, and with the two successive -war bonuses of eighteen pence a day each—much below the -rise in the cost of living—which the Government accorded -to them in 1917 and 1918. With the cessation of hostilities -at the end of 1918, as the cost of living continued to advance, -the Miners’ Federation (which had elected for its new -secretary a young South Wales miner, Mr. Frank Hodges, -who had educated himself at Labour Colleges; and had -also converted its presidency into a full-time salaried post, -and for the first time acquired an office in London) again -took up the forward movement which it had been concerting -five years before; and in February 1919, after balloting its -whole membership, and giving elaborate notice, it demanded -from the employers a general advance of wages of 30 per -cent, the reduction of the hours of labour by an average -of one-fourth (the nominal Eight Hours Day to be made -a nominal Six Hours Day), and—most momentous of all—the -elimination of the profit-making capitalist from the -industry by the Nationalisation of the Mines, for which -the Trades Union Congress had been vainly asking for -over twenty years. As the railwaymen and the transport -workers were at the same time in negotiation for improvements -in their condition, there seemed, in March 1919, -every prospect of the outbreak of a general strike on a -scale even greater than that of 1912, the “Triple Alliance” -uniting a membership of more than a million and a half, -and wielding in combination the adult male labour of -something like one-sixth of the whole nation. The Government, -which was still, under war powers, directing both -the mines and the railways, responded by the offer of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_518">[Pg 518]</span> -a Statutory Commission, under a Judge of the High Court, -with practically unlimited powers of investigation and -recommendation; at the same time giving the Federation -publicly to understand that, whilst a strike would be suppressed -with all the powers of the State, the recommendations -of the Commission would be accepted by the Cabinet. -The conference of the Miners’ Federation spent many hours -in deliberation. A large section of the delegates was for an -immediate strike. The men had, indeed, an extraordinarily -advantageous strategic position. The nation’s stocks of -coal were at a minimum, London having only three days’ -supply in hand. Ultimately the advice of the leaders -prevailed; and it was decided to postpone the withdrawal -of labour for three weeks, and to take part in the Statutory -Commission, on the express condition that this body presented -an Interim Report within that time; and—most -revolutionary of all—that the Federation should be allowed -to nominate to the Commission, not only three of its own -members to balance the three coal-owners who had been -informally designated by the Mining Association of Great -Britain, but also three out of the six professedly disinterested -members, so as to balance the three capitalists whom the -Government had already chosen as representing the principal -industries dependent on the supply of coal at a moderate -price. To these terms the Prime Minister acceded. The -Miners’ Federation, setting a new precedent of far-reaching -effect, thereupon nominated, along with its President, Vice-president, -and Secretary, not three other workmen, but -three economists and statisticians belonging to the Fabian -Society, known to them by their lectures and writings.</p> - -<p>The proceedings of this Commission, which sat daily in -public in the King’s Robing-Room at the House of Lords, -created an immense sensation. Instead of the Trade Union, -it was the management of the industry that was put upon -its trial. The large profits of the industry under war -conditions were revealed, and especially the enormous gains -of the most advantageous mines; and although the Government -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_519">[Pg 519]</span> -itself had benefited through the Excess Profits’ -Duty by 50, 60, and eventually 80 per cent of these gains, -it became apparent to every one that, but for this abstraction, -the price of coal might have been reduced and the -miners’ conditions improved to an extent never before -suspected. It was seen, too, that it was the separate -ownership of the mines which stood in the way of the -national sharing of the advantages of the best among them. -The chaotic state of the industry, with 1500 separately -working joint-stock companies operating at very different -costs—with no co-ordination of production, and with -extremely wasteful arrangements for transport and retail -distribution—was vividly presented. At the same time -the unsatisfactory conditions under which the miners lived -were impressively demonstrated, the scandalously bad -housing of the mining community in Lanarkshire and elsewhere -making a national sensation. Prompt to the -appointed day the Commission presented three Reports. -The three mine-owners proposed no improvement in the -organisation of the industry, and offered an advance of -eighteen pence a day and a reduction of hours by one per -day, being only half what was demanded. The six representatives -of the miners presented a long and reasoned -justification of the men’s case; arguing that, with a unification -of the industry in national ownership, with the -adoption in all the mines of the mechanical improvements -already in use in the best-managed among them, with a -more carefully concerted transport system, and with a -municipal organisation of retail distribution, it was practicable -to concede the men’s full claim of 30 per cent advance -and a two hours’ shortening of the working day without any -increase in the price of coal to the consumer. The Chairman -of the Commission presented a third report, intermediate -in its tenour, in which he was joined by the three -disinterested capitalist members, proposing an immediate -advance of two shillings per day, or 20 per cent, and an -immediate reduction of one hour per day, with a promise -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_520">[Pg 520]</span> -of a further reduction by an hour in 1920, if the condition -of the industry warranted it. With regard to nationalisation, -this Report declared that, as there had not been sufficient -time to investigate the proposal, the Commission would -continue its sittings, and promptly present a further report; -but that it was plain, even on the evidence so far submitted, -that the present system stood condemned, and that some -other system must, by national purchase of the mines, be -substituted for it—either State administration, or some plan -by which the mines could be placed under a joint control in -which the miners would share. This impressive declaration -by the judicial Chairman, supported by the three capitalist -members who were not mine-owners, made a great public -sensation. The Cabinet immediately accepted the Chairman’s -Report, pledging itself to carry it out “in the letter -and in the spirit.” The Miners’ Federation hesitated, but -ultimately, in consideration of the offer of an immediate -further examination of nationalisation, in the light of -Mr. Justice Sankey’s significant findings, decided to ballot -its members, who, to the great relief of the public, by large -majorities agreed to accept the Government proposal.</p> - -<p>The Coal Industry Commission accordingly continued -its sittings, now concentrating upon the issue of Nationalisation -and the participation of the miners in control. The -dramatic feature of the inquiry was the summoning of -a succession of peers and other magnates owning mining -royalties to the witness-chair, there to explain to the Commission -and the public, under the sharp cross-examination -of the Miners’ Federation officials, how they or their -ancestors had become possessed of these property rights, -how much they yielded in each case, and what social -service the recipients performed for their huge incomes. -Much evidence was taken for and against State administration. -Within a couple of months of almost incessant daily -sittings this indefatigable Commission presented its further -Report, again hopelessly divided. On the question of -ownership of minerals, indeed, the whole thirteen Commissioners -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_521">[Pg 521]</span> -were unanimous—a momentous decision—in -recommending that the royalty owners should be at once -expropriated in favour of the State. All thirteen Commissioners -were unanimous, too, in recommending the -admission of the workmen to some degree of participation -in the management by Pit and District Committees. But -there the Commissioners’ agreement ended. What was -significant was that not the miners’ representatives only, -but eight out of the thirteen (including the Chairman) -reported in favour of expropriating all the existing colliery -companies and other coal-owners. The Chairman, supported -(in general terms and subject to additional suggestion) -by the six miners’ representatives, proposed an -elaborate scheme of Nationalisation, with administration -under a Minister of Mines by joint District Councils and -Pit Committees, in which the men would be largely represented. -The other expropriating Commissioner preferred -to vest the mines in a series of District Coal Corporations -of capitalist shareholders, limited as to dividend, and -working under public control, with a restricted participation -of the men in the administration. Five Commissioners, -including all three coal-owners, whilst agreeing to the -Nationalisation of Minerals, refused to contemplate any -substantial change in the working of the mines, least of -all any effective sharing of the workmen in the administration; -though even this capitalist minority gave lip-homage -to the principle by recommending the formation of purely -Advisory Pit and District Committees.</p> - -<p>The Government, which had continued in administrative -and financial control of all the collieries of the United -Kingdom, whilst agreeing to adopt, in the spirit and in the -letter, the terms of Mr. Justice Sankey’s first Report, took -no steps to bring it into effect, and left the local mine-owners -and miners’ Unions to adjust for themselves the hours and -new rates of pay which it involved. Suddenly, a few weeks -before the new arrangements were to come into force, the -Coal Controller issued an order that no increase of rates was to -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_522">[Pg 522]</span> -exceed 10 per cent—a patent blunder, as it was the average -reduction of output that Mr. Justice Sankey had estimated -at 10 per cent, and it was the actual reduction in each -district that had to be compensated for. The Yorkshire -Miners’ Association had almost completed its arrangements -with the Yorkshire mine-owners for a higher percentage of -increase when the Government prohibition was received. -The result was an angry strike which stopped the whole -Yorkshire coalfield for several weeks, and spread to Nottinghamshire. -In the end the Government had to withdraw -its mistaken prohibition; and the increase of rates, in -Yorkshire as elsewhere, was, as the miners had asked, made -as nearly as possible proportionate to the expected local -reduction in output caused by the reduction of hours. The -hasty action on both sides and the misunderstandings due -to imperfect knowledge, or imperfect expression, lost the -nation some four million tons of coal, and cost the Yorkshire -Miners’ Association about £356,000.</p> - -<p>In October 1919 Mr. Lloyd George announced that whilst -the Government would propose the nationalisation of -mining royalties, and some-undefined “trustification” of -the mines by districts, there would be no adoption of Mr. -Justice Sankey’s Report. The Miners’ Federation refused -to accept anything in the nature of capitalist “trustification,” -and called in vain on the Government to fulfil its -pledge to carry out the Report. In December 1919 the -Federation, in conjunction with the Labour Party, the -Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, -and the Co-operative Union, began a campaign of propaganda -in favour of the Nationalisation of the Coal Supply, -the effect of which, industrially and politically, has yet to -become manifest. We have to break off the story in the middle -of a critical period.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Railwaymen</span></h3> - -<p>Another great industry, that of the operating staff of -the railway system—scarcely mentioned in the first edition -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_523">[Pg 523]</span> -of our <i>History</i>—has come forcibly to the front. Right down -to the end of the nineteenth century, indeed, the railway -guards and signalmen, engine-drivers and firemen, shunters -and porters, mechanics and labourers—though they -numbered something like 5 per cent of all the male manual-working -wage-earners—played hardly any part in the -Trade Union Movement. Scattered in small numbers all over -the country, and divided among themselves by differences -of grade, conditions, and pay, they long seemed incapable -of organisation as a vocation. For a whole generation -after the establishment of railways no one appears to -have thought Trade Unionism any more permissible among -their employees than among the soldiers or the police. In -1865 an attempt to establish “The Railway Working Men’s -Provident Benefit Society”—which soon became virtually -a Trade Union—by Charles Bassett Vincent, a clerk in the -Railway Clearing House, was ruthlessly crushed by summary -dismissals. In the same year an Association of Engine-drivers -and Firemen on the North-Eastern Railway actually -started a strike, but perished of the attempt. Not until -the end of 1871 was a lasting Trade Union established, and -then only by the assistance of Michael Bass, M.P., a large -railway shareholder, by whose long-continued and entirely -disinterested financial and other help the Amalgamated -Society of Railway Servants struggled into being, with -Frederick Evans as its first effective secretary. Other -societies followed, of local or sectional character; but even -in 1892, after twenty years of organisation, and various -abortive strikes, there were fewer than 50,000 railwaymen -in any sort of Trade Union, or less than one in seven of the -persons employed. -<a id="FNanchor_618" href="#Footnote_618" class="fnanchor">[618]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_524">[Pg 524]</span></p> - -<p>The objects of such railwaymen’s societies as existed -were for many years confined to the protection of members -from “victimisation” or other tyranny; to the provision -of friendly benefits; and to spasmodic attempts to get -accidents prevented or compensated for, and hours of -labour reduced. Wages questions took up little of the -attention of the railway Unions of these years; but strikes -on particular railways—sometimes of particular grades or -at particular centres only of a single railway—now and then -occurred; usually in resentment of some act of tyranny, -or against some specially oppressive hours of labour, and -often without the prior approval of the Executive Committee. -In 1890 the Amalgamated Society for the first time launched -an aggressive policy, mainly as regards the hours of labour, -which were indeed scandalous.<a id="FNanchor_619" href="#Footnote_619" class="fnanchor">[619]</a> A prolonged strike for -a shorter working day on the Scottish lines at Christmas -1890 ended in failure, and the merging of the remnant of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_525">[Pg 525]</span> -the Scottish Society of Railway Servants in the larger -Union. But it aroused public attention and led to an -effective exposure by a Select Committee of the House of -Commons in 1891-92. As a result the Board of Trade was -given certain statutory powers in 1893 to remedy this -tyranny—powers of which, unfortunately, little use was -made. Not for nine years afterwards did the Board of -Trade even call upon the railway companies for a return -showing in how many cases men were kept on duty in excess -of twelve hours at a stretch. Four-fifths of the railwaymen -were still outside the ranks of Trade Unionism and could -therefore be both oppressed by their employers and flouted -by the Government Department. Their very right to -combine was denied. Sir George Findlay, the General -Manager of the London and North-Western Railway, voiced -the common opinion of the Companies when he declared -that “you might as well have a Trade Union or an ‘Amalgamated -Society’ in the Army, where discipline has to be kept -at a very high standard, as have it on railways.”</p> - -<p>In December 1896, indeed, a determined attempt was -made to root out Trade Unionism in Sir George Findlay’s -own railway company by the dismissal of men discovered -to be Trade Unionists. Through the activity of the Society -these victims found influential friends, who by public and -private pressure compelled their reinstatement. The excitement -caused by this incident had some share in swelling the -membership of the Amalgamated Society, which doubled -its numbers during the year 1897; and made its first big -stride in the “All Grades Movement” in that year. Previous -movements had been local and sectional, and nearly always -in the interests of particular grades. For the first time all -the railway companies were approached simultaneously, -with a request for improvements in all grades from one end -of the service to the other—a reduction of the time of duty, -so as to bring the working day down to ten, and for some -grades eight hours; extra payments for overtime, and a -uniform advance of 2s. per week for all grades except those -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_526">[Pg 526]</span> -for whom an eight hours day was sought. The Companies -refused even to consider this very moderate request, and -nearly a decade was to pass—a decade of slow building up -of the organisation, first under Mr. Richard Bell and Mr -J. E. Williams, and then under Mr. J. H. Thomas—before -the Trade Unions of railwaymen were able to compel a -hearing for their case. -<a id="FNanchor_620" href="#Footnote_620" class="fnanchor">[620]</a></p> - -<p>Meanwhile the Amalgamated Society of Railway -Servants, and with it the whole Trade Union Movement, -suffered in the law courts a temporary set-back. An impulsive -strike on the Taff Vale Railway in South Wales, -accompanied by extensive and successful picketing, was not -countenanced by the Executive, but was eventually endorsed -by its decision to take up the men’s case; and the -Railway Company sued the Society for the loss occasioned -by what were alleged to be the unlawful acts of its officers. -To the surprise of the lawyers, as well as of the public, the -judges held that—in spite of what had seemed the explicit -provisions of the Trade Union Acts of 1871-76—a Trade -Union could be made answerable in damages for all the acts -of its officials, central or local, as if it were a corporate body, -whilst still being denied the privileges of a corporate body. -The strike and legal proceedings cost the Society from first -to last nearly £50,000, whilst the danger to the corporate -funds of all Trade Unions that the decision revealed put a -damper on even the best justified strikes until, under persistent -Trade Union pressure, strengthened by the entry -into the House of Commons of a reinforced Labour Party, -the Trade Disputes Act of 1906 restored the law to its -state prior to the judicial decisions of 1902.</p> - -<p>The railwaymen could then renew their “All Grades -Movement” which the Companies in January 1907 again -declined to consider, steadfastly refusing any recognition -of the men’s Trade Unions, and callously denying their -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_527">[Pg 527]</span> -grievances.<a id="FNanchor_621" href="#Footnote_621" class="fnanchor">[621]</a> Ballots of the membership of the Amalgamated -Society and the General Union decided on a strike -by 80,026 to 1857 votes, and in November 1907 a national -stoppage was at hand when Mr. Lloyd George intervened -as President of the Board of Trade, compelled the Companies -to listen to reason, and persuaded both parties to -accept an elaborate scheme of Local and Central Conciliation -Boards, composed of equal numbers representing management -and men, with an impartial chairman and authority -to decide on wages and hours. These Conciliation Boards, -unsatisfactory as they proved, represented a real triumph. -For the first time the autocracy of the railway management -was broken. There was, it is true, still no express recognition -of the Trade Unions, but the men’s representatives were -to be freely elected on each railway by all the employees -grouped according to their grades; and these elected -representatives met the management on professedly equal -terms. The elections showed how thoroughly justified was -the claim of the Railwaymen’s Trade Unions that they were -voicing the wishes of practically the whole body of railwaymen. -In spite of strenuous efforts by the management on -most of the lines, and of the unfortunate jealousies among -the different societies, in nearly all cases the nominees of -one or other of the Unions were elected, often by large -majorities. For the next few years the Amalgamated Society -and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_528">[Pg 528]</span> -Firemen were busy in fighting the cases of the various grades -through the Conciliation Boards, and in securing thereby -many small increases of wages and reductions of hours. -But matters did not go smoothly. The Companies, for the -most part, pursued a policy of obstruction and postponement, -delaying the awards, quibbling about their application, -and in some cases deliberately evading their terms, notably -by inventing new grades to which men could be appointed -at lower rates of pay than those prescribed. The “impartial” -chairmen, moreover, differed among themselves -in the assumptions on which they proceeded, and some of -the awards caused great resentment. Meanwhile the cost -of living was steadily rising, and railwaymen as a whole -were falling further behind other organised workers. Progress -was delayed in 1909-10 by a new set-back which the -Amalgamated Society suffered in the law courts, in the -prolonged litigation carried by one of its members, with -capitalist assistance, right up to the House of Lords, by -which the participation of any Trade Union in political -activity was declared invalid—a piece of “judge-made -law” to which we shall recur, and for which the Government -and Parliament at first refused all redress. Suddenly, in -August 1911, the pot boiled over. There was a spirit of -revolt in the Labour world. In June and July the seamen -and the dockers had struck, and stopped the port of London. -There was an outburst of “unauthorised” railway strikes -at Manchester, Liverpool, and some other big towns, and a -general demand for a national strike. The Executives of -the four principal railwaymen’s Unions, for once acting -closely in concert, gave the Companies twenty-four hours -to decide whether they would consent to meet the men’s -representatives, or face a national stoppage. Once more -the Government intervened, Mr. Asquith offering a Royal -Commission of indefinite duration and issue, merely to propose -amendments in the scheme of Conciliation Boards, and -at the same time definitely informing the men—a fact which -they judiciously refrained from publishing—that the Government -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_529">[Pg 529]</span> -would not hesitate to use the troops to prevent the -commerce of the country from being interfered with.<a id="FNanchor_622" href="#Footnote_622" class="fnanchor">[622]</a> The -Unions refused the illusory offer, and a national strike -began, which, although far from universal, was sufficient -to disorganise the whole railway service—as many as -200,000 men stopping work—and was rapidly bringing -industry to a standstill. At the instance of Mr. Winston -Churchill, who was then Home Secretary, an overpowering -display was made with the troops, which were sent to -Manchester and other places, without requisition by the -civil authorities, at the mere request of the Companies. In -fact, a policy of repression had been decided on, and bloodshed -was near at hand. In vain did the Union leaders ask -Mr. Asquith, as Prime Minister, to take steps to obtain a -meeting between the Companies’ managers and the Union -representatives. Wiser counsels seem to have prevailed in -the Cabinet, which peremptorily instructed the Companies -to let their General Managers meet the men’s representatives -face to face at the Board of Trade. For just upon twelve -hours these managers, thus coerced, negotiated with four -representatives of the Unions, together with Mr. Henderson -and Mr. J. R. MacDonald of the Parliamentary Labour -Party. At last an agreement was made—the first ever -concluded between the Railway Companies as a whole and -the Trade Unions of their employees—for an ending of the -strike, on terms of complete reinstatement of the strikers; -an immediate consideration by the Conciliation Boards of -all grievances; and a prompt investigation by a bipartite -Royal Commission of the dissatisfaction with these Boards, -and the best way of amending the scheme.<a id="FNanchor_623" href="#Footnote_623" class="fnanchor">[623]</a> When the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_530">[Pg 530]</span> -Commission reported—it was ultimately termed a Special -Committee of Inquiry—the Railwaymen’s Union once more -asked the Companies to meet them for negotiation, which -the Companies again refused to do. On the Unions resolving -to ballot their members as to a national strike, the House -of Commons set a new precedent by passing, at the instance -of the Government, a resolution formally recommending a -joint meeting, whereupon the Companies gave way. At the -meeting that ensued a new scheme of Conciliation Boards -was jointly agreed to, amending the 1907 scheme generally -on the line of the Special Committee’s report, but introducing -most of the other modifications that the Unions -thought necessary. The machinery was made more rapid -in action, and the scope of the Boards was extended. Most -important of all, the men’s side of each Board was allowed -to choose as secretary a person not in the employ of the -Company; and it accordingly became possible for a Trade -Union official to take up this work, and that not only for -a single grade but, by acting for several Boards, simultaneously -for all grades. This was not “recognition” in form, -but at any rate the Trade Union official was let in. During -the next two years, in spite of incredible obstructions, -quibblings, and evasions by the Companies, a number of -small improvements in the terms of service were obtained -from the Boards for all the grades on practically all the lines. -A result of this joint working of even greater importance -was the merging, in 1913, after prolonged negotiations, of -three out of the four principal societies of manual railway -workers<a id="FNanchor_624" href="#Footnote_624" class="fnanchor">[624]</a>—the Amalgamated, the General Union, and the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_531">[Pg 531]</span> -United Pointsmen and Signalmen—into a new Trade Union -upon a carefully revised basis, under the title of the -National Union of Railwaymen.</p> - -<p>The “New Model” for Trade Union structure thus -deliberately adopted merits attention. In contrast with -what we have called the “New Model,” in 1851 of the -Amalgamated Society of Engineers, that of 1913 represents -an attempt to include, in a single “amalgamated” Union, -all the various “crafts” and grades of workers engaged in -a single industry throughout the whole kingdom. The -declared object of the National Union of Railwaymen is -“to secure the complete organisation of all workers -employed on or in connection with any railway in the -United Kingdom.” It thus definitely negatives both -“sectionalism” and “localism” in favour of “Industrial -Unionism.” Indeed, it may be suggested that the new -constitution passes, by definition, even beyond the “Industrial -Unionism,” to which the most advanced section of -Trade Unionists were aspiring, into what has been termed -“Employmental Unionism,” in that it seeks to enrol in one -Union, not merely all sections of railway workers, but -actually all who are employed by any railway undertaking—thus -including, not only the engineering and wood-working -mechanics in the railway engineering workshops,<a id="FNanchor_625" href="#Footnote_625" class="fnanchor">[625]</a> but also -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_532">[Pg 532]</span> -the cooks, waiters, and housemaids at the fifty-five railway -hotels; the sailors and firemen on board the railway companies’ -fleets of steamers, and (though no trouble has -actually arisen about them) the compositors, lithographers, -and bookbinders whom the railway printing works employ -in the production of tickets, time-tables, office stationery, and -advertisement posters; even the men whom one, at least, -of the largest companies keeps in constant employment -at the manufacture of crutches and wooden legs for the -disabled members of its staff. This all-inclusiveness has, -since 1913, brought the National Union of Railwaymen -into conflict with many other Trade Unions; and the -question of the proper lines of demarcation has so far -remained unsettled. The principal new feature in constitutional -structure was the establishment of a distinct -legislature—the Annual General Meeting—consisting, in -addition to the President and General Secretary, of sixty -representatives elected by the membership in geographical -constituencies of approximately equal size. Subordinate -to the Annual General Meeting (which can be summoned -specially when required) is the Executive Committee of -the President, General Secretary, and twenty-four other -members, the latter being severally elected by the device -of the Single Transferable Vote by each of four prescribed -departments of members in each of six gigantic geographical -constituencies; one-third of such representatives retiring -annually, and after each triennial term of service, becoming -ineligible for three years, whilst the Branches to which they -belong also become unable to nominate representatives for -a like term. The Executive Committee, which, like the -Annual General Meeting, consists of working railwaymen, -paid only for their days of service, meets quarterly and -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_533">[Pg 533]</span> -appoints four sectional sub-committees, which must also -meet at least quarterly. Noteworthy, too, is the District -Council, which—constitutionally only a voluntary federation -of geographically adjacent Branches for propagandist and -purely consultative purposes—has, with an unofficial -National Federation of District Councils, developed into an -active “caucus” of the more energetic members for discussing -and promoting “forward movements” in the -Annual General Meeting, and “organising” the elections to -the Executive Committee.</p> - -<p>With such a constitution, and the administration of -extensive friendly benefits in a society now approaching -half a million members, it is inevitable that the Executive -Committee should wield extensive powers. It initiates and -conducts all trade movements, and can therefore call a -national strike, even without a ballot vote; and whilst it -may take a ballot vote at any time on any question, the -rules expressly provide that it is not to be bound by the -members’ decision. Originally the Executive Committee -had power also “to settle” any dispute; but this was -withdrawn by resolutions of the Annual General Meetings -of 1915 and 1916, which required all settlements to be -reported to itself for ratification. In practice very large -powers, both of office management and of negotiation, are -necessarily exercised by the six salaried officers, the President, -the General Secretary, and the four Assistant Secretaries, -each of whom is responsible for a separate branch of the -Union’s work. They have, however, not been able to prevent -a series of “unauthorised” strikes, local or sectional in -character.</p> - -<p>At the beginning of 1914 everything pointed to a further -forward movement by the N.U.R. Its Annual General -Meeting cordially accepted the Miners’ proposal to unite -with them and the Transport Workers in the so-called Triple -Alliance. Moreover, its desires now began to go beyond -improvements in wages and hours. Its representatives had, -for twenty years, sometimes moved and always supported -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_534">[Pg 534]</span> -the resolutions of the Trades Union Congress in favour of -the Nationalisation of Railways. In 1913 the Railway -Clerks’ Association had gone a step further, and had asked -also for participation in control. In 1914 the resolution -intended to be submitted on behalf of the N.U.R. declared -that “no system of State Ownership of the railways will be -acceptable to organised railwaymen which does not guarantee -to them their full political and social rights, allow them a due -measure of control and responsibility in the safe and efficient -working of the railway system, and assure to them a fair -and equitable participation in the increased benefits likely -to accrue from a more economical and scientific administration.” -Here we have the first expressions of the desire for -participation in the management of the railways.<a id="FNanchor_626" href="#Footnote_626" class="fnanchor">[626]</a> From -that time forward the demand has become ever more -explicit and determined. Meanwhile, however, the first -step was plainly the drastic amendment of the scheme of -Conciliation Boards; and proposals were under consideration -when war broke out. In marked contrast with their -previous action, the Railway Companies were actually -meeting the Union representatives in a joint committee of -seven a side. The growth in membership of the National -Union of Railwaymen at that date to over 300,000, and -its entry into the “Triple Alliance” of miners, railwaymen, -and transport workers, had, in fact, at last compelled the -Companies, in fact, to concede “recognition,” although they -denied at the time that they were so doing. During the -war the actual alteration of the scheme was to remain in -abeyance, but the Executive Committee came in 1915 to -a provisional agreement with the Companies as to certain -amendments, which the Annual General Meeting of that -year considered inadequate and refused to sanction. Meanwhile, -in view of the rising cost of living, successive war -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_535">[Pg 535]</span> -bonuses, uniform throughout the Kingdom for all grades -of the traffic staff, were obtained from the President of the -Board of Trade—the cost, in effect, falling on the Government -under its arrangement for guaranteeing to the shareholders -the net revenue of 1913—amounting altogether to -33s. per week for men, 16s. 6d. per week for women and -boys, and 8s. 3d. per week for girls, thus more than doubling -the average pre-war wages. The Government, moreover, -promised sympathetic consideration of the men’s demand -for an Eight Hours’ Day immediately on the termination -of the war.</p> - -<p>When the Armistice in November 1918 brought hostilities -to an end, negotiations were at once begun for a settlement -of the outstanding questions. The National Union of -Railwaymen, in more friendly conjunction with the Associated -Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, whilst -gaining advances fully equivalent to the increase in the -cost of living, had secured in principle not only recognition, -but also the valuable right of entering into negotiation -with the united management of all the railways, instead of -always being referred to the several companies; and even -more important, it had obtained, in the uniform war bonuses, -the basis of national rates of wages for the several grades, -instead of rates and classes of workers varying from company -to company. It was now to secure, without an effort, the -Eight Hours’ Day, to come into operation on February 1, -1919, which the Government, not even consulting the Railway -Companies, singly or collectively, in December 1918, -conceded in principle without reduction of wages, whilst the -necessary reclassification of workers and adjustment of -times and wages on a national system became the subject -of prolonged and difficult negotiations between the Railway -Executive Committee and the two principal Unions.</p> - -<p>The negotiations for “standardisation” which necessarily -involved the amalgamation of the uniform war -bonus with the varying basic rate, were dragged out by the -Government from February to the end of August, to the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_536">[Pg 536]</span> -growing irritation of the railwaymen. What occurred, as -Ministers subsequently confessed, or rather boasted, was -that, beginning actually in February, the Government made -extensive secret preparations to break the strike which it -was foreseen would occur when the Government’s decisions -were made known. The railwaymen themselves confidently -expected, seeing that the cost of living had not fallen, but was -officially certified, in September 1919, at 115 per cent above -that of July 1914, that their rates would be “standardised -upwards,” so as both to adopt the scales of the best companies -for all the staff, and to include the whole of the -war bonus. But this automatic inclusion of the war bonus -in the Standard Rate, which some trades had already secured, -was exactly what the leading industrial employers were, for -their own trades, anxious to prevent. They counted, indeed, -on bringing about throughout British industry, during 1919 -or 1920, irrespective of any change in the cost of living, a -general reduction of the “swollen” wages of war-time; and -there was a prevalent feeling among them, which is known -to have been shared by some, at least, of the Ministers, and -quite frankly expressed, that a big “fight with the Trade -Unions” was inevitable, and that it would be “better to -get it over” before industry had generally restarted under -peace conditions. How far Sir Auckland Geddes, who as -President of the Board of Trade was responsible for the -negotiations, and his brother, Sir Eric Geddes, who as -Minister of Transport took over the work, shared this view, -and allowed it to inspire their official action, has not been -revealed. The historian can only note that the Government -proceedings appear consistent with this hypothesis. The -Government deliberately separated from the mass of railwaymen -the locomotive drivers and firemen, whose services -were regarded as specially indispensable, and whose allegiance -was divided between the two rival Unions. In August -acceptable terms were proposed for these two classes, -which conceded not only the absorption of the whole war -bonus in the new scale of wages, but also certain further -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_537">[Pg 537]</span> -increases of pay, coming near to the Union’s full claims. -Such a concession, it was subsequently noted, was admirably -calculated, in the event of a strike, to detach the drivers and -firemen from their fellow-members; to divide the two -Unions, and to arouse expectations in the other grades -which would make it practically certain that they would -indignantly refuse the offer that was to be made in a few -weeks. When the “definite” decision of the Government -was sent to the Union, in a letter in which Sir Auckland -Geddes with his own hand altered the word to “definitive,” -as if in order to ensure an explosion, it was found that by -the new scale, beginning on January 1, 1920, every grade -was to suffer a reduction of existing earnings, varying from -only a shilling or two per week in some cases up to as much -as sixteen shillings per week—the new standard rate of the -porter, for instance, being fixed at 40s., as compared with -the 51s. or 53s. that he was actually receiving, or with the -60s. per week for which the Union had asked. No explanation -was given by the brothers Geddes that what was intended -was that there should be on January 1, 1920, no -reduction whatever in the men’s earnings, and that the -Government’s policy was (as subsequently stated by Mr. -Lloyd George, but only on the very morning of the strike, -which was the first revelation of it) that there should never -be any reduction at all unless the cost of living fell for over -three months below 110 per cent in excess of pre-war prices, -and that (as was announced only in the Government advertisements -on the eighth day of the strike) the future “sliding -scale,” which had never been definitely formulated, would -be allowed to work upwards as well as downwards. Unless -the intention of the “definitive” offer was then and there -to provoke an indignant strike, why was no hint of this -“policy for 1920” included; why was it left to be only -incidentally revealed, in such a way as not to be easily -understood, in the final personal discussion with the Prime -Minister; and, seeing that the Minister of Food himself had -publicly announced that what was probable, from January -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_538">[Pg 538]</span> -1920, was not a fall but a further rise in the cost of living, -why was the alarming suggestion of a reduction to 40s. per -week ever made at all? It is almost impossible to avoid -the inference that the Government, which certainly decided -the date and the issues, decided also the strike itself, with -a view to “beating the Union,” in order to get a free hand -for railway reorganisation without the necessity of consulting -the operatives; in order, probably, to fit in with the -general capitalist project of a scaling down of the “swollen” -war-wages; and, as some say, in order to supply Mr. Lloyd -George with a useful “election stunt,” with which, in the eyes -of the middle class, irretrievably to damage the Labour Party.</p> - -<p>Whether intentionally on the part of the Ministers, or -by reason of an amazing maladroitness in their negotiations, -what had been foreseen and expected by the Government, -and for six months secretly prepared for, actually came to -pass. On Wednesday, September 24, the Executive Council -of the National Union of Railwaymen issued orders for a -national strike to begin at midnight on Friday, September -26, unless countermanded by telegraph. So little had the -Union intended or contemplated such action that absolutely -no notice of the crisis had been given to the Miners’ Federation -or the Transport Workers’ Federation, who were the -railwaymen’s colleagues in the Triple Alliance; and the -Union had only some £3000 available in cash. Efforts were -made by the men to avert the stoppage, which it was -recognised would be a national calamity. The Executive -Council sought and obtained long interviews with the -Prime Minister himself on Thursday, and even on the -Friday morning; and the verbatim reports of these discussions -reveal (<i>a</i>) that the Government showed no inclination -to meet the men’s case—Sir Eric Geddes peremptorily intervening -at one point even to prevent a criticism of the -“definitive” new scale being adduced; (<i>b</i>) that the Government -did not even then set forth what subsequently turned -out to have been the proposal that the Ministry of Transport -had really intended to make (unless, indeed, we are to -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_539">[Pg 539]</span> -assume that the “definitive” offer was silently changed in -the course of the strike). Again, it can only be inferred that -Mr. Lloyd George either did not wish to prevent the strike -or else was quite exceptionally below his usual level of -lucidity in explanation of any scheme that he wished to have -accepted. What the Prime Minister did was immediately -to denounce to the public the National Union of Railwaymen -as engaged in an anarchist conspiracy!</p> - -<p>The nine days’ stoppage that ensued was, in many -respects, the most remarkable industrial conflict that we -have yet seen. Half a million railwaymen left their work at -midnight on the 26th of September, the Associated Society -of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen at once joining -loyally with the N.U.R., and very nearly every member -of either Union coming out. The men on the Irish railways -were directed to remain at work. Never before had there -been so nearly a complete stoppage of the railway service -from one end of Great Britain to the other. It is to be -noted that the third Union, the Railway Clerks’ Association -(which had come to include the Clerical, Administrative, -and Supervisory Staffs), directed its members to remain -absolutely neutral, and not to do any of the strikers’ work. -The various Unions of Post Office employees sought and -obtained an official decision that they were not to be called -upon to do any service hitherto done by men on strike. -The Government, which sent soldiers to guard some of the -railway stations,<a id="FNanchor_627" href="#Footnote_627" class="fnanchor">[627]</a> hastened to announce publicly—in significant -contrast with its decision of 1912—that in no case -would the troops be employed to run trains. For the first -time the Government found itself liable to pay unemployment -benefit to all other workers who were stopped as a -result of the strike; and for the enormous extension of the -State Unemployment Benefit that was expected to be required, -arrangements were promulgated under which the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_540">[Pg 540]</span> -Benefit would be issued by each employer to his own wage-earners, -when these were thrown idle by the strike; and that -whilst such persons might be called upon to take temporary -employment in handling food supplies, they would -not be required to accept service on the railways themselves.</p> - -<p>There was, in spite of wild newspaper exaggerations, -practically no disorder and no attempt to injure property. -Except in a very few cases, in which local mishandling of -the situation by the authorities led to resentment and -misunderstanding, the Executive Council’s order that the -horses were not to be allowed to suffer was cordially acted -on by the men. The Government was allowed, without -attempt at obstruction, to bring at once into operation the -elaborate arrangements it had long been preparing, for -ensuring the regular supply of London and other large -towns with milk and other foodstuffs by means of an extensive -motor-lorry service. Volunteers for railway work -were called for, and with the aid of the small remnant of -non-unionists a tiny trickle of trains was set going, which -provided for the local passenger service in London and some -other cities; and gradually accomplished one or two long-distance -trains per day, which carried the mails and were -crowded with venturous passengers. What stopped almost -completely was the mineral and heavy goods traffic, and -by the end of the week so many industries had come to the -end of their fuel, and so many coalpits were short of waggons -and of room at the pithead, that, whilst nearly 400,000 -workmen in collieries and factories were already idle, the -next week would have seen literally millions unemployed. -Meanwhile, in spite of press reports to the contrary, the -Union Executives knew that, whilst a few men returned to -work, each day more joined the strikers, so that there were -actually a greater number signing the book at the end than -at the beginning of the struggle. But the National Union -of Railwaymen found considerable difficulty in realising -from its investments, and in making locally available at a -couple of thousand centres, sufficient cash to pay immediately -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_541">[Pg 541]</span> -the half a million pounds of strike pay that was -required; and only the prompt and cordial assistance of -the Co-operative Wholesale Society’s printing department, -which got out the necessary supply of cheques in marvellously -quick time, and of the Co-operative Wholesale -Society’s Bank, which made the N.U.R. cheques payable at -the several Co-operative Societies themselves, averted a -breakdown. Food was in some cases refused to the strikers -by shopkeepers; and it may be that it was only the prompt -assistance of the Co-operative Societies, which agreed to -honour vouchers issued by the local strike committees, that -prevented the Government from putting in operation a -project of starving out the railwaymen’s families by withdrawing -their ration cards or withholding the food supplies -under Government control. One blow below the belt the -Government did strike in arbitrarily commanding the -withholding from the strikers of a whole week’s pay which -they had earned by their service prior to the stoppage, and -which it was the custom of the companies always to keep -in hand for a week by way of security against theft or -embezzlement. This had never been done in any previous -railway strike. Whether or not the railwaymen had -broken any legal contract of service by giving only three -days’ notice of their strike, is not clear—the point appears -never to have been raised or decided,—but in any case the -companies had only a right to sue each man for any damages -that might be shown to be caused by such a breach of -contract; and the Government had plainly no legal warrant -for becoming the judge in its own cause, and itself arbitrarily -assessing the damages due from each man at precisely one -week’s earnings. This action, coupled with the evasive -and ever-changing terms of the Government’s wage proposals, -and the campaign of abuse that the Government -organised throughout the press—personally directed by -Sir William Sutherland, one of the Prime Minister’s secretaries—had -a great influence in rallying the Trade Union -world in support of the railwaymen.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_542">[Pg 542]</span></p> - -<p>The “publicity campaign,” by which, for the first time -in an industrial struggle, a persistent organised appeal was -made by both sides to public opinion, was, indeed, the most -remarkable feature of the struggle. At the outset the -Government, in spite of the outspoken advocacy of the -<i>Daily Herald</i>, had it all its own way. The public, seriously -inconvenienced by the stoppage, was told by nearly every -newspaper in the Kingdom—daily supplied by a Government -office with a lengthy bulletin of “Strike News”—that -the strike was the result of an “anarchist” conspiracy -among the railwaymen; that the Union had wantonly -broken off negotiations without cause because it positively -wished to “hold up” the whole community; that the -Government had not really intended any reduction of wages -at all, and that the figure of 40s. had reference only to the -contingency of the cost of living reverting to what it was -before the war; that, in fact, the Government were positively -doubling the railwaymen’s wages, and that the men, -realising this, and discovering how they had been deceived -by their Executive Council, were resuming their duties at all -points. To counteract this Government propaganda, the -<i>Daily Herald</i> made the most enterprising arrangements for -getting its issue distributed all over England, and more than -doubled its circulation, whilst the National Union of Railwaymen -employed its own Publicity Department, utilising -for this purpose the Labour Research Department.<a id="FNanchor_628" href="#Footnote_628" class="fnanchor">[628]</a> A -number of competent writers, cartoonists, and statisticians -belonging to the Labour Party placed their services in this -way at the Research Department’s disposal, so that the -Executive Council was able, within a couple of days, to pour -forth a stream of articles, letters, speeches, and cartoons, for -which the newspapers generally accorded space.<a id="FNanchor_629" href="#Footnote_629" class="fnanchor">[629]</a> Every -move of the Government, and every statement that it issued, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_543">[Pg 543]</span> -was immediately countered by an appropriate answer. When -Mr. Lloyd George supplied a message denouncing the strikers -which appeared on the film in every cinema, Mr. J. H. -Thomas was himself filmed in the act of delivering a cogent -reply. But the Union’s Publicity Department found the -space given by the newspapers inadequate, and started -placing full-page advertisements in the <i>Times</i> and other -newspapers, in which the Government’s equivocations and -evasions as to the wages offered were effectively exposed. -The Government followed suit, and presently the two -advertisements appeared on successive pages, with the -unforeseen result that the Government’s statement of its -proposals to the men was detected in changing from day to -day as the strike continued, growing progressively more -favourable to the men, but professing still to be the “definitive” -decision of Sir Auckland Geddes which had provoked -the strike. The outcome of a week’s skilfully organised -“publicity” was a steady shifting of public opinion, and -even a distinct change in the newspaper editorials. By the -end of the week the men’s case was winning.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile, the leaders of the principal Trade Unions -indirectly affected by the railway stoppage, notably the -various sections of Transport Workers, together with -officials or representatives of the Miners, the Parliamentary -Committee, and the Labour Party, had been meeting in -anxious conclave—summoned, it should be stated, by the -Executive of the National Transport Workers’ Federation—with -a view to restraining their own members from impetuous -action in support of the railwaymen, and to bringing -pressure to bear on both parties to secure a settlement. At -first the prospect seemed hopeless. The Government took -up an attitude of defiance. Mr. Lloyd George declared that -he would not enter into any negotiations with the railwaymen’s -Unions until the men had unconditionally returned -to their duty. A national appeal was made to all the Local -Authorities—not to strengthen the police force by special -constables, as is the constitutional procedure, but to institute -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_544">[Pg 544]</span> -a “Citizen Guard,” in order to repel the forces of -disorder; a wild use of a term of bad omen, which was -calculated, if not intended, to bring the “class war” into -the streets. It was known that measures of arbitrary confiscation -of the Union funds were seriously under consideration, -together with discriminatory issues of food supplies. -On the other side, the feeling of the Trade Unionists was -rising to anger. The position could not well have been -more serious. But the “eleven”—afterwards the “fourteen”—Trade -Union mediators were patient and persistent. -They had long interviews with the railwaymen’s Executive. -They had long discussions with the Prime Minister, the -Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Minister of Transport. -They cleared up misunderstandings. They eliminated provocative -expressions. They brought the Government to -admit that there was no present chance of reducing wages. -They got the railwaymen to see that merely to postpone the -issue was to strengthen their grip upon what they were -actually receiving. Notwithstanding the Government’s -defiant words, the Trade Union mediators got the railwaymen’s -Executive Council into prolonged and repeated discussions -at 10 Downing Street with the Prime Minister and -his colleagues.<a id="FNanchor_630" href="#Footnote_630" class="fnanchor">[630]</a> At last, on Sunday morning, October 3, -Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Thomas were closeted together -for the final stage; the news was immediately flashed all -over the kingdom that the strike was settled, and in the -evening Mr. Thomas announced to a mass meeting of railwaymen -in the Albert Hall the terms of settlement. These -included an immediate resumption of work without victimisation -or recrimination; payment of the impounded arrears -of wages; “stabilisation” of existing earnings of all rates -(except where improved) until September 30, 1920; negotiations -as to “standardisation” and settlement of wage scales -to be begun again, and a settlement to be come to before -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_545">[Pg 545]</span> -December 31, 1919; and the lowest adult railwayman to -be raised forthwith to 51s. per week as a minimum. Before -the end of 1919 it was announced that the Government had -agreed to concede, for the future, that all questions relating -to the conditions of service should be dealt with, not by -the railway companies but by a Central Board of ten members -(with power to increase by a further one on each side), -five nominees of the National Union of Railwaymen and -the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, -and five representatives of the railway management. -In case of disagreement, reference will be made to an Appeal -Board of twelve members, four nominated by these Trade -Unions, four representing the management, and four the -general public, with a chairman nominated by the Government. -What is specially significant is that it is recognised -that “the public” does not consist merely of the upper and -middle, or of the capitalist and professional classes. Of -the four representatives of the public, two are to be nominated, -respectively, by the Associated Chambers of Commerce -and the Federation of British Industries, and two, -respectively, by the Parliamentary Committee of the -Trades Union Congress and the Co-operative Union, who -are thus taken to represent the four-fifths of the population -(and therefore of the railway users) who are manual working -wage-earners. At the same time it was conceded that the -Advisory Committee for Railway Management, which -replaces under the Minister of Transport the Railway -Executive Committee, is to include, from the start, three -representatives of the railwaymen’s Unions, all the members -having equal and identical functions and rights.</p> - -<p>We do not yet know what agreement will be reached -about “standardisation” or the future scale of wages, but -the Ministry of Transport is not likely to try another fall -with the railwaymen’s Trade Unions. The strike has had, -indeed, results of the first importance. The Government -has learnt that Trade Unionism is not easily beaten, even -when all the resources of the State are put forth against it, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_546">[Pg 546]</span> -and when public opinion is incensed. The great capitalist -organisations have seen the warning against their projects -of a general reduction of wages; and this is postponed, at -least, for a year. On the other hand, the railwaymen’s -Unions have realised the magnitude of the struggle into -which they so precipitately entered, or into which they were -so artfully inveigled. The need for, and the potency of, -skilled publicity work, and the possibilities of a highly -organised and adequately supported Labour Research -Department, are commonly recognised. Finally, it is seen -that national industrial conflicts of such a magnitude are -matters of wider concern to the Trade Union world than -any one Union can appreciate; and an attempt was made, -to be subsequently described, if not to continue in existence -the group of “Fourteen Mediators,” at least to get established -some authoritative standing Council, by which the -approach of an impending industrial crisis of national scope -could be closely watched, so that all the necessary steps -may be taken in time to deal with the situation in the best -possible way. The Trade Union world realised its need -for what was called a General Staff.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">Amalgamations and Federations</span></h3> - -<p>Whilst the numerical strength and industrial and political -influence of the several Trade Unions have thus steadily -increased during the past thirty years, it is less easy to -characterise the changes in the relations of Trade Unions -with each other.</p> - -<p>The multiplicity of separate organisations in which the -six or seven million Trade Unionists are grouped, and the -complication and diversity of the relations among the various -societies, continue to-day, as they did thirty years ago, to -baffle classification, and almost to defy analysis. It remains -as impossible as it was in 1890 to state precisely how many -distinct Trade Unions are in existence, because the endless -variety of their federal organisations makes it uncertain which -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_547">[Pg 547]</span> -of the local or sectional Unions are to be counted as independent -societies. We estimate, however, that upon any -computation the number of financially distinct organisations, -which we may put at about 1100, remains approximately -what it was thirty years ago. The tendency to -amalgamation, that is to say, has just about kept pace, -arithmetically, with the starting of new organisations, whilst -the average membership of each unit has more than quadrupled.</p> - -<p>Such a statement fails, however, to do justice to the -change that has come over the Trade Union world. Thirty -years ago it was, on the whole, a congeries of numerically -small units, only two or three of which counted as many as -50,000 members. To-day there are nearly a dozen which -severally manage memberships of a quarter of a million, -and probably fifty which deal with more than 50,000 each. -A few other national societies of smaller membership are -of some importance. Scattered up and down the United -Kingdom a thousand other local or sectional societies exist, -with memberships from a few dozen to a few thousand, but -these play no part and exercise no influence in the movement -as a whole. Probably five-sixths of all the Trade Union -membership, and practically all its effective force, are to be -found among the hundred principal societies to which the -Ministry of Labour has long confined its detailed statistics. -<a id="FNanchor_631" href="#Footnote_631" class="fnanchor">[631]</a></p> - -<p>The movement for the amalgamation of competing -societies has, during the past decade, been specially energetic -and persistent. This has arisen, partly spontaneously, -from the obvious disadvantages attendant both on rivalry -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_548">[Pg 548]</span> -between Trade Unions seeking to enrol the same classes of -members throughout the kingdom—such as that between -the various societies of railway employees—and on the -division of workmen of the same craft among a number of -independent local societies, such as the Coopers, the Chippers -and Drillers, and the Painters and other branches of the -Building Trades. But during the past decade the movement -has been reinforced by the desire for an organisation -based on the whole of an industry, such as engineering, -housebuilding, mining, or the railway service, in which all -the co-operating crafts and grades of workers would be -associated in a single Industrial Union; in contrast with -the earlier conception of the separate organisation of each -craft throughout the whole kingdom; such as that of the -carpenters, the enginemen, the engineering mechanics, the -clerks, and by analogy the general labourers, in whatsoever -industry they may be working. The case for the Industrial -Union in such an industry as mining, for example, merely -from the standpoint of Collective Bargaining, and for the -sake of getting effective Common Rules, has always been a -strong one; but the movement for the substitution of -“Industrial” for “Craft” Unionism has been strengthened -since about 1911 by the aspirations of those who saw in -Trade Unionism something more than an organisation for -raising wages and shortening the working day. If the -wage-earners were ever to obtain, through their own voluntary -associations, the control of their own working lives, -and to obtain a steadily increasing participation in the -direction of industry; if a Vocational Democracy were to -be superimposed on a Democracy based on geographical -constituencies; it seemed as if this could be done only by -Trade Unions co-extensive with each separate industry. -The influence of the movement known as “Guild Socialism” -has accordingly been exercised, on the whole, in favour of -Industrial Unionism, not so much for the sake of its immediate -advantages in improving the conditions of the -wage-contract, as because it was only in this form that -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_549">[Pg 549]</span> -Trade Unionism could become the vehicle of aspirations -to the control of each industry by the whole mass of the -workers employed therein.</p> - -<p>Except in the way of industrial federations, to be hereafter -referred to, it is only in mining and the railway service -that any great progress has been made in this direction. -The Miners’ Federation of Great Britain, established, as -we have seen, only in 1888, with no more than 36,000 -members, has attracted to itself, year by year, an almost -continuous stream of local or sectional organisations among -the 1,200,000 workers in and about the coal and iron-stone -mines; successively absorbing into one or other of its local -units or affiliating directly to itself, not only all the district -associations, old or new, of coal-hewers and other underground -workers, but also some of the separate organisations -of enginemen and firemen, mine mechanics, deputies and -overmen, colliery clerks, cokemen, and others employed in or -about the mines, until its aggregate membership in 1920 is -somewhere about 900,000. And though the Miners’ Federation -is still only a Federation of fully autonomous district -associations—some of these, too, being themselves federations -of the organisations of lesser localities; and although -it still depends for its funds almost entirely upon specific -levies upon its constituents, it has found means, by its -frequently meeting delegate conferences, controlling the -strong Executive Committee which they elect, to centralise -very effectively the general policy of the whole mining -industry, notably with regard to the hours of labour, the -conditions of safety, the percentage of general advances of -wages and the amount of the national war bonuses, and -last, though not least, on the burning issue of nationalisation -of the mines and the participation of the miners in their -administration. But although the Miners’ Federation embodies -in its constitution the principles of federalism and -an extreme local autonomy, it takes no account of sectional -differences, and makes no provision for the representation -at its delegate conferences, or upon its Executive Committee, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_550">[Pg 550]</span> -of any distinct grades or sections. Perhaps, for this reason, -the Federation does not yet speak directly for all the -organised manual working wage-earners in the industry. -There are at least forty separate Trade Unions of enginemen, -boilermen and firemen, colliery mechanics, cokemen, -under-managers, deputies, overmen and other officials, -colliery clerks, and surface-workers of various kinds, not -yet affiliated to the Miners’ Federation, either locally or -nationally; these have formed National Federations, -parallel with the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain, of -enginemen, deputies, colliery mechanics and under-managers -respectively; and in February 1917 seventeen of the -societies drew together to form the National Council of -Colliery Workers other than Miners, for the purpose of -maintaining their separate influence.</p> - -<p>In the railway service, as we have already described, the -merging in the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, -first of the Scottish Society in 1892, and then of the General -Railway Workers’ Union, and the United Signalmen and -Pointsmen’s Society in 1913, made possible the establishment -of the National Union of Railwaymen on the basis of an -organisation co-extensive with the industry, with the -embodiment in the constitution of sectional representation. -The four “departments” into which the members are -divided vote separately in the elections. Under these -provisions the National Union of Railwaymen, though -hampered by the continuance of the separate Associated -Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, has been -able to make effective not only its claims for higher remuneration, -but also its demands for a normal Eight Hours -Day, a national system of classification, and national wage -scales for the several grades; though still not its aspirations -(expressed since 1914) to participation in management, or -those (expressed for over a decade) to the elimination from -industry of the capitalist profitmaker by the scheme of -Railway Nationalisation.</p> - -<p>In other industries, too, the concentration of Trade -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_551">[Pg 551]</span> -Union forces during the past decade has increasingly taken -the form of an amalgamation of rival sectional organisations, -sometimes in response to a demand from the rank and file. -Thus the Ship Constructors’ and Shipwrights’ Association, -established in 1888, has successfully absorbed not only the -very old Shipwrights’ Provident Union of London, but also -all the remaining local Trade Unions of shipwrights that long -lingered in Liverpool, Dublin, etc. The National Amalgamated -Furnishing Trades Association has taken over a -number of small societies of French polishers, gilders, and -upholsterers. The United Garment Workers’ Trade Union -was formed in 1915 by the amalgamation of a number of -societies in the various sections of the tailoring trade; and -in 1919 it was agreed that this, together with the Scottish -Society of Tailors and Tailoresses, should be merged in the -old Amalgamated Society of Tailors and Tailoresses, which -would then include practically all the organised workers in -the making of men’s and women’s clothing in Great Britain. -Many small Unions of machine workers, minor craftsmen, -and general labourers have been absorbed in one or other -of the half-a-dozen large Labour Unions. The Amalgamated -Card and Blowing-Room Operatives have taken over various -small sectional societies in the Cotton trade. In Sheffield -thirteen small Unions, catering for different sections of the -gold and silver workers, joined together in 1910 in the Gold, -Silver, and Kindred Trades Society, which in 1913 absorbed -several more societies in this industry. In the autumn of -1919, as we have already mentioned, six of the sectional -societies in the engineering industry decided to merge -themselves, with the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, -in a new and more gigantic amalgamation with 400,000 -members; the United Pattern Makers’ Society, the Electrical -Trades Union, and many small and specialised societies -of mechanics in iron still standing aloof. In the same -month three of the principal Unions of postal and telegraph -employees united in a single Union of Post Office Workers, -with 90,000 members. Other amalgamations among small -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_552">[Pg 552]</span> -or local societies took place among the Basketmakers, the -Block Printers, the Leather-workers, the Dyers, the various -sections in the Pottery Trade, etc.</p> - -<p>Such amalgamation is greatly obstructed by legal -requirements. Down to 1917 the law demanded that each -society desiring to unite should ratify the decision by a -two-thirds majority not merely of those voting, but of the -entire membership. Such a poll is almost impossible of -attainment by Trade Unions, whose members cannot usually -be individually communicated with, owing not only to their -frequent changes of residence and the absence of many of -them abroad, but also to the lack, in most cases, of any -complete register of addresses. In 1917 the Government -at last permitted the passage of an Amending Act for which -Trade Unionists had often pressed; but even then insisted -on any amalgamation being carried, at a 50 per cent poll -of the whole membership, by at least 20 per cent majority, -conditions which make amalgamation everywhere difficult, -and in some Unions (such as those of seamen) quite impossible. -In several cases Unions in which the general -opinion has been in favour of amalgamation have failed to -get the necessary vote. We have already described the -ingenious device by which the British Steel Smelters’ -Society and the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation surmounted -this difficulty.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile, of federations as distinct from amalgamations -the Trade Union world has a variety more bewildering than -ever, some of which have already been referred to. We have -to note that the Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades -Federation, the establishment of which in 1889 we described -in <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, has continued in existence, doing -useful work from time to time in connection with demarcation -disputes and other subjects of inter-union controversy, -especially on the North-East Coast, notably contributing -also in 1905 to the successful claim of the Clyde trades to -weekly instead of fortnightly pays, which the employers -had stubbornly resisted for a whole decade, but continuing -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_553">[Pg 553]</span> -to be weakened by the abstention, except for a few years, -of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, which, however, -now frequently consents to act in conjunction with it in -general trade questions.</p> - -<p>What is significant is the change in type and purpose of -these multifarious industrial federations, which have now -come to form an important element in the Trade Union -world.<a id="FNanchor_632" href="#Footnote_632" class="fnanchor">[632]</a> Federation, in fact, has undergone a subtle change -of character. Instead of loose alliances for mutual support -in disputes, or for the adjustment of mutual differences as -to “demarcation” and transfer of members, the federations -of all the craft or sectional Unions engaged in particular -industries—notably those of the Building Trades, the -Transport Workers, and, though not yet to the same extent, -the Printing Trades and the Woollen Workers, like the -older organisation of the Cotton Operatives—have become -increasingly, themselves negotiating bodies, recognised by -the equally organised employers, and concerting with these -what are, in effect, national regulations governing their -industries throughout the whole kingdom. The later -development of the Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades -Federation has been in the same direction. In the case of -the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain the development -has gone still further; and this great organisation, whilst -retaining the federal form, and, even now, not completely -admitted to “recognition” by the Mining Association of -Great Britain, unquestioningly acts for the whole industry -in national issues, as if it were an “amalgamated” Union. -Whether or not we are to see all the rival and sectional -Unions in each industry amalgamating into a single “Industrial -Union,” as many Trade Unionists desire, it must be -recognised that the development, during the past decade, -of active negotiating federations for the several industries -goes far to supply the most urgent need. In short, although -financially distinct Trade Unions remain, on the whole, as -numerous as ever, the number of separate negotiating -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_554">[Pg 554]</span> -bodies, so far as concerns matters relating to an industry as -a whole, becomes steadily smaller.</p> - -<p>We pass now to federal bodies of a different character.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The General Federation of Trade Unions</span></h3> - -<p>In 1899, arising out of the losses caused by the costly -engineering dispute of 1897-98, the Trades Union Congress -established a General Federation of Trade Unions, largely -at the instance of Robert Knight, the able secretary of the -Boilermakers, designed exclusively as a mutual reinsurance -agency against the heavy financial burden to which, in the -form of Strike Pay, or Dispute or Contingent Benefit, labour -disputes subject every active trade society.<a id="FNanchor_633" href="#Footnote_633" class="fnanchor">[633]</a> By means -of a small contribution from a large aggregate membership -(1s. or 2s. per year per member), the General Federation is -able to recoup to its constituent societies 2s. 6d. or 5s. per -week per member affected towards their several expenditures -upon disputes. Beginning with 44 societies, having a total -membership of 343,000, it steadily increased the number of -its adherents until, in 1913, it had affiliated as many as 150 -societies, having at that date 884,291 members. Since that -time the number of societies has dropped to 141 in 1919; but -their increase in membership had raised the aggregate -affiliation to 1,215,107, the largest ever recorded. The -General Federation, whilst suffering for the past seven years -from an arrest of growth, has to its credit twenty years’ -success in surmounting the difficulties which have destroyed -every previous attempt of the kind, and its prudent management -is shown by the fact that it was able, from its normal -revenue, to discharge all its obligations down to 1905, and to -accumulate a reserve of £119,656. In that year the members -rashly insisted on a reduction of the contribution by one-third, -not foreseeing the outburst of disputes in 1908-9, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_555">[Pg 555]</span> -which caused the Federation to pay out for 638 disputes -no less than £122,778, and necessitated in 1913 the doubling -of the contribution. Since that date, in spite of payments to -societies averaging £1500 every week of the year, the Federation -has not only met its engagements, but also built up a -reserve exceeding a quarter of a million sterling. In 1911 -it formed an Approved Society under the National Insurance -Act, with the object of relieving the separate Trade Unions, -and notably the thousand small ones, from the onerous task -of separately administering the Act, and to ensure that -their members did not go off to the Industrial Insurance -Companies, an effort which has failed to attract more than -a few thousand members. An extension of the effort to -the provision of death benefits, by the formation of a Friendly -Society section in 1913, has proved scarcely more successful.</p> - -<p>It must be recognised that during the past six or seven -years the Federation has lost favour with important sections -of the Trade Union world. It was probably inevitable that -its inclusion of small sectional societies should eventually -bring it into conflict with the larger Unions by whom such -societies are often regarded as illegitimate competitors. -Grounds of this kind may be assigned for the secession of -the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and the Amalgamated -Society of Tailors in 1915; and for the powerful hostility -shown since 1913 by the Miners’ Federation of Great -Britain. But this feeling has been accentuated by a growing -resentment of the part played by the General Federation—not -unconnected with the forceful personality of the General -Secretary—first in international relations, and secondly in -the representation of Trade Union opinion to the Government -and to the public.</p> - -<p>The General Federation, from its very establishment, -affiliated itself to the International Trade Union Federation, -which aimed at the collection and publication of statistics -of Trade Unionism all over the world by an International -Trade Union Secretariat, and at the mutual interchange of -Trade Union information. For the first fifteen years of its -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_556">[Pg 556]</span> -existence this action of the General Federation was not -objected to, although the fact that it represented only 25 to -30 per cent of British Trade Unionism impaired the value of -its statistical contributions. The Parliamentary Committee -of the Trades Union Congress, which might well have undertaken -the task, long ignored its international interests; -but during the Great War increasingly resented the appearance -of the General Federation as the representative of -British Trade Unionism, and especially the almost continuous -negotiations between its secretary, Mr. Appleton, and Mr. -Gompers, the Secretary of the American Federation of -Labor, and with M. Jouhaux, the Secretary of the <i>Confédération -Générale du Travail</i> of France, along lines not consistent -with those of the Labour Party and the Trades Union -Congress. When, in 1918, attempts were made to reconstitute -the International Federation of Trade Unions, the Parliamentary -Committee claimed at first to be itself the representative -of Great Britain; but presently compromised on a -joint and equal representation by the two bodies.</p> - -<p>But more serious than the question of international -representation was the resentment at the ever-widening -range of subjects at home on which Mr. Appleton, the -Management Committee, and the Conferences of the General -Federation claimed to voice the feelings of Organised Labour. -It was urged that the Federation was formed exclusively -for the purpose of mutually reinsuring Strike Benefit, and -that it had accordingly no mandate, and did nothing but -weaken the Trade Union forces, both in the narrow field -of the conditions of the wage contract, and on the broader -issues of Labour’s political aspirations, whenever it entered -into rivalry with the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades -Union Congress on the one hand, or with the Labour Party -on the other. It looks as if the General Federation must -in future either restrict itself to the limited range of its -original purpose, or else run the risk of being financially -weakened by the secession of influential Trade Unions, -which will not permanently remain affiliated to all three -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_557">[Pg 557]</span> -national bodies, when finding these speaking on the same -subjects with different voices.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">Trades Councils</span></h3> - -<p>Of another form of loose federation of the branches of -all the Trade Unions within a given area we have already -described the origin and the development in the local Trades -Councils. These have gone on increasing in number, much -more than in strength, until in 1920 we estimate that -more than 500 are in existence, with an aggregate affiliated -membership running into several millions of Trade Unionists. -The character of their active membership, their functions, -and their proceedings have remained much as we described -them thirty years ago; but they have, on the whole, increased -in strength and local influence, as well as in numbers -and membership. They were, as we shall presently mention, -somewhat arbitrarily excluded in 1895 from the Trades -Union Congress, of which they were actually the originators; -and although they have since joined in various provincial -federations of Trades Councils,<a id="FNanchor_634" href="#Footnote_634" class="fnanchor">[634]</a> these have never acquired -any great strength, and do little more than arrange for -co-operation in local demonstrations. An attempt to form -a National Federation of Trades Councils did not succeed. -On the other hand, as we shall describe in Chapter XI., -the Trades Councils were, from its establishment in 1900, -admitted, equally with Trade Unions, as constituents of the -Labour Representation Committee (now the Labour Party), -and whether as Trades Councils, or (notably with the smaller -ones) in their new form of “Trades Councils and Local -Labour Parties,” they are coming slowly to form its geographical -basis. It is more and more on the political side -that they are in some degree succeeding in uniting the -energies of the Trade Unions of a particular town. This is -especially the case so far as municipal politics are concerned. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_558">[Pg 558]</span> -They have, for instance, been the main force in securing -the general adoption of the Fair Wages Clause, and in -furthering the election of Labour Candidates to local governing -bodies. But they are rigidly excluded from all participation -in the government or trade policy of the Unions; and, -so far as Trade Unionism itself is concerned, their direct -influence on questions of national scope is not great. -Consisting, as in the main they do, of the delegates elected -by branches of national societies, they are hampered by the -narrow limits of the branch autonomy. For in trade matters -the branch can bring to the Council no power which it does -not itself possess, whilst towards any action involving expense -by the Council it can, in many Unions, contribute only the -voluntary extra-subscriptions of its members. During the -present century, however, many Unions have started -paying from central funds the affiliation fees of their branches -to Trades Councils. Down to the end of the Nineteenth -Century, however, the resources of the Councils accordingly -seldom sufficed for more than the hire of a room to meet in,<a id="FNanchor_635" href="#Footnote_635" class="fnanchor">[635]</a> -the necessary postage and stationery, and the payment of a -few pounds a year for the “loss of time” of their principal -officers. In no case except London does a Trades Council -as such, even in 1920, pay a “full-time” salary, so as to -command the whole time of a single salaried official, though -the Trades Councils of cities like Glasgow, Manchester, and -Bradford have salaried secretaries who have other duties; -and where the Trades Council is combined with the Local -Labour Party it is more and more coming to have the -services of a Registration Officer or Election Agent, whose -salary is usually provided as part of the election expenses -of the Labour candidate.</p> - -<p>For a long time it could hardly be said that the Trades -Councils enjoyed even the moral support of the great -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_559">[Pg 559]</span> -Unions. The central executives of the national societies -were apt to view with suspicion and jealousy the existence -of governing bodies in which they were not directly represented. -The local branches, if not actually forbidden, were -not encouraged to adhere to what might conceivably become -a rival authority. The strong county Unions frequently -stood aloof unless they were allowed an overwhelming -representation. One of the notable changes of the present -century has been the diminution of this jealousy of the -Trades Councils. We know of no case in which branches -are now forbidden to join a Trades Council. In most cases, -although permission may have to be obtained from the -Executive Council or Committee, it is nowadays readily -granted, and with the recognition of the need for political -action, between 1901 and 1913, came positive encouragement -to the branches to affiliate to the Trades Councils of -their localities. -<a id="FNanchor_636" href="#Footnote_636" class="fnanchor">[636]</a></p> - -<p>It remains, however, true in 1920 as in 1890 that the -Trades Councils do not include the national leaders of the -Trade Union world. The salaried officials of the old-established -societies seldom take part in their proceedings. -The London Trades Council, for instance, the classic meeting-place -of the Junta, has long since ceased to be able to count -among its delegates the General Secretaries of the Engineers, -Bricklayers, Railwaymen, Steel-smelters, or of any other -of the great Societies having their head offices in London. -The powerful coterie of cotton officials forms no part of the -Manchester Trades Council. Of the boilermakers, neither -the General Secretary nor any one of the nine District -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_560">[Pg 560]</span> -Delegates is usually to be found on a Trades Council. The -Miners’ Agents are notorious for abstention from the Councils -in their localities. This, however, is due nowadays, whatever -may once have been the reason, principally to the -enormous additions to the work of all the salaried officials -of the Trade Union world, which make it impossible for the -majority of them to attend Trades Council meetings. The -Trades Councils now serve as a useful training-ground, wider -than that of the Trade Union Branch, for those whom we -have elsewhere described as the non-commissioned officers -of the Movement, from whose ranks nearly all the Trade -Union leaders emerge.</p> - -<p>Apart from their constant activity in municipal politics, -and their energetic support of the Labour Party in all -elections, the Trades Councils have, in the present century, -considerably increased in usefulness. They have given -valuable assistance in Trade Union propaganda, alike -within their own districts and in the adjacent rural districts. -No small part of the increase in Trade Union membership, -notably among nondescript workers in the towns, and the -agricultural labourers in the country, is to be ascribed to -the constant work and support of some of the more active -among them. They have done much to appease quarrels -among the local branches of different Unions, and they are -occasionally able to intervene successfully as arbitrators.<a id="FNanchor_637" href="#Footnote_637" class="fnanchor">[637]</a> -Even without formal arbitration they bring warring parties -together. They nominate working-class representatives to -many local committees and conferences, and serve, in this -way, as useful links with public administration. Some of -them have, of recent years, done a great deal to promote -the better education of the artisan class. They affiliate to -the Workers’ Educational Association or the Labour College, -and support its classes; they arrange public meetings and -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_561">[Pg 561]</span> -obtain outside speakers; they affiliate to the Labour -Research Department, which has a special “Trades Councils -and Local Labour Parties Section”; they subscribe to the -travelling library of book-boxes maintained by the Fabian -Society; they frequently issue their own monthly bulletin -of Trade Union and Labour news, or journal of local government -information, or at least their annual <i>Year-Book</i>; and -they act as distributing centres for the nationally published -pamphlets and leaflets—sometimes even for the more -popular books on Labour questions.<a id="FNanchor_638" href="#Footnote_638" class="fnanchor">[638]</a> They have come, in -several centres, to form, by Joint Councils, an indispensable -connecting link between the Trade Union and Co-operative -Movements, and they serve, more than any other agency, -as the cement between the local branches of these two -movements and the Labour Party itself. To what extent -they are destined, in their character of constituent members -of the Labour Party, sometimes actually combined with -Local Labour Parties (in the latter cases with the inclusion, -since 1918, of a section of individual members, Trade -Unionists or others, “workers by hand or by brain”), to -develop an effective political organisation, drawing together -the whole of the supporters of the Labour Party in each -Parliamentary constituency, remains yet to be demonstrated.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Trades Union Congress</span></h3> - -<p>But the most extensive federation of the Trade Union -world is to-day, as it has always been, the Trades Union -Congress, which could count in September 1919 an affiliated -membership of more than five and a quarter millions, a -number never paralleled in this or any other country. We -have described in previous chapters the origin and development -of this federal body, its uses in drawing together the -scattered Trade Union forces, and its failure either to help -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_562">[Pg 562]</span> -in the solution of the problems of industrial organisation or -to give an intellectual lead to the rank and file. -<a id="FNanchor_639" href="#Footnote_639" class="fnanchor">[639]</a></p> - -<p>We drew attention in the first edition of this book in -1894 to the weakness of the organisation of this imposing -annual Congress; and, from 1895 onward, certain changes -have been successively made in its constitution and procedure, -not always, as we think, for the better. At the -Norwich Congress in 1894 the Parliamentary Committee, -which the Congress annually elects as its executive, was -charged by a resolution proposed by W. J. Davis to consider -the amendment of the Standing Orders, and to make the -amended orders applicable to the next Congress. On the -authority of this ambiguous resolution, which seems to have -had in view only the establishment of Grand Committees to -deal with the multiplicity of resolutions on the annual -agenda, the Parliamentary Committee, of which the Chairman -was then John Burns, M.P., decided forthwith to expel -all the Trades Councils from the Congress, to make obligatory -the “vote by card” according, not to the number of delegates, -but to the aggregate membership of each Union, and -to confine the delegates rigidly to the contemporary salaried -officers and the members of Trade Unions actually working -at their crafts—thereby excluding not only the veteran -Henry Broadhurst, M.P., with John Burns himself, but also -Keir Hardie, Tom Mann, and other leaders of the new movement -that was seeking to make Trade Unionism a political -force. Who, exactly, was responsible for this <i>coup d’état</i> -was not officially revealed. It was said, with some authority, -that James Mawdsley, the rough and forceful secretary of -the Cotton-spinners, was at the bottom of the move, and -that he made use of the personal rivalry between Henry -Broadhurst and John Burns to get them both, and also the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_563">[Pg 563]</span> -rebellious element from the Trades Councils, which all three -disliked, excluded from future Congresses.<a id="FNanchor_640" href="#Footnote_640" class="fnanchor">[640]</a> The Congress -at Cardiff in 1895 was very angry, and, in effect, rebuked -the Parliamentary Committee, but allowed the new Standing -Orders to be confirmed on the newly adopted “card vote.” -In so far as the intention was to keep the new ideas out of -Congress, the result was plainly a failure, as within four -years (to be described in Chapter XI.) there was a majority -in Congress for the creation of the independent organisation -entitled the Labour Representation Committee, which -became in due course the present Labour Party. The effect -was merely to weaken the intellectual influence on the -Trade Union world of the Congress and its Parliamentary -Committee.</p> - -<p>With this exception of the exclusion of the Trades -Councils, and of the outstanding personalities whom they -occasionally sent as delegates, the visitor to the Trades -Union Congress in 1919 would have found very little difference -between it and the Congresses of thirty years before, -except for an increase in the size of the gathering and in -the number of members represented; and, as must be added, -an all-round improvement in the education and manners, -especially of the younger delegates. As an institution it -can hardly be said to have shown, between 1890 and 1917 -at least, any development at all.</p> - -<p>It must be admitted that, with all its shortcomings, the -Congress, which has now for over fifty years continued to -meet annually in some industrial centre, serves many useful -purposes. It is, to begin with, an outward and visible sign -of that persistent sentiment of solidarity which has throughout -the whole of the past century distinguished the working -class. Composed of delegates from all the great national -and county Unions and an increasing number of local -societies, and largely attended by the salaried officials, the -Congress, unlike the Trades Councils, is really representative -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_564">[Pg 564]</span> -(except for the absence of most of the political side of its -organisation) of all the elements of the Trade Union world. -Hence its discussions reveal, both to the Trade Union Civil -Service and to party politicians, the movement of opinion -among all sections of Trade Unionists, and, through them, -of the great body of the wage-earners. Moreover, the week’s -meeting gives a unique opportunity for friendly intercourse -between the representatives of the different trades, and -thus leads frequently to joint action or wider federations. -Nevertheless the Congress remains, as we have described it -in its early years, rather a parade of the Trade Union forces -than a genuine Parliament of Labour. -<a id="FNanchor_641" href="#Footnote_641" class="fnanchor">[641]</a></p> - -<p>All the incidental circumstances tend to accentuate the -parade features of Congress at the expense of its legislative -capacity. The Mayor and Corporation of the city in which -it is held are frequently permitted to give a public welcome -to the delegates, and to hold a sumptuous reception in their -honour. The Strangers’ Gallery is full of interested observers, -Distinguished foreigners, representatives of Government -departments, “fraternal delegates” from America and the -Continent, and from the Co-operative Union and the National -Union of Teachers, inquisitive politicians, and popularity-hunting -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_565">[Pg 565]</span> -ministers sit through every day’s proceedings. -The press-table is crowded with reporters from all the -principal newspapers of the kingdom, whilst the local -organs vie with each other in bringing out special editions -containing verbatim reports of each day’s discussions. But -what more than anything else makes the Congress a holiday -demonstration instead of a responsible deliberative assembly -is its total lack of legislative power. The delegates are well -aware that Congress resolutions on “subjects” have no -binding effect on their constituents, and therefore do not -take the trouble to put them in practicable form, or even -to make them consistent one with another. From the -outset the proceedings are unbusiness-like. Much of the -first day is consumed in pure routine and a lengthy inaugural -address from the President, who has been since 1900 always -the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the -preceding year. The rest of the agenda consists of resolutions -sent in by the various Unions and brought higgledy-piggledy -before the Congress in an order determined by -the chances of the ballot. These resolutions are subjected -to no selection or revision beyond an attempt by subcommittees -to merge in one the several proposals on each -subject. The delegates have at their disposal about twenty-five -hours to discuss every imaginable subject, ranging -from the nationalisation of the means of production down -to the prohibition of one carter driving two vehicles at a -time. To enable even a minority of those present to -speak for or against the proposals, each speaker is limited -to five, or perhaps to three minutes, a rule which is more -or less rigidly enforced. But, in spite of this vigorous -application of the closure, the President is seldom able to -get the business through, and has frequently as much as -he can do to maintain order. The Standing Orders Committee -is entirely taken up with its mechanical business, -and is not authorised, any more than is the Parliamentary -Committee itself, to formulate a programme for the consideration -of the delegates. Nor does the Congress receive -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_566">[Pg 566]</span> -much guidance from experienced officials of the old-established -Unions. Whether from a good-natured desire to -let the private members have their turn at figuring in the -newspapers, or from a somewhat cynical appreciation of -the fruitlessness of Congress discussions, many of them -habitually lie low, and seldom speak except to defend -themselves against attacks. Moreover, they are busily -engaged, both in and out of Congress hours, in arranging -for the election of themselves or their friends on the Parliamentary -Committee, which has hitherto always been -governed by mutual “bargaining” for votes.<a id="FNanchor_642" href="#Footnote_642" class="fnanchor">[642]</a> When -the four days’ talk draws near to an end, many of the -resolutions on the agenda are still undisposed of. On the -Saturday morning, when most of the delegates have started -for home, a thin meeting hurries rapidly through the remainder -of the proposals, speeches are reduced to sixty -seconds each, and the Congress adopts a score of important -resolutions in a couple of hours. From first to last there -is no sign of a “Front Bench” of responsible leaders. As a -business meeting the whole function of the Congress is -discharged in the election of the Parliamentary Committee, -to which the representation of the Trade Union world for -the ensuing year is entrusted.</p> - -<p>In the first edition of this book, in 1894, we gave a -description of the work of the Parliamentary Committee -which it is interesting to recall:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The duties of the Parliamentary Committee have never been -expressly defined by Congress, and it will easily be understood -that resolutions of the kind we have described afford but little -guidance for practical work. But there is a general understanding -that the Committee is to watch over the political interests -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_567">[Pg 567]</span> -of its constituents, in much the same way as the Parliamentary -Committee of a town council or a railway company. It is -obvious that, in the case of the Trade Union world, such a -mandate covers a wide field. The right of Free Association, -won by Allan, Applegarth, Odger, and their allies, is now a past -issue, but the Trade Union interest in legislation has, with the -advance of Democracy, extended to larger and more complicated -problems. The complete democratisation of the political machinery, -the duty of the Government to be a model employer, the -further regulation of private enterprise through perfected factory -legislation, the public administration of monopolies, are all -questions in which the Trade Union world of to-day considers -itself keenly interested. To these distinctly labour issues must -be added such interests of the non-propertied class as the incidence -of taxation, the public provision for education and -recreation, and the maintenance of the sick and the aged. We -have here an amount of Parliamentary business far in excess of -that falling upon the Parliamentary Committee of any ordinary -town council or railway company. To examine all bills, public -or private, introduced into Parliament that may possibly affect -any of the foregoing Trade Union interests; to keep a constant -watch on the administration of the public departments; to -scrutinise the Budget, the Education Code, and the Orders of -the Local Government Board; to bring pressure to bear on the -Ministry of the day, so as to mould the Queen’s Speech into a -Labour Programme; to promote independent Bills on all the -subjects upon which the Government refuses to legislate; and, -lastly, to organise that persistent “lobbying” of Ministers and -private members which finally clinches a popular demand—all -this constitutes a task which would tax the energies of half a -dozen highly trained Parliamentary agents devoting their whole -time to their clients. This is the work which the Trade Union -Congress delegates to a committee of busy officials, all absorbed -in the multifarious details of their own societies, and served -only by a Secretary who is paid for a small part of his time, -and who accordingly combines the office with other duties. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_568">[Pg 568]</span> -<a id="FNanchor_643" href="#Footnote_643" class="fnanchor">[643]</a></p> - -<p>The whole organisation is so absurdly inadequate to the -task, that the Committee can hardly be blamed for giving up -any attempt to keep pace with the work. The members leave -their provincial headquarters fifteen or twenty times a year to -spend a few hours in the little offices at 19 Buckingham Street, -Strand, in deliberating upon such business as their Secretary -brings before them. Preoccupied with the affairs of their societies, -and unversed in general politics, they either confine their -attention to the interests of their own trades, or look upon the -fortnightly trip to London as a pleasant recreation from hard -official duties. In the intervals between the meetings the Secretary -struggles with the business as best he can, with such clerical -help as he can afford to pay for out of his meagre allowance. -Absorbed in his own Parliamentary duties, for the performance -of which his constituents pay him a salary, he can devote to -the general interests of the Trade Union world only the leavings -of his time and attention. It is therefore not surprising to learn -that the agenda laid before the Parliamentary Committee, instead -of covering the extensive field indicated by the resolutions -of the Congress, is habitually reduced to the barest minimum. -The work annually accomplished by the Committee during the -last few years has, in fact, been limited to a few deputations to -the Government, two or three circulars to the Unions, a little -consultation with friendly politicians, and the drafting of an -elaborate report to Congress, describing, not their doings, but -the legislation and other Parliamentary proceedings of the -session. The result is that the executive committee of the -United Textile Factory Workers’ Association and the Miners’ -Federation exercised a far more potent influence in the lobby -than the Committee representing the whole Trade Union world; -whilst such expert manipulators as Mr. John Burns, Mr. Havelock -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_569">[Pg 569]</span> -Wilson, or Mr. George Howell, can point to more reforms effected -in a single session than the Parliamentary Committee has lately -accomplished during a whole Parliament.</p> - -<p>It is therefore not surprising that there exists in the Trade -Union world a growing feeling of irritation against the Parliamentary -Committee. In each successive Congress the Committee, -instead of taking the lead, finds itself placed on its defence. But -it is obvious that Congress itself is to blame. The members of -the Committee, including the Secretary, are men of quite as -sterling character and capacity as a board of railway directors -or a committee of town councillors. But whereas a railway -company or a town council places at the disposal of its Parliamentary -Committee the whole energies of a specially trained -town clerk or solicitor, and allows him, moreover, to call to his -aid as many expert advisers as he thinks fit, the Trades Union -Congress expects the Parliamentary affairs of a million and a -half members to be transacted by a staff inferior to that of a -third-rate Trade Union. At one period, it is true, the leaders -of the Trade Union world as a whole successfully conducted a -long and arduous Parliamentary campaign. We have described -in a previous chapter the momentous legislative revolution in -the status of Trade Unionism which was effected between 1867 -and 1875. But the Conference of Amalgamated Trades, and its -successors the Parliamentary Committee, had in these years at -their command the freely given services of such a galaxy of -legal and Parliamentary talent as Mr. Frederic Harrison, Professor -E. S. Beesly, Mr. Henry Crompton, Mr. Thomas (now -Judge) Hughes, Messrs. Godfrey and Vernon Lushington, and -Mr. (now Justice) R. S. Wright. The objection felt by the -present generation of Trade Unionists to be beholden to middle-class -friends is not without a certain validity. But if the Trade -Union Congress wants its Parliamentary business done it must, -at any rate, provide such a salary as will secure the full services -of the ablest man in the movement, equip his office with an -adequate number of clerks, and authorise the Parliamentary -Committee to retain such expert professional assistance as may -from time to time be required.</p> -</div> - -<p>Such was the position as we saw it in 1894. The Trades -Union Congress did not in any important respect improve -its organisation, nor equip its Parliamentary Committee with -any adequate staff. Its failure to cope with the Parliamentary -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_570">[Pg 570]</span> -business in which the Trade Union world was -interested became more and more manifest; and the -discontent was increased by the disinclination felt by many -of the leading members of the Committee for the larger -aspirations and more independent attitude in politics that -marked the active spirits of the rank and file of Trade Union -membership. All this co-operated to produce the vote of -the 1899 Congress in favour of some definite step to increase -the number of Labour Members in the House of Commons, -out of which sprang the independent organisation subsequently -known as the Labour Party, which we shall describe -in Chapter XI. But although the Trades Union Congress -thus created, at the very end of the nineteenth century, a -separate political organisation for the Trade Union world, -into which the steadily increasing political activity of the -Trade Unions has since flowed, the Congress and its Parliamentary -Committee made no change in their own work. -There has accordingly continued to be the same stream, -year after year, of miscellaneous resolutions before Congress, -99 per cent of them dealing with political issues, involving -either legislation or a change of Government policy, resolutions -which have continued to be presented and discussed -without any regard to their place in any consistent programme -for the Trade Union world as a whole. The Parliamentary -Committee has continued to regard itself almost entirely -as a Parliamentary Committee, just as if the Trade Unions -had not united in a distinct political organisation and had -not created their own Parliamentary Labour Party. The -futile annual deputations to Ministers have continued to -present to them the crude resolutions of the Trades Union -Congress, without regard to the contemporary situation in -the House of Commons, or the action taken by the Parliamentary -Labour Party, and without taking into account -in what relation they stand to the political programme of -the Trade Union world as formulated, year by year, in the -Conferences of the Labour Party. Meanwhile the essentially -industrial work of the national organisation of Trade Unions -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_571">[Pg 571]</span> -has continued to be neglected. Both the Trades Union -Congress and the Parliamentary Committee have shown -the greatest disinclination to tackle such essentially Trade -Union problems as those presented by the existence in the -same trade of competing Trade Unions;<a id="FNanchor_644" href="#Footnote_644" class="fnanchor">[644]</a> by the formation -of separate Unions on overlapping and mutually inconsistent -bases; by the growing rivalry between the warring conceptions -of organisation by craft and organisation by -industry; by the increasing failure of the membership of -each branch to correspond with the staffs of the separate -gigantic establishments characteristic of the present day; by -the “rank and file movement,” demanding a greater direct -control of workshop conditions than can easily be made -compatible with the centralisation of policy in the national -executives; by the development of the “Shop Stewards’” -organisation; by the spread in different industries of -systems of “payment by results,” unsafeguarded by the -necessary adaptations of the Standard Rate and Collective -Bargaining; by the tendency of the employers to make -deductions from the Standard Rate when it suits them to -take on individuals or new classes of workers whom they -declare to be inferior, whether women or boys, old men -or partially incapacitated workers of any sort; and by the -introduction of “Scientific Management.” -<a id="FNanchor_645" href="#Footnote_645" class="fnanchor">[645]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_572">[Pg 572]</span></p> - -<p>During the whole of this century, in fact, the Parliamentary -Committee of the Trades Union Congress, and the -Congress itself, have failed to grapple with the work that calls -out to be done by some national organisation of the Trade -Union world. After allowing to be created, on the one hand, -the General Federation of Trade Unions, abandoning to it the -whole function of insurance, together with the representation -of British Trade Unionism in the International Federation -of Trade Unions, and, on the other, the Labour Party, with -its inevitable absorption of the political activity of the Trade -Union world, the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades -Union Congress has failed to recognise, and to concentrate -upon, the sphere that it had left to itself, namely, to become -the national organ for the improvement and development -of British Trade Unionism in its industrial aspect. Whilst -the Trades Union Congress has continued anxiously and -nervously to abstain from any attempt to demarcate the -spheres of rival Unions or to improve their mutual relations, -action which would have brought the Parliamentary Committee -dangerously into conflict with one or other of its -constituents, and has confined its attention as much as -ever to the statutory and governmental reforms which its -various sections desired, it has been progressively overshadowed, -on the political side, by the rise of the Labour -Party, to be described in a subsequent chapter.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_573">[Pg 573]</span></p> - -<p>Towards the end of 1919 the discontent of the Trade -Union world with the position and attitude of the Parliamentary -Committee came to a head. The sudden railway -strike, described in this chapter, revealed the lack of any -organ of co-ordination in industrial movements which -inevitably affected the whole Trade Union Movement. The -Parliamentary Committee itself laid before a special Trades -Union Congress in December 1919 a report declaring that -“the need has long been recognised for the development of -more adequate machinery for the co-ordination of Labour -activities, both for the movement as a whole, and especially -for its industrial side. Again and again the lack of co-ordination -has resulted, not only in the overlapping of -administrative work, but also in unnecessary internal and -other disputes, involving vast financial and moral damage -to the whole Labour Movement. To do away with some -of this overlapping and to provide means of co-ordinating -the work of certain sections was the object with which the -Triple Industrial Alliance was founded by the Miners, -Railwaymen, and Transport Workers, and the same object -is behind the numerous steps towards closer unity which -have been taken in various industries and groups. The -Negotiating Committee, hastily improvised to deal with the -situation created by the railway strike this autumn, was -generally felt to have fulfilled, however imperfectly, a vital -need of Labour; but it is clear that it ought not to have -been necessary to create a new and temporary body to do -this work; the necessary machinery should have been -already in existence in the form of a really effective central -co-ordinating body for the movement as a whole.</p> - -<p>“It appears to us that the body which is required should -and must be developed out of the existing organisation of -the Trades Union Congress and out of its closer co-operation -with other sections of the working-class movement. At -present, the Standing Orders do not permit the Parliamentary -Committee to undertake the work which is required. -Indeed, its functions, as they are now defined, are in great -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_574">[Pg 574]</span> -measure a survival from a previous period, when the chief -duties of the Congress were political, and there existed no -separate political organisation to express the policy and -objects of Labour. We accordingly suggest that the whole -functions and organisation of the Parliamentary Committee -demand revision, with a view to developing out of it a real -co-ordinating body for the industrial side of the whole Trade -Union Movement. It is also necessary to take into account -the relation of the reorganised Central Industrial Committee -to the other sections of the movement, and especially to the -Labour Party and to the Co-operative Movement.</p> - -<p>“If a better central organisation could be developed both -on the industrial side and by the closer joint working -with the other wings of the working-class movement, a -vast development of the very necessary work of publicity, -information, and research would at once become possible. -The research, publicity, and legal departments now working -for the movement require co-ordination and extension -equally with its industrial and political organisation. The -research, publicity, and legal work now done by the Trades -Union Congress, the Labour Party, and the Labour Research -Department must be co-ordinated and greatly enlarged in -close connection with the development of the executive -machinery of the movement.”</p> - -<p>The proposal did not secure the approval of the Miners’ -Federation, but the special Congress, by a very large -majority, passed the following resolution:</p> - -<p>“That in view of the imperative need and demand for -a central co-ordinating body representative of the whole -Trade Union Movement and capable of efficiently dealing -with industrial questions of national importance, the Parliamentary -Committee be instructed to revise the Standing -Orders of Congress in such manner as is necessary to secure -the following changes in the functions and duties of the -Executive body elected by Congress:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_575">[Pg 575]</span></p><div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“(1) To substitute for the Parliamentary Committee a -Trades Union Congress General Council, to be -elected annually by Congress.</p> - -<p>“(2) To prepare a scheme determining the composition -and methods of election of the General Council.</p> - -<p>“(3) To make arrangements for the development of -administrative departments in the offices of the -General Council, in the direction of securing -the necessary officials, staff, and equipment to -secure an efficient Trade Union centre.</p> -</div> - -<p>“Further, in order to avoid overlapping in the activity -of working-class organisations, the Parliamentary Committee -be instructed to consult with the Labour Party and the -Co-operative Movement, with a view to devising a scheme -for the setting up of departments under joint control, -responsible for effective national and international service -in the following and any other necessary directions:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“(<i>a</i>) <i>Research</i>: To secure general and statistical information -on all questions affecting the worker -as producer and consumer by the co-ordination -and development of existing agencies.</p> - -<p>“(<i>b</i>) <i>Legal advice</i> on all questions affecting the collective -welfare of the members of working-class organisations.</p> - -<p>“(<i>c</i>) <i>Publicity</i>, including preparation of suitable literature -dealing with questions affecting the economic, -social, and political welfare of the people; -with machinery for inaugurating special publicity -campaigns to meet emergencies of an industrial -or political character.”</p> -</div> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Officers of the Trade Union Movement</span></h3> - -<p>If we survey the growth of the British Trade Union -Movement during the past thirty years, what is conspicuous -is that, whilst the Movement has marvellously increased in -mass and momentum, it has been marked on the whole by -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_576">[Pg 576]</span> -inadequacy of leadership alike within each Union and in -the Movement itself, and by a lack of that unity and persistency -of purpose which wise leadership alone can give. -Hence, in our opinion, the organised workers, whilst steadily -advancing, have not secured anything like the results, -either in the industrial or in the political field, that the -individual sacrifices and efforts in their cause might have -brought about. This deficiency in the brain-work of successful -organisation is very marked in the various sections -of the building trades, with their chaos of separate societies, -and in the engineering industry, with its persistence of -competing Unions formed on inconsistent bases, its lack of -uniformity in Standard Rates, and its failure to devise any -plan of safeguarding Collective Bargaining in the various -systems of “Payment by Results.” But it has been equally -apparent in the incapacity of the Trade Union Movement -as a whole to establish any central authority to prevent -overlapping organisations and demarcation disputes, and to -co-ordinate the efforts of the various sections of workers -towards a higher standard of life and greater control over -the conditions of their working lives. The British workmen, -it must be said, have not become aware of the absolute need -for what we may call Labour Statesmanship. They have -not yet learnt how, either in their separate Trade Unions -or in the Labour Movement as a whole, to attract and train, -to select and retain in office, to accord freedom of initiative -to and yet to control, a sufficient staff of qualified officials -capable not merely of individual leadership, but also of well -devised “team play” in the long-drawn-out struggle of the -wage-earning class for its “place in the sun.” To this -constant falling short of the reasonably expected achievements -is, we think, due the perpetual see-saw in Trade -Union policy: the Trade Unionists of one decade relying -principally on political action, to the neglect of the industrial -weapon, whilst those of a succeeding decade, temporarily -disillusioned with political action, rush wildly into strikes -and neglect the ballot-box. This change of feeling is due -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_577">[Pg 577]</span> -each time to the failure of the results to come up to expectation. -We shall understand some of the reasons for this -shortcoming if we examine how the Trade Union Movement -is, in fact, officered.</p> - -<p>The affairs, industrial and political, of the six million -Trade Unionists, enrolled in possibly as many as fifty -thousand local branches or lodges (including a thousand -independent small local societies), are administered by -perhaps 100,000 annually elected branch officials and shop -stewards. These may be regarded as the non-commissioned -officers of the Movement; and it is fundamentally on their -sobriety and personal integrity, combined with an intimate -knowledge of their several crafts and a steadiness of judgement, -that the successful conduct of the branch business -depends. They continue to work at their trades, and -receive only a few pounds a year for all their onerous and -sometimes dangerous work. It is these non-commissioned -officers of the Trade Union army who keep the Trade Union -organisation alive. But they have neither the training, nor -the leisure, nor even the opportunity, so long as they remain -non-commissioned officers, working at their trades, to -formulate a detailed policy, or to supply the day-by-day -executive leadership to the particular Trade Union, or to -the Trade Union Movement. For the work of translating -into action, industrial or political, the desires or convictions -of the whole body of the members, the Trade Union world -necessarily depends, in the main, on its salaried officers, -who devote the whole of their time to the service of the -Movement, in one or other capacity. Such a whole-time -salaried staff was slow to be formed. In 1850 it did not -exist at all. It probably did not in 1860 number as many -as a hundred throughout the whole kingdom. In 1892, in -the first edition of this book, we put it approximately at 600. -In 1920, with a fourfold growth in membership, and (under -the National Insurance Act) a vast increase in the office -and financial business of the Trade Unions, we estimate the -total number of the salaried officers of all the Trade Unions -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_578">[Pg 578]</span> -and their federations (not including mere shorthand typists -and office-boys) at three or four thousand, of whom perhaps -one-tenth, in or out of Parliament, are engaged exclusively -on election and other political work. But even on the -industrial side, Trade Union officials differ considerably in -the work they have to do, and the differences in function -result in marked varieties of type.</p> - -<p>We have first the salaried officials of the skilled trades. -They are broadly distinguished from the officers of the -Labourers’ Unions by the fact that they are invariably -men who have worked at the crafts they represent, and who -have usually served their society as branch secretaries. -We may distinguish among them two leading types, the -Administrator of Friendly Benefits, and the Trade Official.</p> - -<p>To the type of Administrator of Friendly Benefits, the -school of William Allan, belong most of the General and -Assistant Secretaries at the head offices of the great Trade -Friendly Societies organisations in which the mass of routine, -financial, and other office business has become so great that -only the ablest men succeed in rising above it. Owing to the -continued increase in membership of the principal Unions, -to their tendency to amalgamate into larger and larger -aggregations, to the constant extension of friendly benefits, -and since 1911 to the enormous addition to the work made -by the National Insurance Act, the administrative staffs of -the Unions have had to be doubled and quadrupled. But -the Trade Union official of this type, however great may -be his nominal position, has, during the past thirty years, -come to exercise less and less influence on the Trade Union -world. Rigidly confined to his office, he becomes in most -cases a painstaking clerk, and rises at the best to the level -of the shrewd manager of an insurance company. He passes -his life in investigating the claims of his members to the -various benefits, and in upholding, at all hazard of unpopularity, -a sound financial system of adequate contributions -and moderate benefits. Questions of trade policy -interest him principally so far as they tend to swell or -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_579">[Pg 579]</span> -diminish the number of his members in receipt of “Out of -Work Pay.” He is therefore apt to be more intent on -getting unemployed members off the books than on raising -the Standard Rate of wages or decreasing the length of the -Normal Day. For the same reason he proves a tenacious -champion of his members’ rights in all quarrels about -overlap and demarcation of work; and it may happen that -he finds himself more often engaged in disputes with rival -Unions than with employers. He represents the most -conservative element in Trade Union life. On all occasions -he sits tight, and votes solid for what he conceives to be the -official or moderate party.</p> - -<p>More influential in Trade Union politics is the salaried -officer of the other type. The Trade Official, as we have -called him, is largely the result of the prevalence, in certain -industries, of a complicated system of “Payment by Results.” -We have already described how the cotton lists on the one -hand and the checkweigher clause on the other called into -existence a specially trained class, which has since been -augmented by the adoption of piecework lists in boot and -shoemaking and other industries. The officers of this type -are professionals in the art of Collective Bargaining. They -spend their lives in intricate calculations on technical -details, and in conducting delicate negotiations with the -employers or their professional agents. It matters little -whether they are the general secretaries of essentially trade -societies, such as the federal Unions of Cotton-spinners and -Cotton-weavers, or the exclusively trade delegates of -societies with friendly benefits, such as the Steel-smelters, -the Boilermakers, and the Boot and Shoe Operatives. In -either case their attention is almost entirely devoted to the -earnings of their members. Alert and open-minded, they -are keen observers of market prices, employers’ profits, the -course of international trade, and everything which may -affect the gross product of their industry. They are more -acutely conscious of incompetency, whether in employer or -employed, than they can always express. Supporters of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_580">[Pg 580]</span> -improved processes, new machinery, and “speeding up,” -they would rather see an antiquated mill closed or an -incompetent member discharged than reduce the Standard -Rate. Nor do they confine themselves exclusively to the -money wages of their clients. Among them are to be -found the best advocates of legislative regulation of the -conditions of employment, and whilst they have during -the present century fallen somewhat into the background -when wider political issues have come to the fore, the -elaboration of the Labour Code during the past fifty years -has been due, in the main, to their detailed knowledge and -untiring pertinacity.</p> - -<p>The Trade Official, however, has the defects of his -qualities. The energetic workman, who at about thirty -years of age leaves the factory, the forge, or the mine, to -spend his days pitting his brains against those of shrewd -employers and sharp-witted solicitors, has necessarily to -concentrate all his energies upon the limited range of his -new work. As a Branch Secretary, he may have taken a -keen interest in the grievances and demands of other trades -besides his own. Soon he finds his duties incompatible -with any such wide outlook. The feeling of class solidarity, -so vivid in the manual working wage-earner, tends gradually -to be replaced by a narrow trade interest. The District -Delegate of the Boilermakers finds it as much as he can do -to master the innumerable and constantly changing details -of every variety of iron-ship, boiler, and bridge building in -every port, and even at every yard. The Investigator of -the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives is often -hard put to it to estimate accurately the labour in each of -the thousand changing styles of boots, whilst at the same -time keeping pace with ever-increasing complexity both of -machinery and division of labour. The Cotton Official, -with his bewildering lists, throws his whole mind into -coping with the infinite variety of calculations involved in -new patterns, increased speed, and every alteration of count -and draw and warp and weft. The Miners’ Agents can -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_581">[Pg 581]</span> -seldom travel beyond the analogous problems of their own -industry. Such a Trade Official, if he has any leisure and -energy left at the end of his exhausting day’s work, broods -over larger problems, still special to his own industry. The -Secretary of a Cotton Union finds it necessary to puzzle his -head over the employers’ contention that Bimetallism, or a -new Indian Factory Act, deserves the operatives’ support; -or to think out some way of defeating the evasions of the -law against over-steaming or of the “particulars clause.” -The whole staff of the Boilermakers will be absorbed in -considering the effect of the different systems of apprenticeship -in the shipyards, or the proper method of meeting the -ruinously violent fluctuations in shipbuilding. The Miners -will be thinking only of the technical improvement of the -conditions of safety of the mine, or of the way to protect -the interests of the hewer in an “abnormal place.” And -the modern Knight of St. Crispin racks his brains about -none of these things, but is wholly concerned with the evil -of home work, and whether the inspection of small workshops -would be more rigidly carried out under the Home -Office or under the Town Council. It is not surprising, -therefore, that the Trade Officials are characterised by an -intense and somewhat narrow sectionalism. The very knowledge -of, and absorption in, the technical details of one -particular trade, which makes them such expert specialists, -prevents them developing the higher qualities necessary for -the political leadership of the Trade Union world.</p> - -<p>In another class stand the organisers and secretaries of -what used to be called the Labourers’ Unions, and are now -styled Unions of General Workers—a less stable class, -numbering in 1892 about two hundred, and in 1920 possibly -ten times as many. In contrast with the practice of the old-established -societies these officers have at no time been -always selected from the ranks of the workers whose affairs -they administer.<a id="FNanchor_646" href="#Footnote_646" class="fnanchor">[646]</a> In “revivalist” times the cause of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_582">[Pg 582]</span> -unskilled workers attracts, from the ranks of the non-commissioned -officers of other industries, men of striking -capacity and missionary fervour, such as John Burns and -Tom Mann, who organised and led the dock labourers to -victory in 1889. But these men regarded themselves and -were regarded more as apostles to the unconverted than as -salaried officers, and they ceded their posts as soon as competent -successors among their constituents could be found. -In the main the unskilled workmen have had to rely for -officers on men drawn from their own ranks. In not a -few cases a sturdy general labourer has proved himself a -first-rate administrator of a great national Union. But it -was a special drawback to these Unions in the early -days of their development that the “failures,” who drift -from other occupations into the ranks of general labour, -frequently got elected, on account of their superior education, -to posts in which personal self-control and persistent -industry are all-important. Nor were the duties of an -organiser of unskilled labourers in old days such as developed -either regular habits or business capacity. The absence of -any extensive system of friendly benefits reduced to a -minimum the administrative functions and clerical labour -of the head office. The members, for the most part engaged -simply in general labour, and paid by the day or hour, had -no occasion for elaborate piecework lists, even supposing -that their Unions had won that full recognition by the -employers which such arrangements imply. On the other -hand, the branches of a Labourers’ Union in those days -were, for one reason or another, always crumbling away; and -the total membership was only maintained by perpetually -breaking fresh ground. Hence the greater part of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_583">[Pg 583]</span> -organiser’s time was taken up in maintaining the enthusiasm -of his members, and in sweeping in new converts. This -involved constant travelling, and the whirl of excitement -implied in an everlasting round of missions in non-Union -districts. The typical organiser of a Labourers’ Union in -1889-94 approximated, therefore, more closely than any -other figure in the Trade Union world, to the middle-class -conception of a Trade Union official. He was, in fact, a -professional agitator. He might be a saint or he might be -an adventurer; but he was seldom a man of affairs. -<a id="FNanchor_647" href="#Footnote_647" class="fnanchor">[647]</a></p> - -<p>During the past quarter of a century these Unions of -Labourers, which are now better styled Unions of General -Workers, have changed in character, and are now often huge -national organisations of financial stability, administered by -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_584">[Pg 584]</span> -men as competent as any in the Trade Union world. Their -officers, who have greatly increased in number, have elaborated -a technique of their own, combining an efficiency in -recruiting with an effective representation of their members’ -case in negotiations with the employers, and before arbitration -tribunals, which, particularly in such influential bodies -as the National Union of General Workers, the Dock, Wharf -and Riverside Labourers’ Union, the Workers’ Union and -the National Federation of Women Workers, brings them -much nearer what we have described as the Trade Official -than the typical labourers’ organiser of 1889. The exclusively -women’s Unions, among which the National -Federation of Women Workers is the only one of magnitude, -have been exceptionally fortunate in attracting and retaining -women of outstanding capacity—good organisers and -skilled negotiators—who have not only obtained for their -members a remarkable improvement in the conditions of -employment, but have, by their statesmanship, won a -position of outstanding influence in the Trade Union Movement. -It is, indeed, important to note that the accomplished -officials of the larger Unions of General Workers, -and not those of women only, have become aware of a -diversity of view between the skilled craftsman with a -“vested interest” in his trade, and the unskilled or, as -they prefer to call them, the semi-skilled or general workers, -bent on being considered qualified for any work which the -employer has to give. Hence these officials sometimes -take a larger view of Labour questions than the trade -officials of the skilled crafts. They tend to be in favour of -the amalgamation of separate societies into “One Big -Union”; of much more equality of remuneration among -all manual workers; of the “open door” to capacity; of -equal rates for men and women on the same job; and of a -levelling up of the Standard of Life of the lowest section of -the workers. This leads them instinctively to a co-ordinated -use of the industrial and the political weapons.</p> - -<p>Some of these officials, however, are paid in a manner -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_585">[Pg 585]</span> -which may exercise an adverse influence on their activity. -A new method of remuneration of the officers of a Trade -Union has been devised. In one case the very able General -Secretary of a Union of skilled craftsmen, whose services -have been in the past most valuable to the trade, is reputed -to be paid so much per member per annum, and with the -great increase in membership to be making an income four -times as large as the salaries of the General Secretaries -of great Trade Unions. In another very extensive Union -of unskilled and semi-skilled workers, practically the -whole staff is paid “by results,” the Branch Secretaries, for -instance, by rule retaining for themselves “six per cent on -the contributions, levies and fines received from the members -of the Branch on behalf of, and remitted to, the Chief -Office”; and being paid also “a procuration fee of 1s.” for -“introducing new members” into the Approved Society; -and for the extra work involved in disputes, a further “6d. -when under 25 members are affected, and 1s. for the first -25 or over; 2s. for the first 50; 6d. per 50 or part thereof -afterwards.” This method of remunerating Trade Union -officials—analogous to that successfully employed by the -Industrial Insurance Companies for their agents—has certain -attractions. A fairly adequate remuneration for the position -and work can thus be allotted to the officer, without -its amount being specifically voted by the members or -appearing in the accounts in such a way as to offend the -rank and file by a contrast between their weekly wage for -manual labour and the Standard Rate of what is essentially -a different occupation. It is, however, rightly regarded as -a pernicious system. The practice of “paying by results” -is alleged to lead sometimes to reckless recruiting, to “in -and out” Trade Unionism, and even to wholesale poaching -among the membership of other Unions; and it produces -in the Trade Union world a type of “business man” more -concerned for numbers than for raising the Standard of -Life of the members he has enrolled, or for co-operation -with other Trade Unions for their common ends.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_586">[Pg 586]</span></p> - -<p>Quite another type, of more recent introduction, is the -Political Officer of the Trade Union world. He may be -merely the Registration Officer or Election Agent serving -the local Labour Party and the Labour Candidate in a -particular constituency; he may be simply a Labour -M.P.; he may be the secretary or staff officer of a great -Trade Union or powerful federation, or, indeed, of the -Labour Party itself, devoting himself to political functions; -he may combine with one or other of these posts, or some -other Trade Union office, that of a Member of Parliament; -but he is distinguished from the typical General Secretary, -Trade Official or Labour Organiser—from one or other -of which he has usually developed—by his absorption -in the political work of the Movement, either inside the -House of Commons or outside it, within one constituency -or in a wider field. He may not always hold a political -office. A marked feature of the past decade has been -the frequency and the amount of the calls upon the time -of the Trade Union leaders who are not in Parliament, -for public service in which their own Unions have no special -concern. The Trade Union official has to serve on innumerable -public bodies, nearly always without pay of any kind, -from local Pension or Food or Profiteering Act Committees, -or the magisterial bench, up to National Arbitration -Tribunals, official Committees of Enquiry or Royal Commissions. -Such a man is perpetually devoting hours every -day to the consideration and discussion, and sometimes to -the joint decision, of issues of public character, in which it -is his special function to represent, not the opinions and -interests of the particular Trade Unionists by whom he is -paid, but the opinions and interests of the whole wage-earning -class. All this important work, a twentieth century -addition to the functions of the Trade Union staff, and not -alone the increasing calls of Parliament, is tending more -and more to the development of what we have called the -Political Officer of the movement.</p> - -<p>These three or four thousand salaried officials of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_587">[Pg 587]</span> -Trade Union world, whatever their several types, and -whatever the duties to which they are assigned, are, with -insignificant exceptions, all selected in one way, namely by -popular election by the whole body of members, either of -their respective Unions, or of particular districts of those -Unions. They are, in the skilled trades, required to be -members of the Union making the appointment; and in -order to gain the suffrages of their fellow-members they must -necessarily have made themselves known to them in some -way. They are, accordingly, selected almost invariably -from among what we have described as the non-commissioned -officers of the Movement, those who are serving or who have -served as Branch Secretaries, or other local officers. They -have thus all essentially the same training—a training which -has no more reference to the work of an administrator of -Friendly Benefits than to that of a Political Officer. What -happens is that the popular workman is, by the votes -of his fellow-workers, taken suddenly from the bench, the -forge or the mine, at any age from 30 to 50, with no larger -experience than that of a Branch Official, and put to do the -highly specialised work of one or other of the types that -we have described.<a id="FNanchor_648" href="#Footnote_648" class="fnanchor">[648]</a> It is a further difficulty that such -training and experience that an individual Trade Unionist -may have had, and such capacity as he may have shown, -whilst they may secure his election to a salaried office, or -his promotion from one such office to another, will be held -to have no bearing on the question of which office he will -be chosen to fill. The popular Branch Secretary, who has -led a successful strike, may be elected as General Secretary -in a head office where his work will be mainly that of the -manager of an insurance company. The successful Trade -Official, expert at negotiating complicated changes in piecework -lists, may find himself elected as the Union’s candidate -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_588">[Pg 588]</span> -for Parliament; and will, in due course, be sent to the -House of Commons to deal on behalf of the whole wage-earning -class, with political issues to which he has never -given so much as a thought. The Trade Union secretary, -whose daily work has trained him to the meticulous supervision -of the friendly benefits, may find himself perpetually -called away from his office to represent the interests of -Labour as a member of Royal Commissions and Committees -of Enquiry on every imaginable subject.</p> - -<p>With such imperfect methods of selection for office, and -with so complete a lack of systematic training for their -onerous and important functions, it is, we think, a matter -for surprise that Trade Union officials should have won a -well-deserved reputation for knowledge and skill in negotiations -with employers. But their haphazard selection and -inadequate training are not the only difficulties that they -have to overcome. Trade Union officials are nearly always -overworked and expected to become specialist experts in -half-a-dozen techniques; they are exposed to harassing -and demoralising conditions of life, and they are habitually -underpaid. The conditions of employment and the terms -of service which the Trade Unions, out of ignorance, impose -on those who serve them, far from being conducive to -efficient administration and wise leadership, are often -disgracefully poor. In November 1919 the National Union -of Railwaymen set a notable example in raising the salaries -of their two principal officers to £1000 a year each. But -this is wholly exceptional. Even now, after the great rise in -the cost of living, the salary of the staff officer of an important -and wealthy Trade Union rarely exceeds £400 or £500 a -year, without any provision for any other retiring allowance -than the Union’s own Superannuation Benefit of ten or -twelve shillings per week, if such a benefit exists at all. -The average member forgets that what he has to compare -the Secretary’s salary with is not the weekly wage of the -manual working members of the Union, but—on the very -doctrine of the Standard Rate in which they all believe—the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_589">[Pg 589]</span> -remuneration given by “good employers” for the kind -of work that the Secretary has to perform. When we -remember that the modern Trade Union official has to be -constantly travelling and consorting with employers and -officials of much higher standards of expenditure than his -own, and when we realise the magnitude and financial importance -of the work that he performs, the smallness of -the salary and the lack of courtesy and amenity accorded -to the office is almost ludicrous. The result is that the -able and ambitious young workman in a skilled trade is not -much tempted by the career, even if he regards it as one -of Trade Union leadership, unless he is (as so many are) an -altruistic enthusiast; or unless his ambitions are ultimately -political in character. The able young workman will both -rise more rapidly and enjoy a pleasanter life by eschewing -any ostensible service of his fellow-workmen, and taking -advantage of the eagerness of intelligent employers to -discover competent foremen and managers, nowadays not -altogether uninfluenced by the sub-conscious desire to divert -from Trade Unionism to Capitalism the most active-minded -of the proletariat. Nor does the danger to the Trade Union -world end with the refusal of some of its ablest young -members to become Trade Union officials. The inferiority -of position, alike in salary, in dignity and in amenity, to -which a Trade Union condemns its officers, compared -with that enjoyed by men of corresponding ability and -function in other spheres, puts a perpetual strain on the -loyalty of Trade Union officials. They are constantly being -tempted away from the service of their fellows by offers of -appointments in the business world, or by Employers’ -Associations, or in Government Departments. And there -are other evils of underpayment. A Trade Union official -whose income is insufficient for his daily needs is tempted to -make unduly liberal charges for his travelling expenses, and -may well find it more remunerative to be perpetually multiplying -deputations and committee meetings away from home -than to be attending to his duties at the office. He may -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_590">[Pg 590]</span> -be driven to duplicate functions and posts in order to make -a living wage. The darkest side of such a picture, the -temptation to accept from employers or from the Government -those hidden bribes that are decorously veiled as -allowances for expenses or temporary salaries for special -posts, is happily one which Trade Union loyalty and a -sturdy sense of working-class honour have hitherto made it -seldom necessary to explore. But such things have not -been unknown; and their underlying cause—the unwise -and mean underpayment of Trade Union officials—deserves -the attention of the Trade Union world.</p> - -<p>We have so far considered the officials of the Trade -Union world merely as individual administrators. This, -indeed, is almost the only way in which their work is -regarded by their members. It is remarkable how slow -the Trade Union world is to recognise the importance, to -administrative or political efficiency, of the constitution of -a hierarchy, a group or a team. Where a great society has -a salaried staff of half-a-dozen to a score of officials—under -such designations as General Secretary, Assistant Secretaries, -President, Members of Executive Council or District Delegates, -Organisers or Investigators—it is almost invariable -to find them all separately elected by the whole body of -members, or what is even more destructive of unity, by -different district memberships. We only know of one -example in the Trade Union world—that of the Iron and -Steel Trades Confederation—in which the responsible -Executive Committee itself appoints the official staff upon -which the performance of the work depends. All the -salaried officers of a Trade Union, whatever their designations -or functions, can usually claim to have the same, -and therefore equal authority, namely, their direct election -by the members. This results in the lack of any organic -relation not only between the Executive Committee and -the District Officers who ought to be its local agents, but -even between the Executive Committee and the General -Secretary and Assistant Secretaries. The Executive Committee -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_591">[Pg 591]</span> -can shunt to purely routine work a General Secretary -whom it dislikes, and an unfriendly General Secretary -can practically destroy the authority of the Executive -Committee. In some cases the work of the office is in -practice divided up amongst all the salaried staff, Executive -Councillors, General Secretary, and Assistant Secretaries -indiscriminately, each man doing his own job in the way -he thinks best, and any consultation or corporate decision -being reduced to a minimum. There is, in fact, no guarantee -that there will be any unity of policy within an -Executive Committee elected by a dozen different districts, -or between an Executive Committee and its leading officials, -who are elected at different times for different reasons. -The members may choose a majority of reactionary Executive -Councillors and simultaneously a revolutionary General -Secretary. In nearly all Unions any suggestion as to the -desirability of adopting the middle-class device of entrusting -a responsible Executive Committee with the power of choosing -its own officers has been resented as undemocratic.<a id="FNanchor_649" href="#Footnote_649" class="fnanchor">[649]</a> In -some Unions the indispensable amount of unity is secured, -not without internal friction, by the presence of some dominant -personality, who may be a secretary or president, or -merely a member of the Executive Committee. The same -drawback is seen in the constitutions of such wider federations -as the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_592">[Pg 592]</span> -The result is that the Trade Union Movement has not yet -evolved anything in the nature of Cabinet Government, -based on unity of policy among the chief administrators, -nor do we see any approach to the Party System, which in -our national politics alone makes Cabinet Government possible. -It looks as if any Democracy on a vocational basis -must inevitably be dominated by a diversity of sectional -interests which does not coincide with any cleavage in -intellectual opinions. From the standpoint of corporate -efficiency the drawback is that the sectional divergencies -are always interfering with the formulation and unhesitating -execution of decisions on wider issues, on which it would -be advantageous for the Movement as a whole, in the -interests of all, to have an effective general will, even if it -be only that of a numerical majority.</p> - -<p>Finally, it is a great drawback to the Trade Union world -that it possesses no capital city and no central headquarters -even in London. Its salaried officials, on whom it depends -for leadership and policy, are scattered all over the country. -The General Secretaries of the great Trade Friendly Societies -and of the Unions of General Workers are dispersed between -London, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Liverpool, -and Leicester. The officials of the Cotton Operatives -are quartered in a dozen Lancashire towns, and those of the -Miners in every coalfield. The District Delegates of the -Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades and the organisers of -the Dockers and the Seamen are stationed in all the principal -ports. We have seen how little the Trades Union -Congress, meeting once a year for less than a week, supplies -any central organ of consultation or direction. The meeting -in London, every few weeks, of the two or three dozen -members of the Parliamentary Committee and the Executive -Committee of the Labour Party is wholly inadequate for -the constant consultation upon policy, the mutual communication -of each other’s immediate projects, and the -taking of decisions of common interest that the present -stage of the Trade Union Movement requires. Probably -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_593">[Pg 593]</span> -no single thing would do so much to increase the efficiency -of the Trade Union world as a whole as the provision of an -adequate Central Institute and general office building in -Westminster, at which could be concentrated all the meetings -of national organisations, federations and committees; -and which would make at any rate possible the constant -personal communication of all the different headquarters. -<a id="FNanchor_650" href="#Footnote_650" class="fnanchor">[650]</a></p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_599" href="#FNanchor_599" class="label">[599]</a>It is doubtful whether, in any country in the world, even in Australia -or Denmark, there is in 1920 so large a proportion of the adult male manual -workers enrolled in Trade Unions as in the United Kingdom; and—Ireland -being still relatively unorganised industrially—certainly not so -large a proportion as in Great Britain alone.</p> - -<p>The Trade Union Movement in Ireland has, apart from the Irish -branches of British Unions, largely concentrated in the Belfast area, little -connection with that in Great Britain, but its progress during the past -thirty years has been scarcely less remarkable. The Irish railwaymen -have abandoned their attempts at organisation in an Irish Union, and -have lately swarmed into the National Union of Railwaymen to the -number of over 20,000. The engineers in Ireland, whether at Belfast -or elsewhere, are, to the number of 9000, in the Amalgamated Society of -Engineers and other British Unions. The other great Unions have -nearly all their Irish branches. But the great transformation has been -in the foundation and remarkable development of the Transport and General -Workers’ Union, built up by James Connolly and James Larkin, which -has survived both its tremendous Dublin strike of 1913 and the loss of -both its leaders, and claims in 1920 over 100,000 members in 400 branches, -being half the Trade Unionists in all Ireland. The only other Irish Trade -Unions exceeding 5000 members are the Flax Roughers’ Union, included -with other Unions in an Irish Textile Workers’ Federation, and the Clerical -Workers’ Union, together with the Irish Teachers’ Society, which (unlike -the National Union of Teachers in England and the Educational Institute -of Scotland) is frankly affiliated with the (Irish) Labour Party. Scores -of other Irish Trade Unions exist, practically all small, local, and sectional -in character, and almost confined to the ten towns of Dublin, Belfast, -Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Dundalk, Derry, Clonmel, Sligo, and Kilkenny. -The total Trade Union membership in Ireland, which thirty years ago -was only put at 40,000, may now exceed 200,000, about one-fifth of which -is in and about Belfast. The Irish Trades Union Congress, established in -1894, and the Irish Labour Party meet annually.</p> - -<p>The Irish Trade Union Movement, emerging from handicraftsmen’s -local clubs, some of them dating from the middle of the eighteenth century, -and monopolist and sectional in policy, has, during the present century, -become fired with nationalist spirit and almost revolutionary fervour. -Its heroes are Michael Davitt, James Connolly, and James Larkin. The -story of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, with its extraordinary -extension to all grades of wage-earners all over Ireland, and its sensational -strikes in Dublin in 1913-14, is an epic in itself. Some idea of this -development may be gathered from <i>The Irish Labour Movement</i>, by W. P. -Ryan, 1919; <i>Labour in Irish History</i>, by James Connolly; <i>Socialism -Made Easy</i>, by the same (about 1905); the Annual Reports of the Irish -Trades Union Congress since 1895; and those of the Irish Labour Party.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_600" href="#FNanchor_600" class="label">[600]</a>Statistics of aggregate membership in the past are lacking. But we -suggest that after the transient mass enrolments of 1833-34 had lapsed, -the total membership in Great Britain of such Trade Unions as survived -probably did not reach 100,000. It is doubtful whether, as late as 1860, -there were half a million Trade Unionists. We give in an Appendix such -past statistics as we have found.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_601" href="#FNanchor_601" class="label">[601]</a><i>Industrial Democracy</i>, pp. 38, 92, 103, 123, 258, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_602" href="#FNanchor_602" class="label">[602]</a>The Amalgamated Association of Card and Blowing Room Operatives -is (1920) not now a member. A further development of federal -complexity is the formation of a Federation of Kindred Trades connected -with the Export Shipping Industry of Manchester.</p> - -<p>An invidious feature, in which the textile industry is unique, is the -appearance during the present century, as the result of a quarrel as to -“political action,” of half-a-dozen separate local Trade Unions of Roman -Catholic weavers, which are united in what is termed the Lancashire -Federation of Protection Societies. These, which are neither numerous -nor of extensive membership, remain outside the Amalgamated Association -of Weavers; and are watchful critics of any proposals, at the Trades -Union Congress (to which they do not seek admission) or elsewhere, that -offend the Roman Catholic Church (notably any suggestion of “Secular -Education,” or educational changes deemed inimical to the Roman Catholic -schools). There is a National Conference of Catholic Trade Unionists -having similar objects.</p> - -<p>There was, in 1919, also a Jewish National Labour Council of Great -Britain; and from time to time Unions are formed, especially in the -clothing trade (such as the Amalgamated Jewish Tailors, Machinists, and -Pressers, established 1893), and in baking and cabinetmaking, aiming at -enrolling Jewish workers. But this is not really a religious, or even -primarily a racial, cleavage, but merely sectional organisation, usually -transient, among particular branches of industry which happen to be -principally carried on by Jews. At present most such societies in the -clothing trade have been absorbed in the United Garment Workers’ Trade -Union, which, with upwards of 100,000 members, is actively negotiating -for a merger with the older Amalgamated Society of Tailors and Tailoresses -(established 1865) and the effective Scottish Operative Tailors’ and -Tailoresses’ Association, with 5000 members, under the title of the United -Tailors and Garment Workers.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_603" href="#FNanchor_603" class="label">[603]</a>A recent case in which the Trade Union Assistant Secretary left -the weavers for the employers, in the midst of a crisis, with the Union -affairs in confusion, was stigmatised as desertion.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_604" href="#FNanchor_604" class="label">[604]</a>The workers in the woollen and worsted trades, whose organisation -went to pieces early in the nineteenth century on the extensive introduction -of women and the successive transformations of the industry by -machinery, have, during the past thirty years, developed extensive Trade -Unions, which have steadily gained strength. In 1892 we could count -only 18,000 Trade Unionists in the whole industry. In 1920, whilst the -National Society of Woolcombers and Kindred Trades has 12,000 members -and there are strong organisations of wool-sorters, warp-dressers, and over-lookers, -the General Union of Textile Workers, established in 1881, now -includes a membership, in the West of England as well as in Yorkshire, -principally male and female weavers, numbering more than 100,000 (<i>The -Heavy Woollen District Textile Workers’ Union</i>, by Ben Turner, 1917). -During the war these Unions were accorded equal representation with the -employers and with the Government on the Wool Control Board, by -which the Government supplies of wool were “rationed” among the -manufacturers, and the prices fixed.</p> - -<p>In the dyeing and finishing branch of the textile industry the Amalgamated -Society of Dyers, Bleachers, Finishers, and Kindred Trades -(established 1878), with 30,000 members, has outstripped the older National -Society of Dyers and Finishers (established 1851; 12,000 members), and -has entered into remarkable agreements with the monopolist combination -of employers. (The Amalgamated Association of Bleachers and Dyers, -centred at Bolton, which has over 22,000 members, occupies a similar -leading position as regards the dyeing of cotton goods.) A recently formed -National Association of Unions in the Textile Trades seeks to co-ordinate -the influence of all the woollen workers and dyers, and counts a membership -of about 150,000, in 35 societies, which are grouped in four sections -(“Raw Wool,” “Managers and Overlookers,” “Textile Workers,” and -“Dyers’ Societies”).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_605" href="#FNanchor_605" class="label">[605]</a>The history of the struggles in the engineering industry may be -gathered from the monthly <i>Journal</i> of the A.S.E. and the Annual Reports -of this and other engineering Trade Unions; from the references in -<i>Engineering</i> and other employers’ periodicals. For the lock-out of 1897, -see also the <i>Times</i> and <i>Labour Gazette</i> for that year, and also an anonymous -volume, <i>The Engineering Strike</i>, 1897. See also for some of the points at -issue, <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, by S. and B. Webb, 1897; <i>An Introduction to -Trade Unionism</i>, by G. D. H. Cole, 1917, and <i>The Works Manager To-day</i>, -by Sidney Webb, 1918.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_606" href="#FNanchor_606" class="label">[606]</a>The Unions which, along with the A.S.E., ratified the agreement -were the Steam Engine Makers’ Society, the United Machine Workers’ -Association, the United Kingdom Society of Amalgamated Smiths and -Strikers, the Associated Brassfounders and Coppersmiths’ Society, the -North of England Brass Turners’ Society, and the London United Metal -Turners, Fitters and Finishers, having an aggregate membership of 70,000.</p> - -<p>The societies which failed to secure ratification on the members’ vote, -in some cases merely by the failure to obtain a sufficiently large poll, were -the Amalgamated Toolmakers’ Society, the Electrical Trades Union, the -United Brass Founders and Finishers’ Association, the Amalgamated -Instrument Makers’ Society, the United Pattern Makers’ Association, the -Associated Smiths and Strikers, the National Brassworkers and Metal -Mechanics, the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen, -and the Scale and Beam Makers’ Society, with something like 100,000 -members in the aggregate. Probably some of these will take another vote -in the near future.</p> - -<p>The old-established Friendly Society of Ironfounders (35,000 members) -continues quite apart, though joining freely in engineering trade movements. -An unusually protracted national strike in 1919, which is likely -to end in a compromise, may possibly lead to proposals for closer union.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_607" href="#FNanchor_607" class="label">[607]</a><i>Trade Unionism: a New Model</i>, by R. Page Arnot, 1919; and <i>Is -Trade Unionism played out?</i> 1919, by the same. Some “extremist” -thinkers among workmen have put their hopes of achieving the “Industrial -Democracy” that they desire upon a development of the Shop -Stewards’ Movement, which should become, together with a “Works -Committee,” the instrument of transferring the management of each -undertaking from its present capitalist owners and directors to the elected -representatives of the persons employed. See <i>The Workers’ Committee, -an Outline of its Principles and Structures</i>, by J. T. Murphy (1918), and -<i>Compromise or Independence, an Examination of the Whitley Report</i>(1918), -by the same, both published by the Sheffield Workers’ Committee.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_608" href="#FNanchor_608" class="label">[608]</a>The Amalgamated Society of Steel and Ironworkers and the Tin and -Sheet Millmen’s Association failed to secure their members’ ratification -by vote, whilst the National Association of Blastfurnacemen withheld its -adhesion. These may be expected to adhere in due course.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_609" href="#FNanchor_609" class="label">[609]</a>The London dock labourers found themselves in 1911, with an -increased cost of living and the virtual abandonment of attempts to -improve their method of employment, little better off than in 1889. See -<i>Casual Labour at the Docks</i>, by H. A. Mess, 1916; and, for the position -at other ports, <i>Le Travail casuel dans les ports anglais</i>, by J. Malégue, -1913; <i>The Liverpool Docks Problem</i>, 1912, and <i>The First Year’s Working -of the Liverpool Dock Scheme</i>, 1914, both by R. Williams (of the Labour -Exchange); and “Towards the Solution of the Casual Labour Problem,” -by F. Keeling, in <i>Economic Journal</i>, March 1913.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_610" href="#FNanchor_610" class="label">[610]</a><i>History of the London Transport Workers’ Strike</i>, by Ben Tillett, -1911; <i>The Great Strike Movement of 1911 and its Lessons</i>, by H. W. Lee, -1911; <i>The Times</i> for June-August 1911; <i>Labour Gazette</i>, 1911-12.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_611" href="#FNanchor_611" class="label">[611]</a><i>The Working Life of Shop Assistants</i>, by Joseph Hallsworth and -R. J. Davis, 1913.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_612" href="#FNanchor_612" class="label">[612]</a>A separate Association of Women Clerks and Secretaries, long small -in membership, has also risen to 4500 members.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_613" href="#FNanchor_613" class="label">[613]</a>See <i>English Teachers and their Professional Organisations</i>, by Mrs. -Sidney Webb, published as supplements to <i>The New Statesman</i> of September -25 and October 2, 1915.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_614" href="#FNanchor_614" class="label">[614]</a>From 1913 onward a persistent attempt to establish a Trade Union -was made by many of the Police and Prison Officers, which was resisted -by the Home Secretary, as responsible for the Metropolitan Police, and by -all the Local Authorities. In 1913 the Police and Prison Officers’ Union -was formed by ex-Inspector Symes, and in 1917 it was reorganised, without -securing either recognition or sanction. Cases of “victimisation” having -occurred, there was a sudden strike on August 29, 1918, which was participated -in by nearly the whole of the police in many London divisions. This -took the world (and also the criminal population) by surprise; but through -good-humoured handling by the Prime Minister (who received the Executive -Committee of the Union and told them that “the Union could not be -recognised during the war”), the Government persuaded the men promptly -to resume their duties, with a cessation of “victimisation” for joining -the Union and a substantial increase of pay. When hostilities ceased, the -Union expected some measure of official sanction, but none was accorded, -and grievances remained unredressed. On July 31, 1919, a second strike -was suddenly called, which resulted in failure, only a couple of thousand -men coming out in London, and a few hundred in Liverpool, Birkenhead, -and elsewhere, together with a small number of prison warders. At -Liverpool and Birkenhead there was serious looting of shops and public-houses -by turbulent crowds. The authorities stood firm, the Home -Secretary refusing all sanction for the establishment of a Trade Union in -the police force and prison staff, and summarily dismissing all the strikers, -at the same time announcing large concessions in the way of wages, promotion, -and pensions, and conceding, not a Trade Union, but the establishment -of an elective organisation of the police force, by grades, entitled -to make formal representations and complaints. This concession was -embodied in the Police Act, 1919, which explicitly prohibited to the police -either membership of, or affiliation to, any Trade Union or political organisation. -The dismissed policemen were not reinstated, but the Government -informally assisted some of them to obtain other employment.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_615" href="#FNanchor_615" class="label">[615]</a>For the history of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain and the -contemporary District Unions, we have drawn on the voluminous printed -minutes of proceedings and reports which are seldom seen outside the -Miners’ Offices; the various publications of the Labour Department of -the Board of Trade (now the Ministry of Labour) and the Home Office; -<i>The British Coal Trade</i>, by H. Stanley Jevons (1915); <i>The British Coal -Industry</i>, by Gilbert Stone (1919); <i>Labour Strife in the South Wales -Coalfield, 1910-11</i>, by D. Evans (1911); <i>The Adjustment of Wages</i>, by -Sir W. J. Ashley; <i>Miners’ Wages and the Sliding Scale</i>, by W. Smart -(1894); <i>Miners and the Eight Hours Movement</i>, by M. Percy; <i>History of -the Durham Miners’ Association</i>, by J. Wilson (1907); <i>A Great Labour -Leader</i>[Thomas Burt], by Aaron Watson (1908); <i>Memoirs of a Miners’ -Leader</i>, by J. Wilson (1910); <i>Industrial Unionism and the Mining Industry</i>, -by George Harvey (1917); <i>A Plan for the Democratic Control of the Mining -Industry</i>, by the Industrial Committee of the South Wales Socialist Society -(1919); the Reports and evidence of the Coal Industry Commission, 1919, -and the voluminous newspaper discussion to which it gave rise, together -with <i>Facts from the Coal Commission</i> and <i>Further Facts from the Coal -Commission</i>, both by R. Page Arnot (1919).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_616" href="#FNanchor_616" class="label">[616]</a>The enginemen, boilermen and firemen, colliery mechanics, cokemen, -under-managers, deputies, overmen and other officials, colliery clerks and -various kinds of surface-workers about the mines have all their own -Unions, which have greatly developed of recent years, and are in many -districts not very willing to join the county miners’ associations, though -they often act in conjunction with these. Their own federations are -referred to on p. 550.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_617" href="#FNanchor_617" class="label">[617]</a><i>The British Coal Trade</i>(by H. Stanley Jevons, 1915), p. 599.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_618" href="#FNanchor_618" class="label">[618]</a>The other railwaymen’s Unions are the Belfast and Dublin Locomotive -Engine-drivers’ and Firemen’s Trade Union, founded in 1872, and -still existing (1920) with a few hundred members; the Associated Society -of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, founded in 1880, a powerful -sectional society with 33,000 members, which long maintained a jealous -rivalry with the Amalgamated; the Railway Clerks’ Association, founded -in 1897, remaining very small for a whole decade, absorbing in 1911 -the Railway Telegraph Clerks’ Association, founded 1897, with 85,000 -members; the Irish Railway Workers’ Trade Union, founded in 1910, -tiny and insignificant; the National Union of Railway Clerks, formed in -1913, a tiny local body, arising out of the suspension of the Sheffield -Branch of the Railway Clerks’ Association, temporary only.</p> - -<p>We may mention the Scottish Society of Railway Servants, founded -in the eighteen-eighties, merged in the Amalgamated Society in 1892; the -United Signalmen and Pointsmen, founded in 1880, merged in the N.U.R. -in 1913; the General Railway Workers’ Union, founded in 1889, merged -in the N.U.R., 1913.</p> - -<p>For the development of Trade Unionism in the railway world, and -the various controversies, we have drawn mainly on the numerous reports -and other publications of the Unions themselves; the <i>Railway Review</i> -and the <i>Railway Clerk</i>(the pleading for the Companies being found in the -<i>Railway News</i>, subsequently incorporated in the <i>Railway Gazette</i>); <i>Trade -Unionism on the Railways, its History and Problems</i>, by G. D. H. Cole -and R. Page Arnot (1917); the <i>Souvenir History</i>, published by the Amalgamated -Society of Railway Servants (1910); <i>Men and Rails</i>, by Rowland -Kenney (1913); <i>Der Arbeitskampf der englischen Eisenbahner im Jahre -1911</i>, by C. Leubuscher, 1913; the various publications on the legal -proceedings, for which see the next chapter; the Reports of the Board -of Trade on Railway Accidents, hours of labour, etc., of the Select Committee -of 1892, and the Special Committee of Inquiry of 1911; <i>An Introduction -to Trade Unionism</i>, by G. D. H. Cole (1918); <i>From Engine-cleaner -to Privy Councillor</i>[J. H. Thomas], by J. F. Moir Bussy (1917).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_619" href="#FNanchor_619" class="label">[619]</a><i>Slavery on Scottish Railways</i>(1888); <i>The Scottish Railway Strike</i>, by -James Mavor (1891).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_620" href="#FNanchor_620" class="label">[620]</a>The North Eastern Railway Company was so far an exception that, -already in 1890, it was willing to receive representations from the Trade -Union.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_621" href="#FNanchor_621" class="label">[621]</a>A notable feature was a statistical census of the wages of the railwaymen, -compiled by the Amalgamated Society through its membership, -for the presentation of which Mr. Richard Bell, the Secretary, obtained -the services of a Cambridge graduate, Mr. W. T. Layton. This “Green -Book” revealed that 38 per cent received 20s. per week or under, and -49.8 per cent between 21s. and 30s.; with atrocious hours. Attempts to -discredit these statistics were made by the Companies, it being in particular -constantly suggested that nearly all the 100,000 paid under £1 per week -were boys. It took the Board of Trade four years to compile and publish -an official wage-census for October 1907, which eventually revealed that -96,000 adult railwaymen were receiving 19s. per week or less (Board of -Trade Report, February 1912), an extraordinarily exact confirmation of -the much-abused census taken by the Union. See <i>Men and Rails</i>, by -Rowland Kenney, 1913.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_622" href="#FNanchor_622" class="label">[622]</a>This intimation undoubtedly meant that the Government had -decided, as the <i>Times</i> expressly said, to use the Royal Engineers to run -trains—a decision to be compared with that at once announced in the -national railway strike of 1919, that no use would be made of the troops -actually to run trains, nor would the Post Office officials be asked to do -railwaymen’s work, nor persons on State Unemployment Benefit be called -upon to accept employment on the railways. The change in attitude -of the Government in eight years is significant.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_623" href="#FNanchor_623" class="label">[623]</a>The committee consisted, for the first time, of equal numbers of -persons appointed as being representative of employers and workmen -respectively—two on each side—none of them directly concerned with -the industry, with an “impartial chairman,” all five being selected by -the Government. For the Companies, Sir T. Ratcliffe Ellis and Mr. -C. G. Beale; for the workmen, Mr. Arthur Henderson, M.P., and Mr. -John Burnett; the Chairman was Sir David Harrel, K.C.B., an official of -the Irish Government.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_624" href="#FNanchor_624" class="label">[624]</a>The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, having -now 51,000 members, unfortunately stood aloof; and the annals of -railway Trade Unionism were, down to 1918, largely made up of the -wrangling between this society and the National Union of Railwaymen.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_625" href="#FNanchor_625" class="label">[625]</a>The mechanics and labourers in the railway companies’ engineering -and repairing shops, though many of them have always been members of -the various engineering and other craft Unions, long remained relatively -unorganised. Many of the less skilled were enrolled by the General -Railway Workers’ Union in 1889-1913; and when this was merged in the -National Union of Railwaymen, with its broadened constitution, many -more of the mechanics and labourers in the railway workshops were -recruited, and the N.U.R. sought to obtain for them the advances and -other benefits for which it was pressing. The railway companies disputed -the right of the N.U.R. to speak for the “shopmen,” and the claim provoked -the resentment of the craft Unions, which were now paying increased -attention to the organisation of men of their crafts in the railway workshops. -Repeated attempts have been made to arrive at some “line of -demarcation” or other compromise, by which this rivalry between Unions -could be brought to an end; but hitherto without success. The quarrel -is inflamed by a conflict of Trade Union doctrine. The engineers, boilermakers, -carpenters, and other trades assert that organisation should be -by craft, whatever may be the industry in which the craftsman is working. -The advocates of the “New Model” of the N.U.R. assert the superiority -of organisation by industry, including in each industry all the crafts -actually concerned. See <i>Trade Unionism on the Railways, its History and -Problems</i>, by G. D. H. Cole and R. Page Arnot, 1917.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_626" href="#FNanchor_626" class="label">[626]</a>The Presidential Address at the Annual Conference of the Railway -Clerks’ Association in 1913 had suggested that the representatives of the -railway workers should constitute one-third of a National Railway Board—a -proposal that did not content the larger Union.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_627" href="#FNanchor_627" class="label">[627]</a>It was reported that in some cases the soldiers fraternised with the -pickets and were promptly withdrawn to barracks; and the Cabinet was -certainly warned, by high military authority, against attempting to use -the troops.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_628" href="#FNanchor_628" class="label">[628]</a>For an account of this Department see pp. 571-2.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_629" href="#FNanchor_629" class="label">[629]</a>A notable feature was a revolt of the compositors and printers’ -assistants, who threatened to strike and stop the newspapers altogether -unless the railwaymen were allowed to present their case and unless -abusive posters were abandoned.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_630" href="#FNanchor_630" class="label">[630]</a><i>Railway Dispute, 1919: Report to the Labour Movement of Great -Britain by the Committee appointed at the Caxton Hall Conference</i>(National -Transport Workers’ Federation).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_631" href="#FNanchor_631" class="label">[631]</a>British Trade Unionism has often been contrasted, to its disadvantage, -with the more scientifically classified German Trade Unionism before -the Great War. It was, for instance, often pointed out that the three -millions of German Trade Unionists were grouped in no more than 48 -Unions. This, however, ignored the numerous competing Hirsch-Duncker -and Christian Unions, which were far more destructive of unity than are -the crowd of minor societies in Great Britain and Ireland. At present -(1920) the 48 largest Trade Unions of this country concentrate a larger -membership than the much-praised 48 Trade Unions of Germany did in -1914.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_632" href="#FNanchor_632" class="label">[632]</a>See <i>An Introduction to Trade Unionism</i>, by G. D. H. Cole, 1917.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_633" href="#FNanchor_633" class="label">[633]</a>See the <i>History of the British Trades Union Congress</i>(by W. J. Davis), -vol. ii. (1916), p. 156; and the successive <i>Annual Reports</i> of the General -Federation of Trade Unions from 1900 onward.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_634" href="#FNanchor_634" class="label">[634]</a>Such as those for Kent, Lancashire and Cheshire, North Wales, the -South-Western Counties, and Yorkshire.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_635" href="#FNanchor_635" class="label">[635]</a>At Nottingham, Leicester, Brighton, Hanley, Manchester, Worcester, -and some other towns, the Trades Council has at times been allowed the -use of a room in the Town Hall, or other municipal building. The Local -Government Board in 1908 suggested to Local Authorities that this -assistance should be generally afforded to them.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_636" href="#FNanchor_636" class="label">[636]</a>One of the most active supporters of the Trades Council Movement -is the National Union of Railwaymen, which has been largely responsible -for the valuable help rendered by the Trades Councils in the organisation -of agricultural labourers. The Amalgamated Union of Co-operative -Employees, that of Operative Bakers of Great Britain and Ireland, and -the Municipal Employees’ Association are also outstanding supporters of -the Trades Councils, whilst the Oldham Operative Cotton-spinners, and -the Operative Lace Makers of Nottingham make branch affiliation compulsory. -In many of the principal Unions branch affiliation fees are -contributed wholly, or in large proportion, from Central Funds.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_637" href="#FNanchor_637" class="label">[637]</a>The Manchester Trades Council, and especially its Chairman, Mr. -Purcell, of the Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association, successfully -brought to a compromise the very serious strike of the Amalgamated -Union of Co-operative Employees against the Lancashire and Yorkshire -Co-operative Societies in 1919.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_638" href="#FNanchor_638" class="label">[638]</a>The Gateshead Trades Council and Local Labour Party holds an -“Information Bureau meeting” once a week, devoted to answering -inquiries and affording information on Local Government affairs.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_639" href="#FNanchor_639" class="label">[639]</a>The Trades Union Congress has, since 1873, published a long and -detailed <i>Annual Report</i>; and the Parliamentary Committee has, for some -years past, issued a <i>Quarterly Circular</i> to its constituent bodies. Besides -these, there should be consulted the <i>History of the British Trades Union -Congress</i>, by W. J. Davis, of which two volumes have been issued (1910 and -1916); <i>Henry Broadhurst, the Story of his Life</i>, by himself, 1901.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_640" href="#FNanchor_640" class="label">[640]</a>See the significant comments in <i>History of the British Trades Union -Congress</i>, by W. J. Davis, vol. ii., 1916, pp. 102-8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_641" href="#FNanchor_641" class="label">[641]</a>In the early period of its history the middle-class friends of Trade -Unionism read papers and took part in debates. But for many years no -one has been allowed to participate in its proceedings in any capacity -except duly elected delegates who have worked at the trade they represent, -or are actually salaried officials of affiliated Trade Unions. In 1892 -and 1893 admission was further limited to those societies which contributed -a specified amount per thousand members to the funds of the -Congress. The Parliamentary Committee consists of seventeen members, -elected by ballot of the whole of the delegates on the fifth day of the Congress. -The successful candidates are usually the salaried officers of the -great societies, the Standing Orders expressly providing that no trade shall -have more than one representative except the miners, who may now have -two. The Secretary receives, even in 1920, only £500 a year, and the -post has nearly always been filled by an officer enjoying emoluments for -other duties. For the last forty years the holder has almost constantly -been a member of Parliament, with prior obligations to his constituents, -which are not always consistent with the directions of his fellow Trade -Unionists; and with onerous Parliamentary duties, which often hamper -his secretarial work. For many years he had to provide whatever clerical -assistance he required; but in 1896 a clerk, and in 1917 an Assistant -Secretary, were added to the staff.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_642" href="#FNanchor_642" class="label">[642]</a>Each Union casts votes in proportion to its affiliated membership, -but can divide them as it pleases among the candidates. Between 1906 -and 1915 the delegates were divided into ten groups of allied industries, -and each group chose its own member. At the 1919 Congress a resolution -was carried directing that the election should henceforth be by the transferable -vote; and it remains to be seen whether this will upset the -“dickering for votes.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_643" href="#FNanchor_643" class="label">[643]</a>The situation was for years further complicated by the fact -that C. Fenwick, M.P., who in 1890 succeeded Henry Broadhurst in the -office, was one of the Parliamentary representatives of the Durham miners, -a majority of whom were not in accordance with the decision of the Congress -on the crucial question of an Eight Hours’ Bill. It was in vain that -Fenwick, with most engaging candour, explained to each successive -Congress that his pledge to his constituents, no less than his own opinions, -would compel him actively to oppose all regulation of the hours of adult -male labour. The Congress nevertheless elected him for four successive -years as Secretary to the Parliamentary Committee, replacing him only -in 1894 by an officer who was prepared to support the policy of the -Congress. This is only another example of the extraordinary constancy -(referred to at p. 471) with which a working-class organisation adheres to -a man who has once been elected an officer—a constancy due, as we think, -partly to a generous objection to “do a man out of his job,” and partly -to a deep-rooted belief that any given piece of work can be done as well -by one man as another. Much the same situation has recurred frequently -in the record of the Parliamentary Committee.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_644" href="#FNanchor_644" class="label">[644]</a>One such case may be mentioned. In 1898 a small Trade Union of -old standing (Co-operative Smiths’ Society, Gateshead) formally complained -that the Amalgamated Society of Engineers had allowed its members to -take the places of men who had struck. The Parliamentary Committee, -acting under Standing Order No. 20, appointed three of its members as -arbitrators, who, after elaborate inquiry, found the charge proved, and -requested the A.S.E. to withdraw its members from the place in dispute. -The A.S.E. refused to accept the award, and withdrew from the Congress -(Annual Report of Trades Union Congress, 1899; <i>History of British Trades -Union Congress</i>, by W. J. Davis, vol. ii., 1916, pp. 161-62, 165-67).</p> - -<p>Another case, in 1902, was adjudicated on in a similar way, where -the United Kingdom Amalgamated Smiths and Strikers complained of the -Associated Blacksmiths’ Society, which was found to blame (<i>ibid.</i> p. 208).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_645" href="#FNanchor_645" class="label">[645]</a>In view of the failure of the Trades Union Congress to equip its -Parliamentary Committee with any staff that would enable it to deal -with these problems, the Fabian Society started in 1912 the Fabian -Research Department, to investigate and supply information upon these -and other questions. This organisation has now become the Labour -Research Department, an independent federal combination of Trade -Unions, Co-operative and Socialist societies, and other Labour bodies -(including the Labour Party, the English, Scottish, and Irish Trades -Union Congresses, the Co-operative Union, the <i>Daily Herald</i>, most of the -big Trade Unions, and some hundreds of Trade Councils, Local Labour -Parties, etc.), with individual students and investigators. It has its -offices at 34 Eccleston Square, London, S.W.1, next door to those of the -Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party; issues to its members a -monthly bulletin of information, and has published many useful books, -pamphlets, and monographs. It answers a stream of questions from -Trade Unions all over the country on every conceivable point of theory or -practice; it supplies particulars of rates of pay, hours of labour, and -conditions of employment in other trades; and it is frequently employed -in helping to prepare cases for submission to Joint Boards or Arbitration -Tribunals. Its influential conduct of the “publicity” of the National -Union of Railwaymen in the 1919 strike has already been described.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_646" href="#FNanchor_646" class="label">[646]</a>For instance, Henry Taylor, the coadjutor of Joseph Arch in organising -the agricultural labourers in 1872, was a carpenter; Tom Mann, -for two years salaried President of the Dock, Wharf, and Riverside -Labourers, has always been a member, and is now General Secretary, of -the Amalgamated Society of Engineers; whilst Edward M’Hugh, for some -time General Secretary of the National Union of Dock Labourers, is a -compositor; Mr. Charles Duncan, President of the Workers’ Union, is an -engineer; Mr. R. Walker, General Secretary of the Agricultural Labourers’ -Union, was successively a shopkeeper and a railway clerk, and so on.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_647" href="#FNanchor_647" class="label">[647]</a>The fervent energy of the typical official of the Labour Union of -that day was well described in 1894 in the following sketch by Mrs. Bruce -Glasier (Katherine Conway), a member of the “Independent Labour -Party.” “He has his offices, but is generally conspicuous there from his -absence. Walter Crane’s ‘Triumph of Labour’ hangs on the wall, and -copies of <i>The Fabian Essays</i>, and the greater proportion of the tracts -issued by the Manchester or Glasgow Labour Presses, lie scattered over -the room. In England, Byron and Shelley, in Scotland, Byron and -Burns, are the approved poets. Carlyle and a borrowed Ruskin or two -are also in evidence, and a library edition of Thorold Rogers’ <i>Work and -Wages</i>. John Stuart Mill’s <i>Political Economy</i>, side by side with a <i>Student’s -Marx</i>, give proof of a laudable determination to go to the roots of the -matter, and to base all arguments on close and careful study. But the -call to action is never-ceasing, and train-travelling, if conducive to the -enormous success of new journalism, affords but little opportunity for -serious reading. ‘The daily newspapers are continually filled with lies, -which one ought to know how to refute,’ and the situation all over the -globe ‘may develop at any moment.’</p> - -<p>“Yet, unlike the old Unionist leader, he is ever ready for the interviewer -or the sympathetic inquirer, of whatever class or sex. Right -racily he will describe the rapid growth of the movement since the great -dock strike of 1889, and show the necessity in dealing with such mixed -masses of men as fill the ranks of unskilled labour to-day, of continually -striking while the iron is hot, and of substituting a policy of <i>coup d’état</i> -for the deliberate preparation of the older Unions. ‘Lose here, win -there,’ is our only motto, he says, resolutely determined to look at -defeat from the point of view of a general-in-chief, and not from the -narrower range of an officer in charge of a special division. At the -moment of surrender he may have been white to the lips, but the next -day will find him cheery and undaunted in another part of the country, -carrying on his campaign and enrolling hundreds of recruits by the sheer -energy of his confident eloquence.” (<i>Weekly Sun</i>, January 28, 1894.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_648" href="#FNanchor_648" class="label">[648]</a>It is, we think, only the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation that -had laid down and acted on the principle of entrusting the appointment -of salaried officials to the Executive Committee, on the express ground -that popular election by ballot is not the right way to select administrative -officers.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_649" href="#FNanchor_649" class="label">[649]</a>It would clearly be an advantage if the distinction between those -responsible for policy (whether designated Executive Councillors, President -or otherwise) and those whose function should be executive only, were -fully borne in mind. Whilst the former should certainly be elected by, -and held responsible to, the membership, it is submitted that experience -shows the advantage of purely executive officers—which may be what -the secretaries and district delegates should become—being appointed by, -and held responsible to, those who are elected.</p> - -<p>At least, a separation should be made between persons elected to be -responsible for policy, and officers employed for tasks requiring specialised -training (such as the whole of the insurance work of the Union and of its -Approved Society; its constantly increasing statistical requirements, and -its legal business). Such officers should certainly be appointed, not elected; -and should take no part in the decision of issues of policy, even as regards -their own department. Speaking generally, much more specialisation of -functions and officers should be aimed at in all Unions of magnitude.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_650" href="#FNanchor_650" class="label">[650]</a>Such a building was decided on in 1918-19 by joint and separate -conferences of the Trades Union Congress and Labour Party, as a -“Memorial of Freedom and Peace,” in memory of those who lost their -lives in the Great War. It is, however, by no means certain that the -necessary large cost will be subscribed.</p> - -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_594">[Pg 594]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X</h2> -</div> - -<p class="h2sub">THE PLACE OF TRADE UNIONISM IN THE STATE<br /> -[1890-1920]</p> - -<p>In 1890 Trade Union organisation had already become a -lawful institution; its leading members had begun to be -made members of Royal Commissions and justices of the -peace; they were, now and then, given such Civil Service -appointments as Factory Inspectors; and two or three of -them had won their way into the House of Commons. But -these advances were still exceptional and precarious. The -next thirty years were to see the legal position of Trade -Unionism, actually in consequence of renewed assaults, -very firmly consolidated by statute, and the Trade Union -claim to participation in all public enquiries, and to nominate -members to all governmental commissions and committees, -practically admitted. Trade Union representatives have -won an equal entrance to local bodies, from Quarter Sessions -and all the elected Councils down to Pension and Food and -Profiteering Act Committees; an influential Labour Party -has been established in Parliament; and most remarkable -of all, the Trade Union itself has been tacitly accepted as -a part of the administrative machinery of the State.</p> - -<p>It is a characteristic feature of Trade Union history, at -the end as at the beginning of the record of the past hundred -years, that we have to trace the advance of the Movement -through a series of attacks upon Trade Unionism itself. It -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_595">[Pg 595]</span> -is in this light that we regard the Royal Commission on -Labour set up by the Conservative Government of 1891. -Its professed purpose was to enquire into the relations -between Capital and Labour, with a view to their improvement. -But its composition was significantly weighted -against the wage-earners. It is true that, in the large total -membership, seven Trade Union officials were included, -among them being Mr. Tom Mann; but whilst the great -employers who sat on the Commission were supported by -legislators, lawyers, and economists of their own class, -having substantially their own assumptions and opinions, -the Trade Unionist minority was allowed no expert colleagues. -From the start the Commission set itself—probably quite -without any consciousness of bias—to discredit alike the -economic basis of the workmen’s combinations, the methods -and devices of Trade Unionism, and the projects of social -and economic reform that were then making headway in -the Trade Union world. In the end, after two years’ exhaustive -enquiry, which cost the nation nearly £50,000, the -majority of the Commissioners either found it impossible, or -deemed it inexpedient, to report anything in the nature of -an indictment against Trade Unionism in theory or practice; -and could not bring themselves to recommend any, even -the slightest, reversal of what had, up to the very date of -the report, been conceded or enacted, whether with regard -to the recognition of Trade Unions, the collective regulation -of wages, the legal prescription of minimum conditions of -employment or the political activities of the workmen’s -combinations. The majority of the Commissioners—it is -significant that they were joined by three out of the seven -Trade Unionists—contented themselves with deprecating, -and mildly arguing against, every one of the projects of -reform that were then in the air. What is interesting is -the fact that the most reactionary section of the Commission -nearly persuaded their colleagues of the majority to -recommend putting Trade Unions compulsorily into the -strait-jacket of legal incorporation, involving them in -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_596">[Pg 596]</span> -corporate liability for the acts of their officers or agents, -with the object of inducing the Unions to enter—not, as is -usual in Collective Bargaining, into treaties defining merely -<i>minimum</i> conditions—but into legally binding obligations -with the employers, in which the Unions would become -liable in damages if any of their members refused to work -on the collectively prescribed terms. At the last moment -the majority of the Commissioners recoiled from this proposal, -which was left to be put forward as a separate report -over the names of seven Commissioners. The Labour -Minority Report, signed by four<a id="FNanchor_651" href="#Footnote_651" class="fnanchor">[651]</a> out of the seven Trade -Unionist Commissioners, whilst protesting strongly against -any interference with Trade Union freedom, took the form -of a long and detailed plea for a large number of immediately -practicable industrial, economic, and social reforms, envisaged -as step by step progress towards a complete transformation -of the social order. -<a id="FNanchor_652" href="#Footnote_652" class="fnanchor">[652]</a></p> - -<p>The Commission had no direct results in legislation or -administration; but the Board of Trade set up a Labour -Department, appointed a number of Trade Unionists as its -officials or correspondents, and started the admirably edited -monthly <i>Labour Gazette</i>. The next move came in the form -of an assault on the legal position of Trade Unionism, which, -in one or other manifestation, held the stage for more than -a decade.</p> - -<p>For a quarter of a century the peculiar legal status which -had been conferred upon a Trade Union by the Acts of -1871-76 was not interfered with by the lawyers. At the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_597">[Pg 597]</span> -close of the nineteenth century, when Trade Unionism had -by its very success again become unpopular among the -propertied and professional classes, as well as in the business -world, a new assault was made upon it.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">Actions for Damages</span></h3> - -<p>The attempt to suppress Trade Unionism by the criminal -law was practically abandoned.<a id="FNanchor_653" href="#Footnote_653" class="fnanchor">[653]</a> But officers of Trade -Unions found themselves involved in civil actions, in which -the employers sued them for damages caused by Trade -Union activity which the judges held to be, although not -criminal, nevertheless wrongful. What could no longer -be punished by imprisonment with hard labour might at -any rate be penalised by heavy damages and costs, for which -the Trade Unionist’s home could be sold up. The Trade -Unions in 1875-80, though, as we have described, warned -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_598">[Pg 598]</span> -by their friendly legal advisers, had not realised the importance -of insisting that the elastic and indeterminable law of -conspiracy should be put on a reasonable footing; and -though they were, by 1891, fairly safe from its use to reinforce -the criminal law, the lawyers found means, under the -figment of “conspiracy to injure,” to bring under the head -of torts or actionable wrongs the most ordinary and non-criminal -acts of Trade Union officers which would have been, -if done by one person only, without conspiracy, no ground -for legal proceedings. After-ages will be amazed at the -flagrant unfairness with which the conception of a “conspiracy -to injure” was applied at the close of the nineteenth -century. The greatest possible injury to other people’s -income or business, not involving the violation of a recognised -legal right, if committed by employers for the augmentation -of their profits (even in “restraint of trade,” by means of -the deliberate conspiracy of an association), was held not -to be actionable.<a id="FNanchor_654" href="#Footnote_654" class="fnanchor">[654]</a> But it was held to be an actionable -wrong to the employer for a couple of men to wait in the -street, in a town many miles distant, for the purpose of -quite quietly and peacefully persuading a workman not to -enter into a contract of service. The most pacific “picketing” -of an employer’s premises, though admittedly no -longer a criminal act, was, if done in concert, held to be an -actionable wrong. If a Trade Union Secretary published -a perfectly accurate list of firms which were “non-Union,” -with the intention of warning Trade Unionists not to take -service with them, this gave each of the “blacklisted” -firms the right to sue him for damages. It was held to be -ground for damages for a Trade Union official merely to -request one firm not to supply goods to another; or to ask -an employer not to employ any particular person; or even -to urge the members of his own Union quite lawfully to -come out on strike on the termination of their engagement -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_599">[Pg 599]</span> -of service, if the object of the strike was considered by the -Court to be to put pressure on the will of some other employer -or some other workman. And whilst any solicitation or -persuasion to break a contract of service by a Trade Union -official was certainly actionable, it became doubtful whether -he would not be equally liable if he had carefully abstained -from, and had really not intended, any such suggestion, -whenever the members of his Society became so influenced -by his action, or were thought by the Court to have been so -influenced, that they, spontaneously and against his desires, -impetuously came out on strike before their notices had -expired.<a id="FNanchor_655" href="#Footnote_655" class="fnanchor">[655]</a> It was a further aggravation, of which less -advantage was actually taken by employers in this country -than by those of the United States, that where the Court -was convinced that an actionable wrong was threatened or -intended, it was possible very summarily to obtain an -injunction against its commission, any breach of which was -punishable by imprisonment for contempt of Court. It -became, therefore, at least theoretically possible that almost -any action by a Trade Union by which an employer felt -himself injured might be summarily prohibited by peremptory -injunction; and some things were thus prohibited, -even in this country.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_600">[Pg 600]</span></p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Taff Vale Case</span></h3> - -<p>All this development of the Law of Conspiracy and the -Law of Torts, though it went far to render nugatory the -intention of the Legislature in 1871-76 to make lawful a -deliberately concerted strike, left unchallenged the position -of the Trade Union itself as immune from legal proceedings -against its corporate funds, an anomalous position which -everybody understood to have been conceded by the Acts -of 1871-76. In 1901, after thirty years of unquestioned -immunity, the judges decided, to the almost universal -surprise of the legal profession as well as of the Trade Union -world, that this had not been enacted by Parliament. In -1900 a tumultuous and at first unauthorised strike had -broken out among the employees of the Taff Vale Railway -Company in South Wales, in the course of which there had -been a certain amount of tumultuous picketing, and other -acts of an unlawful character. In the teeth of the advice -of the Company’s lawyers, Beasley, the General Manager, -insisted on the Company suing for damages, not the -workmen guilty of the unlawful acts, but the Amalgamated -Society of Railway Servants itself; and on fighting the case -through to the highest tribunal. After elaborate argument, -the Law Lords decided that the Trade Union, though -admittedly not a corporate body, could be sued in a -corporate capacity for damages alleged to have been caused -by the action of its officers, and that an injunction could be -issued against it, restraining it and all its officers, not merely -from criminal acts, but also from unlawfully, though without -the slightest criminality, causing loss to other persons. -Moreover, in their elaborate reasons for their judgement, the -Law Lords expressed the view that not only an injunction -but also a mandamus could be issued against a Trade Union, -requiring it to do anything that any person could lawfully -call upon it to do; that a registered Trade Union could be -sued in its registered name, just as if it were a corporation; -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_601">[Pg 601]</span> -that even an unregistered Trade Union could be made -collectively liable for damages, and might be sued in the -names of its proper officers, the members of its executive -committees and its trustees; and that the damages and -costs could be recovered from the property of the Trade -Union, whether this was in the hands of separate trustees -or not. The effect of this momentous judgement, in fact, -was, in flagrant disregard of the intention of the Government -and of Parliament in 1871-76, to impose upon a Trade -Union, whether registered or not, although it was still -denied the advantages and privileges of incorporation, -complete corporate liability for any injury or damage caused -by any person who could be deemed to be acting as the -agent of the Union, not merely in respect of any criminal -offence which he might have committed, but also in respect -of any act, not contravening the criminal law, which the -judges might hold to have been actionable. The Amalgamated -Society of Railway Servants, which had not authorised -the Taff Vale strike nor any wrongful acts that were committed -by the strikers, but which, after the strike had -occurred, had done its best to conduct it to a successful -issue, and had paid Strike Benefit, was compelled to pay -£23,000 in damages, and incurred a total expense of £42,000. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_602">[Pg 602]</span><a id="FNanchor_656" href="#Footnote_656" class="fnanchor">[656]</a> -It has been estimated that, from first to last, the damages -and expenses in which the various Trade Unions were cast, -owing to this, and the other judgements against Trade -Unions and Trade Union officials personally, amounted to -not less than £200,000.</p> - -<p>The little world of Trade Union officials, already alarmed -at the prospect of being individually sued for damages, -was thrown into consternation by the Taff Vale judgement, -which seemed to destroy, at a blow, the status that had -been, with so much effort, acquired in 1871-76. The full -extent of the danger was not at first apprehended. Why, -it was asked, should not the Trade Union rules, and the -instructions of Trade Union Executive Committees, expressly -forbid the commission by officials of any wrongful acts? -It was only gradually realised that, under the figment of -“conspiracy to injure” that the lawyers had elaborated, -even the most innocent acts, which an individual could -quite lawfully commit, might be held wrongful and actionable -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_603">[Pg 603]</span> -if they were committed by or on behalf of an association -to the pecuniary injury of any other person; and that there -was no assignable limit, as the cases had shown, either to -what might be held to be wrongful acts, or to the nature -or amount of the damage that the Courts might hold to -have been caused by such acts in the ordinary course of -any extensive strike. Moreover, under the ordinary law -of agency, the most explicit prohibition of unlawful acts in -the rules of the association, coupled with the most scrupulous -care in the Executive Committee in framing its instructions -to its officials, would not prevent the Trade Union from being -held liable for any pecuniary injury that might be caused, -even in defiance of instructions and in disobedience to the -rules, by any of its officers acting within the scope of their -employment; or, indeed, by any member, paid or unpaid, -whom the Courts might hold to be acting as the agent of -the Union. And as every stoppage of work, however lawful, -necessarily involved financial loss to the employers, it could -be foreseen that even the most carefully conducted strike -might be made at least the occasion for costly litigation, -and probably the opportunity for getting the Trade Union -cast in swingeing damages. The immediate result was very -largely to paralyse the Executive Committees and responsible -officials of all Trade Unions, and greatly to cripple their -action, either in securing improvements in their members’ -conditions of employment or in resisting the employers’ -demands for reductions. In particular, the general advances -for which the railway workers were asking were delayed. -The capitalists did not fail to use the opportunity to break -down the workmen’s defences. Trade Unionism had to a -great extent lost its sting. -<a id="FNanchor_657" href="#Footnote_657" class="fnanchor">[657]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_604">[Pg 604]</span></p> - -<p>Though it took some time for the Trade Union world to -realise the peril, the effect on the Movement was profound. -Up and down the country every society, great and small, -and practically every branch, rallied in defence of its right -to exist. The first result was to make the newly-formed -Labour Party, which will be hereafter described, and which -had hitherto hung fire, into an effective political force. The -effect of the Taff Vale judgement was, in 1902-3, to -double, and by 1906-7 to treble the number of adhering -Trade Unions, and to raise the affiliated membership of the -Party to nearly a million. As the Dissolution of Parliament -approached, the Trade Unions organised a systematic -canvass of all prospective candidates, making it plain that -none would receive working-class support unless they -pledged themselves to a Bill to undo the Taff Vale judgement -and put back Trade Unionism into the legal position that -Parliament had conferred upon it in 1871. When the -General Election at last took place, in January 1906, the -Labour Party (still known as the Labour Representation -Committee) put no fewer than fifty independent candidates -in the field, of whom, to the astonishment of the politicians, -twenty-nine were at the head of the poll. -<a id="FNanchor_658" href="#Footnote_658" class="fnanchor">[658]</a></p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Trade Disputes Act</span></h3> - -<p>The first claim of the Labour Party was for the statutory -reversal of the Taff Vale judgement, which every one now -admitted to be necessary. The question was what should -be done. There were, substantially, only two alternatives. -One was that, in view of the difficulty of effectually maintaining -it against legal ingenuity, the Trade Unions should -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_605">[Pg 605]</span> -forgo their position of being outside the law, and should -claim, instead, full rights, not only of citizenship, but actually -of being duly authorised constituent parts of the social -structure, lawfully fulfilling a recognised function in industrial -organisation. But for the Trade Union to become, -not merely an instrument of defence, but actually an organ -of government in the industrial world, required a great -advance in public opinion. It assumed an explicit recognition -of the legitimate function of the Trade Union, as the -basis of a Vocational Democracy, exercising a definite share -in the control and administration of industry. It involved a -complete transformation of both the criminal and the civil -law, so that workmen’s combinations and strikes, together -with peaceful picketing in its legitimate form, should be -unreservedly and explicitly legalised; the law of civil -conspiracy practically abrogated, so that nothing should be -unlawful when done in concert with others which would -not be unlawful if done by an individual alone; and reasonable -limits set to liability for the acts of agents and to the -scope for injunctions, so that a Trade Union Executive -would be able both to know the law and to be ensured -against its perversion. The alternative was to make -no claim for the profound advance in Trade Union status -that would be involved in such a policy; to forgo any -hope of satisfactory or complete amendment of the law, -and merely to re-enact the exceptional legislation of 1871, -this time specifically insisting that a Trade Union, whether -registered or not, should be put outside the law, and made -expressly immune from legal proceedings for anything, -whether lawful or unlawful, done by its officers or by itself. -The outgoing Conservative Government had appointed -in 1903 a small Royal Commission to consider the state -of the law as to Trade Unionism, before which the Trade -Unions had refused to give evidence, because the Commission, -which was made up almost entirely of lawyers, included -no Trade Unionist. This Commission, it is believed, -was told privately not to report until after the General -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_606">[Pg 606]</span> -Election, in order that the Conservative Government -might not be embarrassed by the dilemma. Early in -1906 it reported in favour of the Trade Union accepting full -responsibility for its own actions, subject to considerable, -but far from adequate, amendments of the law.<a id="FNanchor_659" href="#Footnote_659" class="fnanchor">[659]</a> This -proposal was definitely rejected by the Labour Party, which -introduced a Bill of its own, merely restoring the position -of 1871. When the Liberal Government brought in a Bill -very much on the lines of the Commission’s Report, there -was a dramatic exhibition of the electoral power that Trade -Unionism, once it is roused, can exercise in its own defence. -Member after member rose from different parts of the House -to explain that they had pledged themselves to vote for the -complete immunity which Trade Unions were supposed to -have been granted in 1871. Nothing less than this would -suffice; and the most powerful Government hitherto known -was constrained, in spite of the protests of lawyers and -employers, to pass into law the Trade Disputes Act of 1906. -<a id="FNanchor_660" href="#Footnote_660" class="fnanchor">[660]</a></p> - -<p>The Trade Disputes Act, which remains (1920) the main -charter of Trade Unionism, explicitly declares, without any -qualification or exception, that no civil action shall be -entertained against a Trade Union in respect of any wrongful -act committed by or on behalf of the Union; an extraordinary -and unlimited immunity, however great may be -the damage caused, and however unwarranted the act, -which most lawyers, as well as all employers, regard as -nothing less than monstrous.<a id="FNanchor_661" href="#Footnote_661" class="fnanchor">[661]</a> At the same time the Act, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_607">[Pg 607]</span> -whilst not abrogating or even defining the law as to civil -conspiracy, gives three exceptional privileges to Trade -Union officials by declaring that, <i>when committed in contemplation -or furtherance of a trade dispute</i>, (1) an act done -in concert shall not be actionable if it would not have been -actionable if done without concert; (2) attendance solely -in order to inform or persuade peacefully shall be lawful; -and (3) an act shall not be actionable merely by reason of -its inducing another person to break a contract of employment, -or of its being an interference with another person’s -business, or with his right to dispose of his capital or his -labour as he chooses. These exceptional statutory privileges -for the protection of Trade Union officials in the exercise -of their lawful vocation, and of “pickets” in the performance -of their lawful function—in themselves a triumph for -Trade Unionism—have ever since excited great resentment -in most of those who are not wage-earners. Some friends -of the Trade Unions expressed at the time the doubt whether -the policy thus forced upon Parliament would prove, in -the long run, entirely in the interest of the Movement; and -whether it would not have been better to have chosen the -bolder policy of insisting on a complete reform of the law, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_608">[Pg 608]</span> -to which, when properly reformed, Trade Unions should be -subject in the same way as any other associations. The -lawyers, as it proved, were not long in taking their revenge.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Osborne Judgement</span></h3> - -<p>This time the legal assault on Trade Unionism took -a new form. The result of the dramatic victory of the -Trade Disputes Act, and of the activity of the Labour -members in the House of Commons, was considerably to -increase the influence of the Labour Party in the country, -where preparations were made for contesting any number of -constituencies irrespective of the convenience of the Liberal -and Conservative parties. The railway companies, in -particular, found the presence in Parliament of the secretary -of the railwaymen’s principal Trade Union very inconvenient. -Within a couple of years of the passing of the Trade Disputes -Act, on July 22, 1908, one of the members of the Amalgamated -Society of Railway Servants took legal proceedings to -restrain it from spending any of its funds on political objects, -contending that this was beyond the powers of a Trade -Union. Such a contention found no support among eminent -lawyers, several of whom had formally advised that Trade -Unions were undoubtedly entitled to undertake political -activities if their rules authorised such action and a majority -of their members desired it. W. V. Osborne, the dissentient -member of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, -took a different view; and, liberally financed from capitalist -sources, carried his case right up to the highest tribunal. -As a result, in December 1909, as in 1825, 1867-71, and -1901-6, every Trade Union in the land found its position -and status once more gravely impugned. In what became -widely known as the Osborne Judgement, the House of Lords, -acting in its judicial capacity as the highest Court of Appeal, -practically tore up what had, since 1871, been universally -understood to be the legal constitution of a Trade Union. -<a id="FNanchor_662" href="#Footnote_662" class="fnanchor">[662]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_609">[Pg 609]</span></p> - -<p>The decision of the judges in the Osborne case throws -so much light, not only on the status of Trade Unionism in -English law, but also on the animus and prejudice which -the Trade Disputes Act and the Labour Party had excited, -that we think it worth treating at some length. Formally -this judgement decided only that W. V. Osborne, a member -of the Walthamstow Branch of the Amalgamated Society -of Railway Servants, was entitled to restrain that Trade -Union from making a levy on its members (and from using -any of its funds) for the purpose of supporting the Labour -Party, or maintaining Members of Parliament. But in -the course of that decision a majority of the Law Lords, -therein following all three judges of the Court of Appeal, -laid it down as law (and thereby made it law until Parliament -should otherwise determine), (<i>a</i>) that although Parliament -has always avoided any express incorporation of Trade -Unions, these were all now to be deemed to be corporate -bodies, formed under statute, and not unincorporated groups -of individual persons; (<i>b</i>) that it follows, by an undoubted -principle of English law, that a body corporate, created -under statute, cannot lawfully do anything outside the -purposes for which the statute has incorporated it; (<i>c</i>) that -as the purposes for which Trade Unions are incorporated -have to be found somewhere authoritatively given, the -definition which Parliament incidentally enacted in the -Trade Union Act of 1876 must be taken to enumerate, -accurately and exhaustively, all the purposes which any -group of persons falling within that definition can, as a -corporate body, lawfully pursue; and (<i>d</i>) that the payment -of the salaries and election expenses of Members of Parliament, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_610">[Pg 610]</span> -and indeed, any political action whatsoever, not being -mentioned as one of these purposes and not being considered -by the judges incidental to them, could not lawfully -be undertaken by any Trade Union, even if it was formed, -from the outset, with this purpose duly expressed in its -original rules, and even if all its members agreed to it, and -continued to desire that their organisation should carry -it out.</p> - -<p>This momentous judgement destroyed, at a blow, the -peculiar legal status which Frederic Harrison had devised -for Trade Unionism in 1868, and which Parliament thought -that it had enacted in 1871-76. The statutes of 1871 and -1876, which had always been supposed to have enlarged the -freedom of Trade Unions, were now held to have deprived -these bodies of powers that they had formerly enjoyed. It -was not, as will be seen, a question of protecting a dissentient -minority. Whether the members were unanimous, or -whether they were nearly evenly divided, did not affect the -legal position. Trade Unions found themselves suddenly -forbidden to do anything, even if all their members desired -it, which could not be brought within the terms of a clause -in the Act of 1876, which Parliament (as Lord James of -Hereford emphatically declared) never meant to be taken -in that sense. “What is not within the ambit of that -statute,” said Lord Halsbury, “is, I think, <i>prohibited</i> both -to a corporation and a combination.” This was the new -limitation put on Trade Unions. All their educational -work was prohibited; all their participation in municipal -administration was forbidden; all their association for -common purposes in Trades Councils and the Trades Union -Congress became illegal. The judges stopped the most -characteristic and, as was supposed, the most constitutional -of the three customary ways that (as we have shown in our -<i>Industrial Democracy</i>) Trade Unions pursued of enforcing -their Common Rules, namely, the Method of Legal Enactment; -grave doubt was thrown on the legality of some of -the developments of their second way, the Method of Mutual -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_611">[Pg 611]</span> -Insurance; whilst the way that the House of Lords expressly -prescribed was exactly that which used to give rise to so -much controversy, namely, the Method of Collective Bargaining, -with its concomitant of the Strike. So topsy-turvy a -view of Trade Unionism, a view which seems to have arisen -from the judges’ ignorance of its two centuries of history, -could not have survived open discussion, and therefore -could hardly have been taken by even the most prejudiced -Parliament.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Development of English Law</span></h3> - -<p>What was the explanation of the view of the Trade -Union constitution that the judges took? The English -Courts of Justice, it must be remembered, have peculiar rules -of their own for the construction of statutes. When the -plain man wants to know what a document means, he seeks -every available explanation of the intention of the author. -When the historian inquires the purpose and intention of -an Act of Parliament, he considers all the contemporary -evidence as to the minds of those concerned. The Courts -of Law, for good and sufficient reasons, debar themselves -from going behind the face of the document, and are therefore -at the mercy of all the unstudied ineptitudes of House -of Commons phraseology. Along with this rigour as to the -intention of a statute, the English and American judges -combine a capacity for developments of doctrine in the -form of legal principles which is, we believe, unequalled in -other judicial systems. Now, the subject of corporations -is one of those in which there had been, among the past -generations of English lawyers, a silent and almost unselfconscious -development of doctrine, of which, in Germany, -Gierke had been the great inspirer, and Maitland in this -country the brilliant exponent.<a id="FNanchor_663" href="#Footnote_663" class="fnanchor">[663]</a> Our English law long -rigidly refused to admit that a corporate entity could arise -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_612">[Pg 612]</span> -of itself, without some formal and legally authoritative act -of outside power. How, it was asked, except by some -definite act of creation by a superior, could the <i>persona ficta</i> -come into existence? How, otherwise (as Madox quaintly -puts it), could this mere “society of mortal men” become -something “immortal, invisible, and incorporeal”?<a id="FNanchor_664" href="#Footnote_664" class="fnanchor">[664]</a> As a -matter of fact, associations or social entities of all sorts -always did arise, without the intervention of the lawyers, -and nowadays they arise with amazing ease, without any act -of creation by a superior; and when the English lawyers -refused to recognise them as existing, it was they who were -irrational, and the common law itself that was at fault. -Nowadays we live in a world of social entities of all sorts, and -of every degree of informality, corporate entities that to the -old-fashioned lawyers are still legally non-existent as such—clubs -and committees of every possible kind; groups and -circles, societies and associations for every conceivable -purpose; unions and combinations and trusts in every -trade and profession; schools and colleges and “University -Extension Classes,” often existing and spending and acting -most energetically as entities, having a common purse and -a single will, in practice even perpetual succession, and (if -they desire such a futile luxury) a common seal, without any -sort of formal incorporation. Gradually English lawyers -(whom we need not suspect of reading Gierke, or even, for -that matter, Maitland) were unconsciously imbibing the -legally heterodox view that a corporate entity is anything -which acts as such; and so far from making it impossible for -the <i>persona ficta</i> to come into existence without a formal act -of creation, they had been, by little alterations of procedure -and imperceptible changes in legal principles, sometimes by -harmless little dodges and fictions of the Courts themselves, -coming near to the practical result of putting every association -which is, in fact, a social entity, however informal -in its constitution, and however “spontaneous” in its -origin, in the same position of a <i>persona ficta</i>, for the purpose -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_613">[Pg 613]</span> -of suing and of being sued, as if it had been created by a -formal instrument of incorporation, decorated by many -seals, and procured at vast expense from the post-Reformation -Pope himself; or as if it had been expressly incorporated -by the Royal Charter of a Protestant King or the private -statute of a Victorian Parliament.</p> - -<p>Now this development of legal doctrine to fit the circumstances -of modern social life is, when one comes to think of -it, only common sense. If twenty old ladies in the workhouse -club together to provide themselves with a special -pot of tea, and agree that one among them shall be the -treasurer of their painfully-hoarded pennies as a common -fund, they do, in fact, create a social entity just as real -in its way as the Governor and Company of the Bank of -England. Why should not the law, if it ever comes to -hear of the action of the twenty old ladies in the workhouse, -deal with the situation as it really is, according to their -wishes and intentions, without inquiring by what formal -act of external power a <i>persona ficta</i> has been created; and -therefore without demanding that the old ladies shall first -procure a charter of incorporation from the Pope, from the -King, or from Parliament? And considering that Trade -Unions were now in fact social entities, often having -behind them more than a hundred years of “perpetual -succession”; counting sometimes over a hundred thousand -members moving by a single will; and occasionally accumulating -in a common purse as much as half a million of -money, the Law Lords might well think it absurd and -irrational of Parliament to have decided in 1871-76, and -again in 1906, to regard them as unincorporated groups of -persons, having, in a corporate capacity, no legally enforceable -obligations and hardly any legally enforceable rights. -It may have been absurd and irrational, but what right—so -the Trade Unionists asked—had the judges to change -the law?</p> - -<p>Whatever may be the justification for the momentous -change in the law which the Six Judges (namely, the three -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_614">[Pg 614]</span> -members of the Court of Appeal, and three out of the five -Law Lords, all of whom agreed in the series of propositions -that we have cited) suddenly, without Parliamentary -authority, of their own motion effected, it created an intolerable -situation. There was, in the first place, the -application of the doctrine of <i>ultra vires</i> to corporate entities -quite unaware of its existence. It was all very well, in -order to fit the law to the facts, to throw over the old legal -doctrine that the <i>persona ficta</i> of a corporation could only -come into existence by some formal act of incorporation by -an external authority. But then it plainly would not do -to retain, as the Six Judges quite calmly retained, the -severe limitations on the action of statutory corporate -entities which is involved in the doctrine of <i>ultra vires</i>, and -which, as Lord Halsbury put it, was to <i>prohibit</i> them from -doing what they liked. The argument for that principle is -that such a corporate entity owes its existence entirely to -the statutory authority by which it is created; that the -legislature has brought it into being for certain definite -purposes; that for those purposes and no others the exceptional -powers of a corporation have been conferred upon -it; that as such it is, in a sense, the agent whom the community -has entrusted with the execution of these functions, -and who cannot therefore (even if all the constituent members -of its body so agree and desire) assume any other -purposes or functions. But any such doctrine of <i>ultra vires</i> -can have no rational application to the corporate entity -formed by the twenty old ladies in the workhouse for their -private pot of tea. If we are going, in effect, to treat as -corporate entities all sorts of spontaneously arising associations, -such as an unregistered Trade Union (and some of -the wealthiest and most powerful Trade Unions were still -unregistered), or such as an Employers’ Association (which -was hardly ever a registered body)—corporate entities which -were, in fact, lawfully in existence long before the Act of -1876—we must give up the fiction that the purposes of these -associations have been authoritatively fixed and defined in -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_615">[Pg 615]</span> -advance by Parliament in such a way that the members -themselves, even when they are unanimous and when they -are acting in strict accord with their constitution and rules, -cannot add to or alter the objects or methods of their -organisation. What was logically required, in fact, was -not the arbitrary identification of spontaneously arising -associative entities with legally created corporations, but -the formulation of a new conception as to the functions and -legal rights that such spontaneously arising associative -entities—to which the limitations of legally created corporations -could not be simply assumed to apply—should, as a -class, be permitted to exercise.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Miscarriage of Justice</span></h3> - -<p>We come now to the second cardinal feature of the -decision of the Six Judges in 1909, in which they showed -both prejudice and ignorance. Having found that the Trade -Unions were, in fact, corporate entities, and that they had -been, in various clumsy ways, dealt with by Parliament -very much as if they were legally corporate entities—though -Parliament had advisedly abstained from incorporating -them, and had, indeed, always referred to them as being -what in fact they were, namely already existing and spontaneously -arising associations, not created by its will—the -Six Judges took the view that some authoritative -specification of the objects and purposes of a Trade Union -had to be discovered by hook or by crook. It seems to -have been by them inconceivable (though Lord James -of Hereford, one of their own number, who had personally -taken part in all the legislation, expressly told them it was -in fact so) that no such specification should exist. They -accordingly found it in an enumeration which Parliament -had given in the Act of 1876 of all the various bodies -which were to be entitled to the privileges conferred by the -Act—a definition introduced, so a well-informed writer mentioned -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_616">[Pg 616]</span> -in 1878, for the special advantage of Trade Unions<a id="FNanchor_665" href="#Footnote_665" class="fnanchor">[665]</a>—principally -to enable them to be registered by the Chief -Registrar of Friendly Societies. The Law Lords now held -that this definition must be deemed to be an exhaustive -enumeration, not merely of the kinds of societies to be -eligible for registration, but also of all the objects and purposes -that Parliament intended any of those bodies, whether -registered or unregistered, to be free at any time to pursue. -The result was that all Trade Unions and Employers’ -Associations, and, indeed, all informal groups of workmen -or employers falling within this definition, suddenly found -themselves (to the complete amazement of every one concerned, -including the lawyers) rigidly confined in their -action, even if all their members otherwise wished and -agreed, to matters which were specified in an enumerating -clause of an Act of Parliament of a generation before, which -had never before been supposed to have that meaning, or -to have any restrictive effect at all. We ought to speak -with proper respect of the judges, though sometimes, by -their curious ignorance of life outside the Law Courts, and -especially of “what everybody knows,” they try us hard. -But it is necessary to state plainly, with regard to this part -of the Osborne Judgement, that to the present writers, as to -the whole British working class and many other people, -including lawyers, it seemed an astounding aberration, -amounting to a grave miscarriage of justice. Again, let it -be noted that Lord James of Hereford, who knew what -Parliament had intended, and what Trade Unions actually -were, expressly dissented from his colleagues on this point, -saying that the enumeration clause in the Act of 1876 was -never intended to be “a clause of limitation or exhaustive -definition” of objects and purposes; and arguing that it -did not prevent a Trade Union from having other purposes, -or pursuing other methods, not in themselves unlawful, -even though these were not enumerated in the definition -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_617">[Pg 617]</span> -clause and were not even incidental to the purposes therein -enumerated. But what is the history of this definition -clause? As it stands in the Act of 1876 it runs as follows:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>The term “Trade Union” means any combination, whether -temporary or permanent, for regulating the relations between -workmen and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or -between masters and masters, or for imposing restrictive conditions -on the conduct of any trade or business, whether such -combination would or would not, if the principal Act had not -been passed, have been deemed to have been an unlawful combination -by reason of some one or more of its purposes being -in restraint of trade.</p> -</div> - -<p>Now, to the lay mind, this extremely loose enumeration<a id="FNanchor_666" href="#Footnote_666" class="fnanchor">[666]</a> -of kinds of societies seems plainly intended to bring within -its net, and therefore to admit to the advantages of the -Act, a wide range of existing or possible associations of -different kinds. It was to include all sorts of Employers’ -Associations as well as Trade Unions. It was to include -bodies already in existence as well as those to be formed in -the future. It was to include bodies seeking to impose -restrictive conditions “in restraint of trade,” as well as -those having no such unlawful objects. It was to include, -therefore, bodies already enjoying a full measure of lawful -existence and legal recognition, as well as those for the first -time fully legalised by the legislation of 1871-76. To the -logician it will be clear that we have here a case of classification -by type, not by delimitation. “It is determined,” -says Whewell and J. S. Mill, “not by a boundary line -without, but by a central point within; not by what it -strictly excludes, but by what it eminently includes; by -an example, not by a precept.”<a id="FNanchor_667" href="#Footnote_667" class="fnanchor">[667]</a> Accordingly the clause -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_618">[Pg 618]</span> -names specifically one by one the various attributes, any -one of which is to be typical of the class. It sufficed for the -purpose to name only one attribute belonging to each body -which it was desired to include. What its other attributes -might be was irrelevant. It does not occur to the ordinary -reader, any more than to the logician, that the effect of the -clause is, not merely to include associations of different -kinds, but also to limit the legal freedom of all those associations, -with all their varied functions, exclusively to the -purposes specified in the definition, which were merely recited -in order to bring a number of heterogeneous bodies -into one class. On the construction put upon this clause -by the Six Judges, the Act of 1876 was a measure which -deprived Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations, many -of which had been for years lawfully in existence, without -any unlawful objects or methods, of a freedom that they -had up to then enjoyed; it was an Act rigidly confining -their operations to a limited field, and for ever prohibiting -them (as Lord Halsbury expressly declared) from doing anything -not included in the list of functions incidentally then -and there given. It is safe to say that, to any historical -student who knows anything of the circumstances of the -case, such a supposition is preposterous. No Trade Union -and no Employers’ Association was aware in 1876 that its -freedom was being thus restricted. Thomas Burt, M.P., -and Lord James of Hereford (then Sir Henry James, M.P.), -who took part in passing the Act, certainly never dreamed -that they were doing anything of the sort. The Home -Office officials who prepared it, and Lord Cross (then Home -Secretary) who introduced it, quite plainly had not the -remotest notion that they were taking away from Trade -Unions (which they were anxious to legalise) any of the -functions which these Unions were in fact exercising, and -which such Trade Unions as were lawful associations were -already <i>lawfully</i> exercising; or that they were prohibiting -these Trade Unions from doing anything not specified in -the incidental enumeration of attributes that was then, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_619">[Pg 619]</span> -merely for the purpose of including various kinds of associations, -statutorily enacted. As a matter of fact, the definition -clause in the Act of 1876 was enacted merely to correct -in one small particular the definition clause in the Act of -1871. That clause had defined a Trade Union as meaning -“such combination ... as would, if this Act had not -passed, been deemed to have been an unlawful combination -by reason of some one or more of the purposes being in -restraint of trade.” This was found in practice inconvenient, -because it had inadvertently excluded from registration and -all the benefits of the Act those Trade Unions and Employers’ -Associations which were already lawful associations, free -from any unlawful purpose. A Trade Union had to prove -that it was (but for the Act) an unlawful body before it -could be admitted to the advantages of the Act. It was -also inexpedient, because it actually offered an inducement -to Trade Unions to have purposes or methods “in restraint -of trade,” in order to obtain these advantages. Now, supposing -that the Act of 1876 had not been passed, and that -the definition clause had remained in the terms of that of -the Act of 1871, would the Six Judges have equally construed -it as offering a complete and exhaustive enumeration -of the permissible activities of a Trade Union, making it -actually illegal for the future for any association of workmen -or employers to deal with the conditions of employment, -<i>except in ways that would (but for the 1871 Act) have been -unlawful</i>? And if the definition clause in the 1871 Act -cannot be construed as (to use Lord James of Hereford’s -words) “a clause of limitation or exhaustive definition” of -Trade Union activities, with what consistency can the -definition clause of the 1876 Act (which follows the same -wording, and merely extends the definition so as to take in -lawful as well as unlawful societies) be so construed? Successive -Chief Registrars of Friendly Societies, like every one -else, had always understood the definition clause to be an -enabling clause, not a restricting one; and they had accordingly -for a whole generation willingly registered rules presented -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_620">[Pg 620]</span> -to them by Trade Unions, including in their objects -and purposes all sorts of things not enumerated in the -definition, and not even incidental to any of the purposes -therein enumerated. It was, in 1909, not at first realised—certainly -the Six Judges did not realise—how extensive and -how varied were the actually existing operations of Trade -Unions that they were rendering illegal. Not political action -alone, not municipal action alone, but any work of general -education of their members or others; the formation of a -library; the establishment or management of “University -Extension” or “Workers’ Educational Association” classes; -the subscription to circulating book-boxes; the provision of -public lectures; the establishment of scholarships at Ruskin -College, Oxford, or any other College—all of which things -were at the time actually being done by Trade Unions—were -all henceforth to be <i>ultra vires</i> and illegal. The two -hundred Trades Councils, local federations of different Trade -Unions for the purpose of dealing with matters of general -interest to workmen, which took no part in the collective -bargaining of any particular Trade Union, were probably -thereby equally made illegal; though they were in 1876 -already a quarter of a century old, and in 1909 numbered -nearly a million members. The annual Trade Union Congress -itself, then in its fortieth year, and dealing almost -exclusively with Parliamentary projects, came under the -same ban. The active participation which Trade Unions -had here and there taken in technical education, and their -co-operation with the Local Education Authorities, which -had sometimes been found so useful, were certainly <i>ultra -vires</i>. One would suppose, strictly speaking, that a similar -illegality was to attach to all the vast “friendly society” -side of Trade Unionism, with its sick and accident and out-of-work -benefits—not one of them being referred to in the -definition which the Six Judges declared to contain an -exhaustive enumeration of the purposes and objects that -Parliament intended to permit Trade Unions to pursue. -But here the Six Judges saved themselves—though in a -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_621">[Pg 621]</span> -way logically destructive of their claim that the definition -clause itself was one of “exhaustive” enumeration of permissible -Trade Union purposes—by holding that these -friendly benefits, though not mentioned in the definition -clause, were referred to elsewhere in the Act, and might be -regarded as incidental to the purpose of regulating the -conditions of employment. This, indeed, so far as benefits -paid to the workman himself are concerned, was a plausible -view. Strike Benefit, in particular, is plainly incidental to -striking, and sick benefit might conceivably be held to -protect the worker from industrial oppression whilst sick. -But the same cannot be said of the most widely spread of -all Trade Union benefits, the provision of funeral money on -a member’s death. In some cases the Trade Unions were -actually paying for the funerals of their deceased members’ -widows and orphan children. This was a mere act of -humanity to the deceased member’s widow and orphans; -and it could not, by any stretch of imagination, be supposed -to improve the workers’ bargaining power, or to be in any -way incidental to the regulation or restriction of the conditions -of employment. Yet Funeral Benefit was in 1909 (as -it was in 1876) the one among the so-called “friendly” -benefits most universally adopted by Trade Unions. -More than a million Trade Unionists were thus effecting -through their societies a humble life insurance. This extensive -life insurance business of Trade Unions could not -be said to be in any way included in the definition clause -of the 1876 Act, even if the sick and unemployment benefits -were. If the judgements in the Osborne Case were correct, -the whole of this life insurance business of Trade Unions -(as distinguished from the sick and unemployment benefits), -or at least the whole of that relating to widows and orphans, -must be held to have been inadvertently prohibited by -Parliament in 1871 and 1876, and to have been ever since -<i>ultra vires</i> and illegal. It is impossible for the plain man to -avoid the conclusion, even though the six other authorities -take a contrary view, that Lord James of Hereford was -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_622">[Pg 622]</span> -right in declaring that the definition in the Act of 1876 -was not meant by Parliament to be “a clause of limitation -or exhaustive definition” of the permissible purposes of a -Trade Union; and, accordingly, that the Six Judges had—presumably -following quite accurately the narrow technical -rules of their profession—put upon the statute a construction -which Parliament had in no way intended.</p> - -<p>What then did Parliament intend to fix and define as the -permissible objects and functions of a Trade Union? The -answer of the historical student is clear and unhesitating. -Parliament quite certainly intended, in 1871 and 1876, to -fix and define nothing of the sort; but meant, whether -wisely or not, to leave Trade Unions as they then were—as -such of them, indeed, as had no unlawful purpose or -method had long <i>legally</i> been—namely, as free as any other -unincorporated groups of persons to take whatever action -they might choose, subject only to their own contractual -agreements, and to the general law of the land. From this -position we venture, as historians, to say that Parliament -did not, in 1871 or 1876, intentionally depart.</p> - -<p>Finally, we have the argument of the Six Judges that, -seeing that the sole lawful purposes of a Trade Union are -“regulating the relations between workmen and masters, -or between workmen and workmen, or between masters and -masters,” and “imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct -of any trade or business,” no action of a Parliamentary -or political kind is within the definition, or even incidental -to anything therein. This view, to put it bluntly, showed -an ignorance of Trade Unionism, British industrial history, -and the circumstances not only of 1871-76, but also of -1908-9, which was as remarkable as it was deplorable. -On the face of it, to take first the words of the statute, the -most usual and the most natural way of “regulating” the -relations between people, and the most obvious expedient -for “imposing” restrictive conditions on industry, is an -Act of Parliament. It was to Acts of Parliament, as we -have abundantly shown in <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, that the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_623">[Pg 623]</span> -Trade Unions had for a century been looking, and were -in 1871-76, many of them, looking, for a very large part of -the “regulating” of industrial conditions, and of the -“restrictive conditions” that they existed to promote. -What the judges apparently forgot is that conditions of -employment include not merely wages, but also hours of -labour, sanitary conditions, precautions against accident, -compensation for injuries, and what not. If the Six Judges -had remembered how, in fact, in Great Britain the great -majority of industrial relations were regulated, and how -the great mass of restrictive conditions were, in fact, imposed -on industry; or if they had had recalled to them the -long and persistent struggle of the Trade Unions to get -adopted the Factory Acts, the Mines Regulation Acts, the -Truck Acts, the Shop Hours Acts, and so many more, -they could hardly have argued that such actions as engaging -in Parliamentary business, supporting or opposing -Parliamentary candidates, and helping members of Parliament -favourable to “regulating,” and “imposing restrictive -conditions”—actions characteristic of Trade Unions for -generations—were not incidental to these legitimate purposes. -As a matter of fact, the getting and enforcing of -legislation is, historically, as much a part of Trade Union -function as maintaining a strike.<a id="FNanchor_668" href="#Footnote_668" class="fnanchor">[668]</a> One Trade Union at -least, which no one ever dreamt to be illegal, the United -Textile Factory Workers’ Association, has existed exclusively -for political action, and had no other functions.<a id="FNanchor_669" href="#Footnote_669" class="fnanchor">[669]</a> -This kind of Trade Union action is even antecedent in date -to any corporate dealing with employers. During the -whole two centuries of Trade Union history, as in <i>Industrial -Democracy</i> we have described, the Unions have had at their -disposal, and have simultaneously adopted, three different -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_624">[Pg 624]</span> -methods of imposing and enforcing the Common Rules -which they sought to get adopted in the conditions of employment. -From 1700 downwards they have used the Method -of Mutual Insurance; from the very beginning of the -eighteenth century down to the present day the records -show them to have been continuously employing the Method -of Legal Enactment; whilst only intermittently during the -eighteenth century, and not openly and avowedly until 1824, -could they rely on the Method of Collective Bargaining. -The Miners’ Unions, and the Agricultural Labourers’ Unions, -in particular, had been particularly active in support of the -extension of the franchise between 1863 and 1884. Even -the expenditure of Trade Union funds on Parliamentary -candidatures was practised by Trade Unions at any rate -as early as 1868, as soon, in fact, as the town artisans were -enfranchised; and the payment of Trade Union Members -of Parliament was begun as early as 1874, and had lasted -continuously from that date. Yet the Six Judges assumed, -apparently without adequate consideration, and certainly -on inaccurate information, that Parliament in 1876 intended -to authorise Trade Unions to pursue their first and third -methods, but intended to prohibit them, from that time -forth, from using the Method of Legal Enactment, just at -the moment when this latter was being most effectively -employed. It is, indeed, almost comic to remember that -the Bill which is supposed to have effected this revolution -in the Trade Union position was brought in by Lord Cross, -then Sir R. A. Cross, M.P., fresh from his election by a -constituency in which the Trade Unionists had been, politically, -the dominant factor; that it was debated in a House -of Commons in which the direct influence of the Trade -Unions was at the highest point that it had hitherto reached; -that at the General Election of 1874, from which the members -had lately come, the Trade Unions, as we have described in -the present volume, had worked with might and main for -the rejection of candidates opposed to their political claims, -and had had a much larger share than political historians -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_625">[Pg 625]</span> -usually recognise in the Gladstonian defeat; that two -Trade Union members were actually then sitting in the -House, one, at least (Thomas Burt), being openly maintained -as a salaried representative of his Union, by a salary avowedly -fixed on a scale to enable him to sit in Parliament;<a id="FNanchor_670" href="#Footnote_670" class="fnanchor">[670]</a> that the -Conservative Government promptly introduced the particular -legal enactments to obtain which the Trade Unions had -spent their money, namely, the Nine Hours Bill, the Employer -and Workman Bill, and the Trade Union Bill; and that -the Six Judges ask us to believe that the latter Bill, which -the Trade Union members themselves helped to pass, was -designed and intended to prevent Thomas Burt from -drawing a salary from the Northumberland Miners’ Mutual -Confident Society whilst sitting in the House of Commons; -to prohibit the Northumberland Miners’ Mutual Confident -Society, just because it was a Trade Union, from taking any -part in future elections in the Morpeth Division, and to -make the action of this and all other Trade Unions in paying -for political work and Parliamentary candidatures, even -with the unanimous consent of their members, from that -time forth illegal.</p> - -<p>We have thought it worth while to place on record this -analysis of the legally authoritative part of the Osborne -Judgement, which, though partly modified by a subsequent -statute, has not been overruled, and is still legally authoritative, -because it is of historical importance. It is significant -as showing how far the Courts of Justice were, as lately as -1909, still out of touch, so far as Trade Unionism is concerned, -either with Parliament or with the political economists. -The case was, however, of even greater import. The bias -and prejudice, the animus and partiality—doubtless unconscious -to the judges themselves—which were displayed -by those who ought to have been free from such intellectual -influences; the undisguised glee with which this grave miscarriage -of justice was received by the governing class, and -the prolonged delay of a professedly Liberal and Radical -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_626">[Pg 626]</span> -Cabinet, and a professedly Liberal and Radical House of -Commons in remedying it, had a great effect on the minds -of the wage-earners, and contributed notably to the increasing -bitterness of feeling against the “governing class,” and -against a State organisation in which such a miscarriage of -justice could take place. We must, indeed, look behind -the legal technicalities of the Six Judges, and consider what -was the animus behind their extraordinary judgement. The -“subservience” of Parliament to the Trade Unions in -passing the Trade Disputes Act of 1906 had excited the -deepest resentment of the lawyers. The progress of the -Labour Party was causing a quite exaggerated alarm among -members of the governing class. What lay behind the -Osborne Judgement was a determination to exclude the -influence of the workmen’s combinations from the political -field. This is really what the Osborne Judgement prohibited. -One irreverent legal critic, indeed, went so far -as to remark that the Law Lords were so anxious to make -it clear that Trade Unions were not to be entitled to pay for -Members of Parliament, that they failed to heed how much -law they were severally demolishing in the process! It is -instructive to examine the arguments adduced by the Law -Lords and the judges on this point, apart from their decision -as to Trade Union status. These opinions could hardly be -deemed to be law, as they all differed one from another, -and none of them obtained the support of a majority of the -Law Lords. Such as they are, however, they seem not to -have been connected with Trade Unionism at all, but with -the nature of the House of Commons. One of the Law Lords -(Lord James of Hereford) merely objected to Trade Unions -paying a Member of Parliament who was (as was quite -incorrectly assumed) bound by a rule of the paying body -requiring him to vote in a particular way, not on labour -questions only, but on all issues that might come before -Parliament. Another Law Lord (Lord Shaw), with whom -Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton seemed to agree, held that -what was illegal was not the payment of Members of Parliament, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_627">[Pg 627]</span> -but their subjection, by whomsoever paid, to a -“pledge-bound” party organisation (as the Labour Party -was alleged to be). Another judge (Farwell, L.J.) took a -different line, and held that it was illegal for a corporate -body to require its own members to subscribe collectively -towards the support of a Member of Parliament with whose -views they might individually not agree. What the historian -and the student of political science will say is that these were -matters for legislation, not for the sudden intervention of the -judiciary. The House of Commons is prompt enough to -defend its own honour and its own “privilege”; and the -function of the judges will begin when any of the acts -referred to has been made an illegal practice. In 1909, as -now, the practices complained of, whether or not they were -correctly described, and however objectionable to these -particular gentlemen they might be, were all lawful; and -the judges and Law Lords were abusing the privileges of -their office by importing them to prejudice the legal issue.</p> - -<p>The Osborne Judgement received the support, not only -of the great mass of property owners and professional men, -but also, though tacitly, of the Liberal and Conservative -Parties. A distinct challenge was thereby thrown down to -the Trade Union world. Not only were the activities of -their Unions to be crippled, not only was their freedom to -combine for whatever purposes they chose to be abrogated, -they were to be expressly forbidden to aspire to protect their -interests or promote their objects by Parliamentary representation, -or in any way to engage in politics. It was this -challenge to Organised Labour that absorbed the whole -interest of the Trade Union world for the next three or four -years.</p> - -<p>The experienced Trade Union leaders did not forget -that it might well be a matter for Trade Union consideration -how far it is wise and prudent for a Trade Union to engage -in general politics. We have elsewhere pointed out<a id="FNanchor_671" href="#Footnote_671" class="fnanchor">[671]</a> with -some elaboration how dangerous it may become to the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_628">[Pg 628]</span> -strength and authority of a Trade Union if any large section -of the persons in the trade are driven out of its ranks, or -deterred from joining, because they find their convictions -outraged by part of its action. Nothing could be more -unwise for a Trade Union than to offend its Roman Catholic -members by espousing the cause of secular education.<a id="FNanchor_672" href="#Footnote_672" class="fnanchor">[672]</a> -But this is a point which each Trade Union must decide for -itself. It is not a matter in which outsiders can offer more -than counsel. It is clearly not a matter in which the discretion -of the Trade Union, any more than that of an -individual employer, can properly be limited by law. For -no Trade Union can nowadays abstain altogether from -political action. Without co-operating with other Trade -Unions in taking Parliamentary action of a very energetic -and very watchful kind, it cannot (as long experience has -demonstrated to practically all Trade Unionists) protect -the interests of its members. Without taking a vigorous -part in promoting, enforcing, and resisting all sorts of -legislation affecting education, sanitation, the Poor Law, -the whole range of the Factories, Mines, Railways, and -Merchant Shipping Acts, the Shop Hours, Truck, Industrial -Arbitration and Conciliation, and now even the Trade -Boards’ Act, the Trade Union cannot properly fulfil its -function of looking after the regulation of the conditions of -employment. But this is not all. The interests of its -members require the most watchful scrutiny of the administration -of every public department. There is not a -day passes but something in Parliament demands its -attention. On this point Trade Union opinion is unanimous. -We have never met any member of a Trade Union—and -Osborne himself is no exception—who has any contrary view. -To suggest that there is anything improper, or against -public policy, for a Trade Union to give an annual retaining -fee to a Member of Parliament whom its members trust, -or to take the necessary steps to get that member elected, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_629">[Pg 629]</span> -in order to ensure that what the Trade Union conceives to -be its own interests shall be protected, was to take up a -position of extraordinary unfairness. When more than a -quarter of the whole House of Commons habitually consists, -not merely of individual employers, but actually of persons -drawing salaries or stipends from capitalist corporations of -one kind or another—when, in fact, the number of companies -of shareholders in railways, banks, insurance companies, -breweries, ocean telegraphs, shipbuilding yards, -shipping companies, steamship lines, iron and steel works, -coal mines, and joint stock enterprises of all sorts actually -represented in the House of Commons by their own salaried -chairmen, directors, trustees, managers, secretaries, or -solicitors is beyond all computation—the claim that there -is something improper, something inconsistent with our -electoral system, something at variance with the honourable -nature of the House of Commons, for the workmen’s organisations -to retain a few dozen of the Members whom the constituencies -(knowing of this payment) deliberately elect, or -to help such Members to provide their election expenses, is -an argument so extraordinary in its unfairness that it drives -the active-minded workman frantic with rage. It is no -answer to say that these representatives of capitalist corporations -are not expressly paid to sit in Parliament. They -are at any rate desired by their employers to sit, and permitted -by the law to receive their salaries notwithstanding -that they do sit. This was forbidden to representatives -of Trade Unions. That it should be illegal for the salaried -President or Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of -Railway Servants to sit in Parliament, when it is perfectly -legal for the much more generously salaried Chairman or -Director of a Railway Company to sit there, is an anomaly -hard for any candid man to defend; and the anomaly is all -the greater in that the interests of the railway company -come, almost every year, into conflict with those of the -community at large, and the railway chairman is, on these -occasions, quite frankly there to promote his own company’s -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_630">[Pg 630]</span> -Bill, and to defend the interests of the shareholders by whom -he is paid. To say that the workmen’s organisations shall -not pay their representatives in the way that suits working-class -conditions, whilst railway shareholders may pay their -representatives in the way that suits capitalist conditions—to -assume a great concern for the wounded conscience of a -Liberal or Conservative Trade Unionist who finds his Union -paying its Secretary or its President to sit as a Radical or -Labour Member of Parliament, and no concern at all for -the Socialist or Radical shareholder in a railway company -who finds his company paying its Conservative Chairman -M.P.—is to be guilty of an amazing degree of class bias, if -not of hypocrisy. After all, it is not the Trade Union but -the constituency that elects the Member of Parliament. -The Trade Union payment only enables him to stand. -Whatever may be thought of the policy of the Labour Party, -or the particular form of its organisation, if we regard the -Trade Union payment as a retaining fee for looking after -what the Trade Union members as a whole conceive to be -their own interest; if the Trade Union members have the -opportunity of choosing, by a majority, which among -competing persons (or, for that matter, which among competing -groups of persons) they will entrust with this Trade -Union task; if the Trade Union assumes no responsibility -for and exercises no coercion upon its Parliamentary representative -with regard to issues on which it has not voted, -no Trade Unionist’s political conscience need be wounded -by the fact that, outside the range of the task that the -Trade Union has confided to him, the Union’s Parliamentary -agent (who must have views of one sort or another) expresses -opinions in accord with those of the constituency that -elected him, or joins together with other members of like -opinions to form a political party. When, three-quarters of -a century ago, J. A. Roebuck was the salaried agent in the -House of Commons for the Legislative Assembly of Lower -Canada, no one complained that it was against the dignity -of Parliament for him to be thus retained and paid; and -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_631">[Pg 631]</span> -so long as he attended faithfully to Canadian business it -was never contended that the tender conscience of any -Canadian Conservative was offended by the ultra-Radical -utterances or extremely independent political alliances of -the Member for Bath.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Trade Union Act of 1913</span></h3> - -<p>It is an instance of the failure of both the governing -class and the party politicians to appreciate the workman’s -standpoint, or to understand the temper of the Trade Union -world, that this crippling judgement remained for nearly four -years unreversed. The Liberal and Conservative Parties -were, during 1910 and 1911, quarrelling about the Budget -and the exact powers to be exercised by the House of Lords; -and two successive General Elections were fought without -bringing the Trade Unions any redress. Meanwhile, up -and down the country discontented or venal Trade Unionists -were sought out by solicitors and others acting for the -employers; and were induced to lend their names to proceedings -for injunctions against their own Unions, prohibiting -them from subscribing to the Labour Party, from -contributing towards the election expenses of candidates, -from taking action in municipal elections, from subscribing -to educational classes, and from taking shares in a “Labour” -newspaper. It may have seemed a skilful political dodge, -during the elections of 1910, to hamstring in this way the -growing Labour Party; but the resentment caused by such -behaviour makes it doubtful whether action of this kind is, -in the long run, politically advantageous. In the first place, -the House of Commons, in 1911, felt itself compelled, as an -alternative to restoring Trade Union liberties, to concede -the payment of £400 a year to all Members of Parliament. -Finally, in 1913, the Cabinet, after a severe internal struggle, -brought itself to introduce a Bill giving power generally to -any Trade Union to include in its constitution any lawful -purpose whatever, so long as its principal objects were those -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_632">[Pg 632]</span> -of a Trade Union as defined in the 1876 Act; and to spend -money on any purpose thus authorised. It was, indeed, -provided that before the financing of certain specified -political objects could be undertaken, including the support -of Parliamentary or Municipal candidates or members, or -the publication or distribution of political documents, -<a id="FNanchor_673" href="#Footnote_673" class="fnanchor">[673]</a> a -ballot of the members was to be held in a prescribed form, -and a simple majority of those voting secured; the payments -were to be made out of a special political fund, and any -member was to be entitled to claim to be exempt from the -special subscription to that political fund. These restrictive -provisions were opposed by the Labour Members in the -House of Commons; but with slight amendment the -measure was passed into law as the Trade Union Act of 1913. -<a id="FNanchor_674" href="#Footnote_674" class="fnanchor">[674]</a></p> - -<p>It is not easy to sum up the whole effect of the legal -assaults upon Trade Unionism between 1901 and 1913. -Politically, the result was to exasperate the active-minded -workmen, and greatly to promote, though with some delay, -the growth of an independent Labour Party in the House of -Commons. On the other hand, it must not be overlooked -that the temporary crippling of Trade Unionism seemed to -be of financial advantage to that generation of employers. -It was, perhaps, not altogether an accident that the brunt -of the attack had to be borne by the Amalgamated Society -of Railway Servants, a Union then struggling for “recognition” -in such a position as to make effective its claims to -better remuneration and shorter hours of labour for the -whole body of railwaymen. It may fairly be reckoned that -the railwaymen were, by means of the two great pieces of -litigation to which their Union was subjected, held at bay -for something like a decade, during which the improvement -in their conditions, in spite of a slowly-increasing cost of -living, was (mainly through the evasions of the railway -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_633">[Pg 633]</span> -companies by their silent “regrading” of their staffs) -extremely small.<a id="FNanchor_675" href="#Footnote_675" class="fnanchor">[675]</a> A rise of wages to the extent of only -a penny per hour for the whole body of railwaymen would -have cost the railway companies, in the aggregate, something -like five or six million pounds a year. If any such -advance was, by means of the Taff Vale Case and the -Osborne Judgement, staved off for ten years, the gain to the -whole body of railway shareholders of that generation might -be put as high as fifty or sixty millions sterling—a sum worth -taking a little trouble about and spending a little money -upon, in items not revealed in the published accounts. But -the crippling effect of the litigation was not confined to the -Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, which spent, -altogether, nearly £50,000 in law costs in defending the pass -for the whole Trade Union Movement. If, in the temporary -set-back to trade in 1903-5, and in the revival that -immediately followed it; or in the recurring set-back of -1908-9, and the great improvement of the ensuing years, -the whole body of wage-earners in the kingdom lost only -a penny per hour from their wages, or gained less than they -might otherwise have done to the extent of no more than -a penny per hour, their financial loss, in one year alone, -would have amounted to something like a hundred million -pounds. And whatever they forwent in this way, they -lost not during one year only, but during at least several -years, and many of them for a whole decade. There is no -doubt that the capitalist employers, thinking only of their -profits for the time being, regarded even a temporary -crippling of the Trade Union Movement as well worth all -that it might cost them. The historian, thinking more of -the secular effort upon social institutions, will not find the -balance-sheet so easy to construct. The final result of the -successive attempts between 1901 and 1913 to cripple Trade -Unionism by legal proceedings was to give it the firmest -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_634">[Pg 634]</span> -possible basis in statute law. The right of workmen to -combine for any purpose not in itself unlawful was definitely -established. The strike, with its “restraint of trade,” and -its interference with profits and business; peaceful picketing -even on an extensive scale; the persuasion of workmen -to withdraw from employment even in breach of contract, -and the other frequent incidents of an industrial dispute -were specifically declared to be, not only not criminal, but -actually lawful. The right of Trade Unions to undertake -whatever political and other activities their members might -desire was expressly conceded. Finally, a complete immunity -of Trade Unions in their corporate capacity from -being sued or made answerable in damages, for any act -whatsoever, however great might be the damage thereby -caused to other parties, was established by statute in the -most absolute form.<a id="FNanchor_676" href="#Footnote_676" class="fnanchor">[676]</a> The Trade Unions, it must be remembered, -had not asked for these sweeping changes in their -position. They had been, in 1900, content with the legislation -of 1871-76. It was the successive assaults made upon -them by the legal proceedings of 1901-13 that eventually -drove the Government and Parliament, rather than formally -concede to Trade Unionism its proper position in the government -of industry, and effect the necessary fundamental -amendment of the law, once more to create for the workmen’s -organisations an anomalous status.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Rise in Status of Trade Unionism</span></h3> - -<p>So far we have described only the changes in the legal -status of the Trade Unions and the consequent increase in -their freedom of action and in their influence, alike in the -industrial and political sphere. This advance in legal status -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_635">[Pg 635]</span> -has been accompanied by a still more revolutionary transformation -of the social and political standing of the official -representatives of the Trade Union world—a transformation -which has been immensely accelerated by the Great War. -We may, in fact, not unfairly say that Trade Unionism has, -in 1920, won its recognition by Parliament and the Government, -by law and by custom, as a separate element in the -community, entitled to distinct recognition as part of the -social machinery of the State, its members being thus allowed -to give—like the clergy in Convocation—not only their votes -as citizens, but also their concurrence as an order or estate.</p> - -<p>Like all revolutionary changes in the British constitution, -the recognition of the Trade Union Movement as part -of the governmental structure of the nation began in an -almost imperceptible way. Though Trade Union leaders -had been, since 1869, appointed occasionally and sparsely -on Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees, it -was possible, as recently as 1903, for a Government to set -up a Royal Commission on Trade Disputes and Trade -Combinations without a single Trade Unionist member. -Such a thing has not been repeated. It is now taken for -granted that Trade Unionism must be distinctively and -effectually represented, usually by men or women of its -own informal nomination, on all Royal Commissions and -Departmental Committees, whether or not these inquiries -are concerned specifically with “Labour Questions”—excepting -only such as are so exclusively financial or professional -that the representatives of Labour do not seek or -desire representation upon them.</p> - -<p>In 1885-86, and again in 1892-95, Liberal Prime Ministers -had appointed leading Trade Unionists (who were, it must -be noted, also Liberal M.P.’s) to subordinate Ministerial -positions, where they were permitted practically no influence.<a id="FNanchor_677" href="#Footnote_677" class="fnanchor">[677]</a> -In 1905 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman startled -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_636">[Pg 636]</span> -some of his Whig associates by asking Mr. John Burns—who -had presided over the Trades Union Congress as a -representative of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, -but who had sat in Parliament since 1892 as a Liberal -supporter—to join his Cabinet as President of the Local -Government Board. This recognition of Labour in the -inner councils of the Government was quickly followed by -an explicit recognition of the Trade Unions as part of the -machinery of State administration. In 1911, when the vast -scheme of National Insurance was brought forward by Mr. -Asquith’s Government, and Parliament sanctioned the raising -and expenditure of more than twenty million pounds a -year for the relief of sickness and unemployment, the Trade -Unions, equally with the universally praised Friendly -Societies, were made the agents for the administration of -the sickness, invalidity, and maternity benefits, and, parallel -with the Government’s own local organisation, and to the -exclusion of the Friendly Societies, also for the administration -of the State Unemployment Benefit to their own -members. But it was during the Great War that we watch -the most extensive advance in the status, alike of the -official representatives of the Trade Unions and of the -Trade Unions themselves, as organs of representation and -government. It is needless to say that this recognition was -not accorded to the Trade Union world without a <i>quid pro -quo</i> from the Trade Union Movement to the Government. -Hence the part played by the Trade Unions in the national -effort, and its effect on their influence and status, demands -explicit notice.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">British Trade Unionism and the War</span></h3> - -<p>Though theoretically internationalist in sympathy, and -predominantly opposed to “militarism” at home as well as -abroad, British Trade Unionism, when war was declared, -took a decided line.<a id="FNanchor_678" href="#Footnote_678" class="fnanchor">[678]</a> From first to last the whole strength -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_637">[Pg 637]</span> -of the Movement—in spite of the pacifist faith of a relatively -small minority, which included the most fervent and eloquent -of the Labour members and was supported by the energetic -propaganda of the fraction of the Trade Unionists who -were also members of the Socialist Society known as the -I.L.P.—was thrown on the side of the nation’s effort. From -every industry workmen flocked to the colours, with the -utmost encouragement and assistance from their Trade -Unions; until the miners, the railwaymen, and the engineers, -in particular, had to be refused as recruits, exempted -from conscription, and even returned from the army, in -order that the indispensable industrial services might be -maintained. The number of workers in engineering and the -manufacture of munitions of war had, indeed, to be largely -increased; and the Government found itself, within a year, -under the necessity of asking the Trade Unions for the -unprecedented sacrifice of the relinquishment, for the duration -of the war, of the entire network of “Trade Union -Conditions” which had been slowly built up by generations -of effort for the protection of the workmen’s Standard of -Life. This enormous draft on the patriotism of the rank -and file could only be secured by enlisting the support of -the official representatives of the Trade Union world—by -according to them a unique and unprecedented place as -the diplomatic representatives of the wage-earning class. -In the famous Treasury Conference of February 1915 the -capitalist employers were ignored, and the principal Ministers -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_638">[Pg 638]</span> -of the Crown negotiated directly with the authorised representatives -of the whole Trade Union world, not only in -respect of the terms of service of Government employees, -but also with regard to the conditions of employment of all -persons, men and women, skilled and unskilled, unionists -and non-unionists, engaged on any work needed for the -conduct of the war—a phrase which was afterwards stretched -to include four-fifths of the entire manual-working class. -The Trade Union Executives agreed, at this Conference or -subsequently, to suspend, for the duration of the war, all -their rules and customary practices restrictive of the output -of anything required by the Government for the conduct of -the war; all limitation of employment to apprenticed men, -to Trade Unionists, to men of proved technical skill, to -adults and even to the male sex; all reservation of particular -jobs or particular machines to workers of particular trades; -all definition of a Normal Day, and all objection to overtime, -night-work, or Sunday duty; and even many of the Factory -Act prohibitions by which the health and even the safety of -the operatives had been protected. In order that the utmost -possible output of munitions of every kind might be secured, -elaborate schemes of “dilution” were assented to, under -which the various tasks were subdivided and rearranged, a -very large amount of automatic machinery was introduced, -and successive drafts of “dilutees” were brought into the -factories and workshops—men and boys from other occupations, -sometimes even non-manual workers, as well as -women and girls—and put to work under the tuition and -direction of the minority of skilled craftsmen at top speed, -at time wages differing entirely from the Trade Union -rates, or at piecework prices unsafeguarded by Collective -Bargaining, for hours of labour indefinitely lengthened, sometimes -under conditions such as no Trade Union would have -permitted. It must be recorded to the credit of the Trade -Unions that not one of the societies refused this sacrifice, -which was made without any demand for compensatory -increase of pay, merely upon the condition—to which not -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_639">[Pg 639]</span> -only the Ministry, but also the Opposition Leaders and the -House of Commons as a whole, elaborately and repeatedly -pledged themselves—that the abandonment of the “Trade -Union Conditions” was only to be for the duration of the -war, and exclusively for the service of the Government, not -to the profit of any private employer; and that everything -that was abrogated was to be reinstated when peace came.</p> - -<p>Under stress of the national emergency, the Government -made ever greater demands on the patriotism of the -Trade Unions, which accepted successively, so far as war-work -was concerned, a legal abrogation of the employers’ -competition for their members’ services by the prohibition -of advertisement for employees, and of the engagement of -men from other districts—an unprecedented interference -with the “Law of Supply and Demand”—the suspension -of the right to strike for better terms; the submission of all -disputes to the decision of a Government Department of -arbitration, the awards of which, with the abrogation of the -right to strike, or even freely to relinquish employment, -became virtually compulsory; the legal enforcement -under penalties of the employer’s workshop rules; and even -legally enforced continuance, not only in munition work, -but actually in the service of a particular employer, under -the penal jurisdiction of the ubiquitous Munitions Tribunals. -The Munitions of War Acts, 1915, 1916 and 1917, by which -all this industrial coercion was statutorily imposed, were -accepted by overwhelming majorities at successive Trade -Union and Labour Party Conferences. It was a serious -aggravation of this “involuntary servitude” that the rigid -enforcement of compulsory military service—extended successively -from single men to fathers of families, from 18 years -of age to 51—had the incidental effect of enforcing what -was virtually “industrial conscription” on those who were -left for the indispensable civilian employment; and the -individual workman realised that the penalty for any failure -of implicit obedience to the foreman might be instant -relegation to the trenches. Although this inevitable result -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_640">[Pg 640]</span> -of Compulsory Military Service was foreseen and deplored,<a id="FNanchor_679" href="#Footnote_679" class="fnanchor">[679]</a> -the successive Military Service Acts were—in view of the -nation’s needs—ratified, in effect, by great majorities at the -workmen’s National Congresses. The strongest protests -were made, but as each measure was passed it was accepted -without resistance, and proposals to resist were always -rejected by large majorities. It speaks volumes, both for -the patriotism of the Trade Unionists and for the strength -of Trade Union loyalty and Trade Union organisation, that -under such repressive circumstances the Trade Union leaders -were able, on the whole, to prevent their members from -hindering production by industrial revolts. A certain -amount of friction was, of course, not to be avoided. Strikes, -though greatly reduced in number, were not wholly prevented; -and the South Wales coal-miners and the engineering -workmen on the Clyde—largely through arbitrary and -repressive action by their respective employers—broke -into open rebellion; which led, in the one industry, to -the Government overriding the recalcitrant South Wales -employers and assuming the direction and the financial -responsibility of all the coal mines throughout the kingdom; -and, in the other, to the arbitrary arrest and deportation -of the leaders of the unofficial organisation of revolt styled -the “Clyde Workers’ Committee.” The Trade Union -Executives and officials, whilst restraining their members -and deprecating all stoppages of production, were able -to put up a good fight against the unnecessary and unreasonable -demands which, with a view to “after the -war” conditions, employers were not unwilling to use the -national emergency to put forward. These Trade Union -spokesmen had to obtain for their members the successive -rises in money wages which the steadily rising cost of living -made necessary, and they had constantly to stand their -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_641">[Pg 641]</span> -ground in the innumerable mixed committees and arbitration -proceedings into which the Government was always -inveigling them. On the whole, whilst co-operating in every -way in meeting the national emergency, the Trade Union -organisation during the four and a-quarter years of war -remained intact; and Trade Union membership—allowing -for the millions absent with the colours—steadily increased. -Nor did the Trade Union Movement make any serious -revolt when the Government found itself unable to fulfil, -with any literal exactness, the specific pledges which it had -given to Organised Labour. The complications and difficulties -of the Government were, in fact, so great that the -pledges were not kept. The first promise to be broken was -that the abrogation of Trade Union Conditions and the -removal of everything restrictive of output should not be -allowed to increase the profits of the employers. The so-called -“Munitions Levy” was imposed in 1916 on “controlled -establishments,” in fulfilment of this pledge, in order -to confiscate for the Exchequer the whole of their excess -profit, over and above a permitted addition of 20 per cent -and very liberal allowances for increased capital and extra -exertion by the employers themselves. It will hardly be -believed that, in flagrant disregard of the specific pledge, -within a year this Munitions Levy was abolished; and -the firms especially benefiting by the workmen’s sacrifices -were made merely subject, in common with all other trades -where there had been no such abrogation of Trade Union -Conditions, to the 80 per cent Excess Profits Duty, with -the result of increasing the net income left to those employers -whose profits had doubled, and of doing, with -regard to all the employers, the very thing that the Trade -Unions had stipulated should not be done, namely, giving -the employers themselves a financial interest in “dilution.”<a id="FNanchor_680" href="#Footnote_680" class="fnanchor">[680]</a> -As the war dragged on, and prices rose, the successive -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_642">[Pg 642]</span> -war-bonuses and additions to wages—especially those of -the miners and the bulk of the women workers—in many -cases fell steadily behind the rise in the cost of living; and -in 1917 the War Cabinet was actually guilty of a formal -instruction to the presumedly impartial central arbitration -tribunal that no further increase of wages was to -be awarded—an instruction which, on its public disclosure, -had to be apologised for and virtually withdrawn. Even -the pledge as to wages in the solemn “Treasury Agreement” -of 1915, at which the “Trade Union Conditions” -were surrendered, was not fulfilled, at any rate as regards -the women workers; and had to be made the subject -of a subsequent serious investigation by the War Cabinet -Committee on Women in Industry, in which all the “white-washing” -of a Government majority failed to convince the -Trade Unionists, any more than it did the only unpaid -member of the Committee, that the Government officials -had not betrayed them.<a id="FNanchor_681" href="#Footnote_681" class="fnanchor">[681]</a> The solemnly promised “Restoration -of Trade Union Conditions” was only imperfectly -carried out. What the Government did, and that only -after long delay, was not what it had promised, namely, -actually to see the pre-war conditions and practices reinstated, -but to enact a statute enabling the workmen to -proceed in the law courts against employers who failed to -restore them; continuance of any such restoration to be -obligatory only for one year. -<a id="FNanchor_682" href="#Footnote_682" class="fnanchor">[682]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_643">[Pg 643]</span></p> - -<p>The Trade Unionists, in fact, who had at the outset of -the war patriotically refrained from bargaining as to the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_644">[Pg 644]</span> -price of their aid, were, on the whole, “done” at its close. -Though here and there particular sections had received -exceptionally high earnings in the time of stress, the rates -of wages, taking industry as a whole, did not, as the Government -returns prove, rise either so quickly or so high as the -cost of living; so that, whilst many persons suffered great -hardship, the great majority of wage-earners found the -product in commodities of their rates of pay in 1919 less -rather than more than it was in 1913. During the war, -indeed, many thousands of households got in the aggregate -more, and both earned and needed more; because the -young and the aged were at work and costing more than -when not at work, whilst overtime and night-work increased -the strain and the requirements of all. When peace came, -it was found that the Government, for all its promises, had -made no arrangements whatever to prevent unemployment; -and none to relieve the unemployed beyond an entirely -improvised and dwindling weekly dole, which (so far as -civilians were concerned) was suddenly brought to an end -on November 20, 1919, without any alternative provision -being immediately made.</p> - -<p>It would thus be easy to argue that the representatives -of the Trade Union world made a series of bad bargains -with the Government, and through the Government with -the capitalist employers, at a time when the nation’s needs -would have enabled the organised manual workers almost -to dictate their own terms. But this is to take a short-sighted -view. It is a sufficient answer to say that the -great mass of the Trade Unionists, like the leaders themselves, -wanted above all things that the nation should win -the war; found it repugnant to make stipulations in the -national emergency, and did not realise the extent to which -they were being tricked and cheated by the officials. But -apart from this impulsive and unself-regarding patriotism -we think that, when it becomes possible to cast up and -balance all the results of the innovations of the war period, -the Trade Union Movement will be found to have gained -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_645">[Pg 645]</span> -and not lost. We may suggest, perhaps paradoxically, -that the very ease with which the War Cabinet suppressed -the civil liberties of the manual-working wage-earners -during the war, and even continued after the Armistice a -machinery of industrial <i>espionage</i>, with <i>agents provocateurs</i> -of workshop “sedition,” enormously increased the solidarity -of the Trade Union Movement—an effect intensified during -1919 by the costly and futile intervention of the British -Government in Russia on behalf of military leaders whom -the Trade Unionists, rightly or wrongly, believed to be -organising the forces of political and economic reaction. -Sober and responsible Trade Unionists, who had taken for -granted the easy-going freedom and tolerance characteristic -of English life in times of peace, suddenly realised that -these conditions could at any moment be withdrawn from -them by what seemed the arbitrary fiat of a Government -over which they found that they had no control. In this -way the abrogation of Trade Union liberty during the war -gave the same sort of intellectual fillip to Trade Unionism -and the Labour Party in 1915-19 that had been given in -1901-13 by the Taff Vale Case and the Osborne Judgement. -At the same time the Government found itself compelled, -in order to secure the co-operation of the Trade Unions, -both during the war and amid the menacing economic -conditions of the first half of 1919, to accord to them, and -to their leaders, a <i>locus standi</i> in the determination of -essentially national issues that was undreamt of in previous -times. The Trade Unions, in fact, through shouldering -their responsibility in the national cause, gained enormously -in social and political status. In practically every branch -of public administration, from unimportant local committees -up to the Cabinet itself, we find the Trade Union world now -accepted as forming, virtually, a separate constituency, -which has to be specially represented. We shall tell the -tale in our next chapter of the participation of members of -the Parliamentary Labour Party in the Coalition Governments -of Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George. What is here -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_646">[Pg 646]</span> -relevant is that these Trade Union officials were selected -in the main, not on personal grounds, but because they -represented the Trade Union Movement. They accepted -ministerial office with the approval, and they relinquished -ministerial office at the request of the National Conference -of the Labour Party, in which the Trade Unions exercised -the predominant influence. A similar recognition of the -Trade Union Movement has marked all the recently constituted -Local Government structure, from the committees -set up in 1914 for the relief of distress to those organised in -1917 for the rationing and control of the food supply, and -the tribunals formed in 1919 for the suppression of “profiteering.” -In all these cases the Government specifically -required the appointment of representatives of the local -Trade Unions. Trade Unionists have to constitute half -the members appointed to the Advisory Committees attached -to the Employment Exchanges; and Trade Unionist -workmen sit, not only on the temporary “Munitions -Courts” administering the disciplinary provisions of the -Munitions of War Acts, but also on the local Tribunals of -Appeal to determine whether a workman is entitled to the -State Unemployment Benefit. In the administration of -the Military and Naval Pensions Act of 1916 a further step -in recognition of Trade Unionism was taken. Not only -were the nominees of Labour placed upon the Statutory -(Central) Pensions Committee, but, in the order constituting -the Local Pensions Committees, the Trade Union organisations -in each locality, which were named in the schemes, -were expressly and specifically accorded the right to elect -whom they chose as their representatives on these committees -by which the pensions were to be awarded.<a id="FNanchor_683" href="#Footnote_683" class="fnanchor">[683]</a> When, towards -the close of the war, the Committee presided over by the -Rt. Hon. J. H. Whitley, M.P., propounded its scheme of -Joint Industrial Councils of equal numbers of representative -employers and workers for the supervision and eventual -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_647">[Pg 647]</span> -administration of many matters of interest in each industry -throughout the kingdom—the “mouse” which was practically -the whole outcome as regards industrial reorganisation -of the Ministry of Reconstruction—it was specifically to the -Trade Unions in each industry, and to them alone, that the -election of the wage-earners’ representatives was entrusted. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_648">[Pg 648]</span><a id="FNanchor_684" href="#Footnote_684" class="fnanchor">[684]</a> -When, in 1919, it seemed desirable to make a series of comprehensive -reforms in the terms of employment, it was not -to Parliament that the Prime Minister turned, but to a -“National Industrial Conference,” to which he summoned -some five hundred representatives of the Employers’ Associations -and Trade Unions. It was by this body, through its -own sub-committee of thirty employers’ representatives -and thirty Trade Union representatives, that were elaborated -the measures instituting a Legal Maximum Eight Hours -Day and a statutory Minimum Wage Commission that the -Ministry undertook to present to Parliament. In the -Royal Commission on Agriculture of 1919, the several -Unions enrolling farm labourers were invited to nominate -as many members (eight) as were accorded to the farmers, -whilst of the four remaining members appointed as scientific -or statistical experts—all landlords being excluded—two -were chosen among those known to be sympathetic to -Labour. In the statutory Coal Industry Commission of -the same year, to which reference has already been made, -the Miners’ Federation made its participation absolutely -conditional on being allowed to nominate half of the total -membership, under a presumedly impartial Judge of the -High Court, including not merely three Trade Union officials -to balance the three mine-owners, but also three out of the -six “disinterested” members by whom—all royalty owners -being excluded—the Commission was to be completed. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_649">[Pg 649]</span> -All this constitutional development is at once the recognition -and the result of the new position in the State that -Trade Unionism has won—a position due not merely to -the numerical growth that we have described, but also to -the uprise of new ideas and wider aspirations in the Trade -Union world itself.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Revolution in Thought</span></h3> - -<p>The new ideas which are to-day taking root in the Trade -Union world centre round the aspiration of the organisations -of manual workers to take part—some would urge the predominant -part, a few might say the sole part—in the control -and direction of the industries in which they gain their -livelihood. Such a claim was made, as we have described -in the third chapter of this work, in its most extreme form, -by the revolutionary Trade Unionism of 1830-34; and it -lingered on in the minds of the Chartists as long as any of -them survived. But after the collapse, in 1848, of Chartism -as an organised movement British Trade Unionism settled -down to the attainment of a strictly limited end—the maintenance -and progressive improvement, within each separate -occupation or craft, of the terms of the bargain made by -the wage-earner with the employers, including alike all the -conditions of service and complete freedom from personal -oppression. Hence the Trade Unionist as such, during the -second half of the nineteenth century, tacitly accepted the -existing organisation of industry. He discussed the rival -advantages of private enterprise carried on in the interests -of the capitalist profit-maker on the one hand, and of the -Consumers’ Co-operative Movement or State and Municipal -enterprise on the other, almost exclusively from the standpoint -of whether the profit-making employers or the representatives -of the consumers or the citizens offered better -conditions of employment to the members of his own -organisation. Right down to the end of the nineteenth -century this remained the dominant working-class view. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_650">[Pg 650]</span> -We find in the proceedings of the Royal Commission on -Labour, 1891-94, a striking demonstration of the strictly -limited purpose of British Trade Unionism at that date. -Whether we study the elaborate collection of Trade Union -rules and other documents made by the Commission, or the -personal evidence given by the leaders or advocates of -Trade Unionism, we find from beginning to end absolutely -no claim, and even no suggestion, that the Trade Union -should participate in the direction of industry, otherwise -than in arranging with the employers the conditions of the -wage-earner’s working life.<a id="FNanchor_685" href="#Footnote_685" class="fnanchor">[685]</a> One or two Unions included, -among their published “objects,” vague and pious references -to the desirability of co-operative production; but the -assumption was always that any such co-operative production -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_651">[Pg 651]</span> -would be carried out by the members of the Union -working in and managing a particular establishment, which -would take its place, like any private establishment, within -the framework of the capitalist system. When a Trade -Union leader was also a Socialist he assumed that the -“Socialisation” of industry would be carried out by the -Central or Local Government, or by the Consumers’ Co-operative -Movement. Hence, Mr. Tom Mann, himself a -Royal Commissioner, who was called as a witness before the -Commission, was a powerful advocate of nationalisation and -municipalisation. “I am distinctly favourable, and am -associated with those who are earnestly advocating,” he -stated from the witness-chair, “the advisability of encouraging -the State to at once entertain the proposal of the State -control of railways. I am also identified with those who are -favourable to the nationalisation of the land, which means, -of course, a State control of land in the common interest; -and I am continually advocating the desirability for statesmen -and politicians and municipal councillors to try and -understand in what particular departments of industry they -can get to work and exercise their faculties in controlling -trade and industry in the common interest where that -interest would be likely to be secured better than under the -present method.” When asked by the Duke of Devonshire -whether his advocacy of the nationalisation of the railways -was in the interests of the public or mainly in the interests -of the workmen employed on the railways, he replied: -“Not mainly on behalf of the workers; I would put it -equally so. I believe it would serve the public interest, -the general well-being of the community.... I do not -believe that a Government Department will ever be healthy -until the public themselves are healthy in this direction, and -are keeping a watchful eye upon the whole governmental -show and secure the general well-being by their watchfulness. -I do not think that State control of industry will ever be -brought about until that development on the part of the -public themselves is brought about, and they desire to see -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_652">[Pg 652]</span> -it controlled in the common interest.... When a sufficient -number of men are prepared to take the initiative, and -educate public opinion to the desirability of a superior -method of control in the common interest, then I believe -it will be done, not all at once, but gradually.” -<a id="FNanchor_686" href="#Footnote_686" class="fnanchor">[686]</a></p> - -<p>But Mr. Tom Mann did not stand alone. The Independent -Labour Party, the largest and the most popular -of Socialist societies in the United Kingdom, established in -1893, and largely recruited from the ranks of Trade Unionists, -carried on, right down to the outbreak of the Great War, a -vigorous propaganda in favour of an indefinite extension -of State and Municipal administration of industrial undertakings, -whilst the more doctrinaire Social Democratic -Federation was, in its early days, outspokenly contemptuous -of the whole Trade Union Movement as a mere “palliative” -of the Capitalist system. This bias in favour of the communal -organisation, in favour of the government of the -people by and for the people organised in geographical -areas, was, until the opening of the twentieth century, -equally dominant among the most “advanced” Labour -and Socialist thinkers on the Continent of Europe. -<a id="FNanchor_687" href="#Footnote_687" class="fnanchor">[687]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_653">[Pg 653]</span></p> - -<p>But in spite of the assumption that services and industries -ought to be carried out by democracies of consumers -and citizens, organised in geographical districts—that is, by -the Central and Local Government of a Political Democracy—there -always remained, in the hearts of the manual working -class in Great Britain, an instinctive faith in the opposite -idea of Associations of Producers owning, as such, both the -instruments and the product of their labour. Throughout -the whole of the second half of the nineteenth century it was -pathetic to see this faith struggling on, in spite of the almost -constant failure of the innumerable little manufacturing -establishments carried on by Associations of Producers. -What finally killed it as an ideal, in the eyes of the Trade -Unionists of Great Britain, was the fact that Co-operative -Production and its child, Co-partnership, were taken up -by the most reactionary persons and parties in the State. -Great peers and Conservative statesmen were always blessing -“Co-operative Production,” and always trying to stimulate -the workers to undertake business on their own account. -When the invariable failure of self-governing workshops -became too obvious, the advocates of Co-operative Production -fell back on “Labour Co-partnership”—partnership in -business with the capitalist class! This was so obviously, -and almost avowedly, an attack on, or at least a proposal -for the supersession of Trade Unionism, that it aroused the -fiercest opposition; and the very idea became anathema -in the Trade Union world. In short, there was, from the -collapse of Owenism and Chartism in the eighteen-thirties -and -forties, right down to 1900, practically no sign that -the British Trade Unions ever thought of themselves otherwise -than as organisations to secure an ever-improving -Standard of Life by means of an ever-increasing control of -the conditions under which they worked. They neither -desired nor sought any participation in the management -of the technical processes of industry (except in so far as -these might affect the conditions of their employment, or -the selection of persons to be employed); whilst it never -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_654">[Pg 654]</span> -occurred to a Trade Union to claim any power over, or -responsibility for, buying the raw materials or marketing -the product. On the contrary, the most advanced Trade -Union leaders were never tired of asserting that their -members must enjoy the full standard conditions of employment, -whatever arrangements the employers might make -with regard to the other factors of production; or however -unskilful employers or groups of employers might prove to -be in the buying of the raw material, or in the selling of the -commodities in the markets of the world.</p> - -<p>With the opening years of the twentieth century we -become aware of a new intellectual ferment, not confined to -any one country, nor even to the manual working class. We -watch, emerging in various forms, new variants of the old -idea of the organisation of industries and services by those -who are actually carrying them on. We see it working -among the brain-working professionals. Alike in England -and in France the teachers in the schools and the professors -in the colleges began to assert both their moral right to -manage the institutions as they alone know how, and the -advantage that this would be to the community. The -doctors were demanding a similar control over the exercise -of their own function. But the most conspicuous, and the -most widely influential, of the forms taken by the idea was -the revolutionary movement that spread among large -sections of the wage-earners almost simultaneously in France, -the classic home of associations of producers, and in the -United States, with its large population of foreign immigrants. -In both these countries any widespread Trade -Unionism was of much more recent growth than in Great -Britain, and was still regarded, alike by the employers and -by the Government, as an undesirable and revolutionary -force. The “<i>syndicats</i>” of France, and the Labour Unions -among the foreign workers in the United States were, in fact, -at the opening of the twentieth century, in much the same -stage of development as the British Trade Unions were when -they were swept into the vortex of revolutionary Owenism -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_655">[Pg 655]</span> -in 1834. Alike in their constitutions and in their declared -objects, in the first decade of the new century, the General -Confederation of Labour in France and the Industrial -Workers of the World in the United States bear a striking -resemblance to the Grand National Consolidated Trades -Union that we have described in an earlier chapter; and, -like that organisation, both of them excited a quite exaggerated -terror in the hearts of magistrates and Ministers -of State. Indeed, the doctrines and phraseology of the mass -of literature turned out by French Trade Unionists between -1900 and 1910 are remarkably like—allowing for the superior -literary power of the French—the pamphlets and leaflets -of the Owenite Trade Unionism.<a id="FNanchor_688" href="#Footnote_688" class="fnanchor">[688]</a> There is the same conception -of a republic of industry, consisting of a federation -of Trade Unions, local and central; the federation of shop -clubs, branches, or local unions forming the Local Authority -for all purposes, whilst a standing conference of the national -representatives of all the Trade Unions constitutes a co-ordinating -or superintending National Authority. There is -the same reliance, as a means of achievement, on continuous -strikes, culminating in a “general expropriatory strike.” -There is the same denunciation of the political State as a -useless encumbrance, and the same appeal to the soldiers -to join the workers in upsetting the existing system.</p> - -<p>We need not stay to inquire how this new ferment -crossed the Atlantic or the Channel. Between 1905 and -1910 we become aware of the birth, in some of the industrial -districts, of a number of new propagandist groups—more -especially among the miners and engineers—groups of -persons in revolt not only against the Capitalist System -but against the limited aims of contemporary Trade Unionism -and the usual categories of contemporary Socialism. -The pioneer of the new faith in the United Kingdom seems -to have been James Connolly, afterwards organiser of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_656">[Pg 656]</span> -Irish Transport and General Workers Union, to which we -have already referred, a man of noble character and fine -intelligence, whose tragic execution in 1916, after the -suppression of the Dublin rising, made him one of the -martyred heroes of the Irish race. Connolly, who was a -disciple of the founder of the American Socialist Labour -Party, Daniel De Leon, started a similar organisation on the -Clyde in 1905. In opposition to the contemporary Socialist -propaganda in favour of the nationalisation and municipalisation -of industries and services, to be brought about by -political action, he advocated the direct supersession of the -Capitalist System in each workshop and in every industry, -by the organised workers thereof. “It is an axiom,” he -said, “enforced by all the experience of the ages, that -they who rule industrially will rule politically.... That -natural law leads us as individuals to unite in our craft, -as crafts to unite in our industry, as industries in our class; -and the finished expression of that evolution is, we believe, -the appearance of our class upon the political battle-ground -with all the economic power behind it to enforce its mandates. -Until that day dawns our political parties of the working -class are but propagandist agencies, John the Baptists of -the New Redemption; but when that day dawns our -political party will be armed with all the might of our class; -will be revolutionary in fact as well as in thought.” “Let -us be clear,” he adds, “as to the function of Industrial -Unionism. That function is to build up an industrial -republic inside the shell of the political State, in order that -when that industrial republic is fully organised it may -crack the shell of the political State and step into its place -in the scheme of the universe.... Under a Socialist form -of society the administration of affairs wall be in the hands -of representatives of the various industries of the nation; -... the workers in the shops and factories will organise -themselves into unions, each union comprising all the -workers at a given industry; ... said union will democratically -control the workshop life of its own industry, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_657">[Pg 657]</span> -electing all foremen, etc., and regulating the routine of -labour in that industry in subordination to the needs of -society in general, to the needs of its allied trades and to -the department of industry to which it belongs.... -Representatives elected from these various departments of -industry will meet and form the industrial administration -or national government of the country. In short, Social -Democracy, as its name implies, is the application to industry, -or to the social life of the nation, of the fundamental -principles of Democracy. Such application will necessarily -have to begin in the workshop, and proceed logically and -consecutively upward through all the grades of industrial -organisation until it reaches the culminating point of -national executive power and direction. In other words, -Socialism must proceed from the bottom upwards, whereas -capitalist political society is organised from above downward; -Socialism will be administered by a committee of -experts elected from the industries and professions of the -land; capitalist society is governed by representatives -elected from districts, and is based upon territorial division.”<a id="FNanchor_689" href="#Footnote_689" class="fnanchor">[689]</a> -A similar ferment was to be seen at work amongst the -South Wales miners, giving rise to a series of propagandist -organisations, preaching the doctrine of Industrial Unionism -as a revolutionary force, and culminating in the much-denounced -pamphlet <i>The Miners’ Next Step</i>, 1912, which -created some sensation in the capitalist world. -<a id="FNanchor_690" href="#Footnote_690" class="fnanchor">[690]</a></p> - -<p>In 1910 we find Mr. Tom Mann, fresh from organising -strikes in Australia, and inspired by a visit to Paris, preaching -the new faith to large popular audiences in London and the -principal provincial cities with the same sincerity and -eloquence with which he had formerly advocated State and -Municipal Socialism and the statutory regulation of the conditions -of employment. “The Industrial Syndicalist,” he -explains, holds that “to run industry through Parliament, -that is by State machinery, will be even more mischievous -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_658">[Pg 658]</span> -to the working class than the existing method, for it will -assuredly mean that the capitalist class will, through Government -Departments, exercise over the national forces, and over -the workers, a domination that is even more rigid than is the -case to-day. And the Syndicalist also declares that in the -near future the industrially organised workers will themselves -undertake the entire responsibility of running the industries -in the interest of all who work, and are entitled to enjoy the -result of labour.”<a id="FNanchor_691" href="#Footnote_691" class="fnanchor">[691]</a>“We therefore most certainly favour -strikes; we shall always do our best to help strikes to be -successful, and shall prepare the way as rapidly as possible for -<span class="smcap">The General Strike</span> of national proportions. This will be -the actual Social and Industrial Revolution. The workers -will refuse to any longer manipulate the machinery of production -in the interest of the capitalist class, and there will be -no power on earth able to compel them to work when they -thus refuse.... When the capitalists get tired of running -industries, the workers will cheerfully invite them to abdicate, -and through and by their industrial organisations will run -the industries themselves in the interests of the whole -community.”<a id="FNanchor_692" href="#Footnote_692" class="fnanchor">[692]</a>“Finally, and vitally essential it is,” sums -up Mr. Tom Mann in 1911, “to show that economic emancipation -to the working class can only be secured by the -working class asserting its power in workshops, factories, -warehouses, mills and mines, on ships and boats and engines, -and wherever work is performed, ever extending their -control over the tools of production, until, by the power of -the internationally organised Proletariat, capitalist production -shall entirely cease, and the industrial socialist -republic will be ushered in, and thus the Social Revolution -realised.” -<a id="FNanchor_693" href="#Footnote_693" class="fnanchor">[693]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_659">[Pg 659]</span></p> - -<p>The revolutionary Industrial Unionism and Syndicalism -preached by James Connolly and Tom Mann and other -fervent missionaries between 1905 and 1912 did not commend -itself to the officials and leaders of the Trade Unions any -more than it did to the cautious and essentially Conservative-minded -men and women who make up the rank and file -of the British working class. But, like other revolutionary -movements in England, it prepared the way for constitutional -proposals. The ideal of taking over the instruments -of production appealed to all intelligent workmen as workmen. -To them it seemed merely Co-operative Production -writ large, the ownership of the instruments and of the -product of labour by the workers themselves. But the -ownership and management was now to be carried out, -not by small competing establishments doomed to failure, -but in the industry as a whole by a “blackleg-proof” Trade -Union. To the idealistic and active-minded Trade Union -official in particular, weary of the perpetual haggling with -employers over fractional changes in wages and hours, the -prospect of becoming the representative of his fellow-workers -in a self-governing industry, with all the initiative and -responsibility that such a position would involve, was -decidedly attractive. So long as this ideal was associated -with violent and revolutionary methods, and left no -room for the political democracy to which Englishmen are -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_660">[Pg 660]</span> -accustomed, or even for the Consumers’ Co-operative Movement, -it failed to get accepted either by responsible officials -or by the mass of sober-minded members. The bridge -between the old conception of Trade Unionism and the new -was built by a fresh group of Socialists, who called themselves -National Guildsmen. This group of able thinkers, -largely drawn from the Universities, accepted from what -we may call the Communal Socialists the idea of the -ownership of the instruments of production by the representatives -of the citizen-consumers, but proposed to vest the -management in national associations of the producers in -each industry—organisations which they declared ought to -include, not merely the present wage-earners, but all the -workers, by hand or by brain.<a id="FNanchor_694" href="#Footnote_694" class="fnanchor">[694]</a> These guilds were to grow -out of the existing Trade Unions, gradually made co-extensive -with each industry. We have neither the space, nor -would it be within the scope of this book, to describe or -criticise this conception of National Guilds, or the theories -and schemes of the Guild Socialists. These theories and -schemes are none the worse for being still in the making. -What we are concerned with, as historians of the Trade -Union Movement, is the rapid adoption between 1913 and -1920 by many of the younger leaders of the Movement, and -subject to various modifications, also by some of the most -powerful of the Trade Unions, of this new ideal of the development -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_661">[Pg 661]</span> -of the existing Trade Unions into self-organised, self-contained, -self-governing industrial democracies, as supplying -the future method of conducting industries and services. -The schemes put forward by the National Union of Railwaymen, -the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain, and the -Union of Postal Workers differ widely from the revolutionary -Syndicalism of Mr. Tom Mann and the large visions of the -Industrial Workers of the World. They do not even go so -far as the projects of the National Guildsmen. In fact, they -limit the claim of the manual workers merely to participation -in the management, fully conceding that the final -authority must be vested in the representatives of the -community of citizens or consumers. Thus we see the -Annual General Meeting of the National Union of Railwaymen -in 1914 resolving unanimously: “That this Congress, -while reaffirming previous decisions in favour of the -nationalisation of railways, and approving the action of -the Executive Committee in arranging to obtain and give -evidence before the Royal Commission, declares that no -system of State ownership of the railways will be acceptable -to organised railwaymen which does not guarantee to them -their full political and social rights, <i>allow them a due measure -of control and responsibility in the safe and efficient working of -the railway system</i>, and assure to them a fair and equitable -participation of the increased benefits likely to accrue from -a more economical and scientific administration.”<a id="FNanchor_695" href="#Footnote_695" class="fnanchor">[695]</a> In a -modified form this resolution was brought forward by the -Railway Clerks’ Association, supported by the N.U.R., and -passed by the Trades Union Congress of 1917.<a id="FNanchor_696" href="#Footnote_696" class="fnanchor">[696]</a> A similar -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_662">[Pg 662]</span> -movement in favour of participation in management has -taken root among the postal workers of all kinds, in England -as also in France. At the Annual Conference, in May 1919, -of the Postal and Telegraph Clerks’ Association, which had -in previous years been passing resolutions on the subject, it -was emphatically pointed out that the control demanded by -the postal employees was not restricted to securing better -conditions of employment, but that they desired to participate -in directing the technical improvement of the service -for the good of the community.<a id="FNanchor_697" href="#Footnote_697" class="fnanchor">[697]</a> The Conference resolved: -“That in view of the obstructive attitude of the Department -on the question of the development of the Post Office -Savings Bank, the modernising of the Post Office Insurance -System, and the expansion and improvement of the Post -Office Services generally, this Conference directs that -representatives of the Association be appointed to investigate -and report on the working of the postal cheque and transfer -services from both the national and international standpoint, -and that the report be widely circulated, and propaganda -work undertaken, so that this development of the -Post Office Savings Bank—giving a greatly improved transmission -of moneys system—be introduced throughout.”<a id="FNanchor_698" href="#Footnote_698" class="fnanchor">[698]</a> -Finally, we may cite the scheme for the Nationalisation of -the Coal-mines that the Miners’ Federation brought formally -before the Coal Industry Commission in 1919. Six years -previously the Miners’ Federation had had a Bill drafted -and published, which provided merely for the vesting of the -collieries in a Ministry of Mines, and for the administration -of the whole industry by that department.<a id="FNanchor_699" href="#Footnote_699" class="fnanchor">[699]</a> All that the -Federation was then concerned to secure for the miners -themselves was the continuance of free and lawful Trade -Unionism. The Bill of 1919<a id="FNanchor_700" href="#Footnote_700" class="fnanchor">[700]</a> imposed on the Minister of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_663">[Pg 663]</span> -Mines a whole series of National and District Councils, and -Pit Committees, each of which was to consist, to the extent -of one half, of members nominated by the Federation, the -other half being nominated by the Minister; and the -expectation was not concealed that it would be by these -bipartite bodies that the administration would be conducted. -We record these schemes, which are by the nature of the case -only imperfect drafts prepared for propaganda, not so much -for their importance as precisely defined industrial constitutions, -but as being indicative of the change of spirit that has -come over the Trade Union world.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Increased Reliance on Direct Action</span></h3> - -<p>The acceptance, during the last decade, by Parliament, -by the Executive Government, and by public opinion, of -the Trade Union organisation as part of the machinery of -government in all matters concerning the life and labour -of the manual working class, has been coincident, some -would say paradoxically coincident, with an increased -reliance on the strike, commonly known as the method of -Direct Action, and with an enlargement of the purposes for -which this method is used by Trade Unionists. There is -an impression in the public mind, which easily forgets its -previous impressions of the same kind, that we are to-day -(1920) living in an era of strikes. Although this impression -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_664">[Pg 664]</span> -is not justified by the number of strikes, as compared with -those of 1825, 1833-34, 1857-60, 1871-74, and 1885-86, -there is some basis for the feeling. The strikes and threats -of strikes during the past decade (excluding the four years -of war) have been on a larger scale, and, in a sense, more -menacing, than those of previous periods. When we published, -in 1897, our detailed analysis of the theory and -practice of contemporary Trade Unionism (<i>Industrial -Democracy</i>), the very term “direct action” was unknown -in this country. The strike was regarded, not as a distinct -method of Trade Union action, but merely as the culminating -incident of a breakdown of the Method of Collective Bargaining.<a id="FNanchor_701" href="#Footnote_701" class="fnanchor">[701]</a> -The Trade Union plea for the right to strike has -always been a simple one. It is a mere derivative of the -right of Freedom of Contract. Whenever an individual -workman had the right to refuse to enter or continue in a -contract of service, any group of individuals might, if they -chose, exercise a like freedom. After the collapse of Owenism -and Chartism all thought of using the weapon of the -strike, otherwise than as an incident in Collective Bargaining -with the employers, seems to have left the Trade Union -Movement in Great Britain. Indeed, during the last half -of the nineteenth century, the use of the weapon of the -strike was falling into disrepute, even as an incident of -Collective Bargaining, not only among the officials of the -great trade friendly societies, such as the Amalgamated -Society of Engineers and Carpenters, but also among the -younger and more militant members of the Trade Union -movement. The “extremists” of the last decade of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_665">[Pg 665]</span> -nineteenth century, as we have described in a previous -chapter, were out for the “capture” of Parliament and -Local Authorities by an “independent” Party of Labour; -and political action was commonly regarded as the shortest -and most convenient way of securing not only Socialist -but also the distinctively Trade Union objects. It was at -that time left to the “reactionaries” in the Trade Union -Movement, who disliked the idea of a political Labour Party, -to advocate reliance on “ourselves alone.” -<a id="FNanchor_702" href="#Footnote_702" class="fnanchor">[702]</a></p> - -<p>But with the revolution of thought that we have described -there has arisen, with regard to Direct Action, a -change of practice. In 1913-14 there was an outburst of -exasperated strikes designed, we may almost say, to supersede -Collective Bargaining—to repudiate any making of -long-term agreements, to spring demand after demand upon -employers, to compel every workman to join the Union, -avowedly with the view of building up the Trade Union -as a dominant force. This spasm of industrial “insurrectionism” -was abruptly stopped by the outbreak of war. -The “political” element creeps in with the strikes and -threats of strikes of the Miners’ Federation in 1912 and -1919, designed, not to further Collective Bargaining with -the employers, but to cause the Government and Parliament -to alter the organisation of the industry, in the earlier case -by the enactment of a Minimum Wage law, and in the -other by the elimination of the capitalist profitmaker in -favour of public ownership and workers’ control. During -the years of war Direct Action took another form. The -weapon of a concerted refusal to work was used by some -Trade Unions, in matters entirely unconnected with their -conditions of employment, in order to prevent particular -individuals from doing what they wished to do. The most -sensational examples were afforded by the National Union -of Sailors and Firemen in 1917-18, when its members, by -refusing to work, at the dictation of Mr. J. Havelock Wilson, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_666">[Pg 666]</span> -the Secretary of the Union, prevented certain Labour -Leaders<a id="FNanchor_703" href="#Footnote_703" class="fnanchor">[703]</a> from proceeding to Petrograd, actually by direction -of the Government; and subsequently others<a id="FNanchor_704" href="#Footnote_704" class="fnanchor">[704]</a> from -going to Paris with Government passports, on the instructions -of the Labour Party, because the Union, or at any rate -Mr. Havelock Wilson, disapproved of these visits, and of -their supposed object in arranging for an International -Labour and Socialist Congress. Another case was the -withdrawal by the Electrical Trades Union in 1918 of their -members (taking with them the indispensable fuses) from -the Albert Hall in London, when the directors of the Hall -cancelled its letting for a Labour Demonstration, of the -purposes and resolutions of which they disapproved, or -thought that their patrons would disapprove. What the -Electrical Trades Union intimated was that, unless the Hall -was allowed, as heretofore, to be used for Labour meetings, -it should not be used for a forthcoming demonstration of -the supporters of the Coalition Government, or for any other -meetings. The result was that (it is said on a hint from -Downing Street) the directors of the Hall withdrew their -objection to the Labour Demonstration, and have since -continued to allow such meetings. Yet another example -of Direct Action was given by the printing staffs of certain -newspaper offices in London during the railway strike of -1919, when they threatened instantly to withdraw their -labour, and thus absolutely to prevent the issue of the -newspapers, unless the use of “lying posters” was given -up, and unless the case of the National Union of Railwaymen -was fairly treated in the papers, and accorded reasonable -space. The gravest case of all was the threat by the Miners’ -Federation in 1919, that all the coal-mines might stop -working unless Compulsory Military Service was immediately -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_667">[Pg 667]</span> -brought to an end, and unless the policy of military -intervention in Russia against the Bolshevik Government -of Russia was abandoned. By what was perhaps a fortunate -coincidence the Secretary of State for War was able to -declare that all Compulsory Military Service was to cease -at or before the end of the current financial year; and the -Prime Minister to announce that no more troops, and, after -certain consignments already arranged for, no more military -stores, would be sent in aid of those who were attacking -the Bolshevik Government.</p> - -<p>How far can these instances of Direct Action be deemed -to indicate a change of thought in the Trade Union world -with regard to the use of the strike weapon? We must -note that, in spite of the temporary lull in strikes in the -latter part of the last century, there has been no change in -Trade Union policy with regard to the strike in disputes -with employers about the conditions of employment. The -Trade Unions have always included in this term the dismissal -of men for reasons other than their inefficiency as -workmen, the engagement of non-Unionists, the presence -of an obnoxious foreman or manager, or any interference -with the conduct of employees outside the works. Nor -has there been any development in the original Trade -Union position with regard to sympathetic strikes in aid -of other sections of workers in their struggles with their -employers. It is possible that some of the insurrectionary -strikes of 1911-14 were inspired by the new thought that -we have described—the disillusionment as to the Parliamentary -potency of a Labour Party, and the vision of a -Democracy based on industrial organisation and secured -by industrial action. But, in the main, the increased -frequency and magnitude of strikes in these years are -sufficiently accounted for by the continued fall in real -wages due to rising prices, combined with the steadily -improving organisation of the workers concerned. There -was a new element in the proposal of the Miners’ Federation -in 1919 to strike if the Government did not fulfil its pledge -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_668">[Pg 668]</span> -to carry into effect the Sankey Report described in the last -chapter. The significant and authoritative declaration in -the first Report of March 20, 1919, that “the present -system of ownership and working in the coal industry -stands condemned, and some other system must be substituted -for it, either nationalisation or a method of unification -by national purchase and/or by joint control,” and the -explicit acceptance of this Report by the Government “in -the spirit and in the letter,” formed an integral part of the -bargain between the Miners’ Federation and the Government, -on the strength of which they forewent the strike at the -end of March 1919 on which they had decided. It can -hardly be contended that the “present system of ownership -and working” is not a necessary part of the conditions of -employment, or that the Miners are not entitled to refuse -to enter into contracts of service under a system that Mr. -Bonar Law agrees with Mr. Justice Sankey, and nine out -of the other twelve members of the Royal Commission, -in holding to “stand condemned.” On the other hand, -though the Government controls the industry and dictates -the wages, the alterations in the conditions of employment -that the Miners’ Federation asks for require not only one -but probably several Acts of Parliament, which a majority -of the members of the present House of Commons, notwithstanding -the explicit Government pledge, refuses to pass. -What the Miners’ Federation threatens, by a stoppage of -the coal industry, is to coerce into agreement with them -not their employers, the colliery owners, not even the -Ministry with whom they made the bargain, but, in effect, -the recalcitrant capitalist majority of the House of Commons -which cannot be displaced without a General Election.</p> - -<p>But an entirely new development of Direct Action, alike -in form and in substance, is the distinctly political, or, as -we should prefer to call it, the non-economic strike—that -is, the strike, not for any alteration in the conditions of -employment of any section of the Trade Union world, but -with a view to enforce, either on individuals, on Parliament, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_669">[Pg 669]</span> -or on the Government, some other course of action desired -by the strikers. So far as we know, there is, on this question, -no consistent body of opinion in the Trade Union world; -all that we find are currents of opinion arising from different -assumptions of social expediency. There is, first, a small -section of Trade Unionists who are Syndicalists or extreme -Industrial Unionists in opinion, and who look forward to -the supersession of political Democracy, and the reconstitution -of society on the basis of the suffrages of the several -trades. Like the Sinn Feiners in Ireland, though on different -grounds, they do not acknowledge the competency of the -existing Parliament to undertake the government of the -country, and they advocate Direct Action as the only -weapon of revolt accessible to the workers organised as -workers. But it was no such theory of social revolution -that induced Mr. Havelock Wilson to prevent the visit of -Mr. G. H. Roberts and Mr. MacDonald to Petrograd, when -the Government wished them to go; or to prevent Mr. -Henderson and M. Camille Huysmans from using their -passports to Paris. Nor were the electricians of the Albert -Hall inspired by faith in an immediate revolution of the -Russian type. It cannot even be suggested that the widespread -approval by the more active spirits of the Trade -Union world of the proposed strike to stop the intervention -of Great Britain in support of the reactionary Russian -leaders was accompanied by any desire to set up in Great -Britain the constitution which is believed to obtain in -Moscow and Petrograd. We must look elsewhere for the -motive that underlies and is held by many to justify the -non-economic or “political” strike.</p> - -<p>We suggest that the explanation is a more complex one. -We have first the impulsive tendency of some men in all -classes to use any powers that they possess, whether over -land, capital, or labour, to dictate to their fellow-men a -course of conduct on any question on which they feel hotly, -even if it is wholly unconnected with their several economic -functions. This delight in an anarchic use of economic -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_670">[Pg 670]</span> -power is, it is needless to say, not peculiar to those whose -economic power is that of labour. There have been innumerable -instances, within our own memories, among -landlords and capitalists, of actions no less arbitrary than -that of Mr. Havelock Wilson (who, it must be remembered, -had the general approval of the capitalist press; and, in -the case of the attempted internment in this country of a -distinguished Belgian visitor, M. Huysmans, the connivance -of the naval officers, if not of the Admiralty). We find -within the last few decades many cases of landlords who -have ejected persons, not because they were objectionable -tenants, or had failed to pay their rent, but because they -had supported a political candidate, or had led to action -on the part of the Local Authority, to which the landlord -objected. We have seen landed proprietors refusing sites -for Nonconformist chapels, not because they objected to -buildings of that character, or were dissatisfied with the -price offered, but because they disliked the theology of the -promoters. We have heard of banks refusing to the Trade -Unions who were their customers any accommodation at -all on the occasion of a strike, merely because they disliked -the strike. We have seen employers dismissing workmen, -not for their inefficiency, not even for their Trade Union -activities, which might be held to affect the economic -interest of the capitalist, but because the workmen held -different political opinions from those of the employer. -But these cases of the use of economic power to prevent -individuals from pursuing or promoting their own religious -or political creeds are emphatically condemned by the -Trade Union Movement. Thus no Trade Union support -was overtly given to Mr. Havelock Wilson, even by those -Trade Union leaders who agreed with him in detesting any -meeting between Britons and enemy subjects.</p> - -<p>We have a quite different class of cases when Direct Action -is taken in reprisal for the Direct Action of other persons or -groups of persons. This was the case in the strike of the -electricians at the Albert Hall. It was a reprisal for the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_671">[Pg 671]</span> -use by the directors of the Albert Hall of their power over -lettings to ban opinions that they happened to dislike, -whilst permitting the use of their hall to the other side. -A more difficult case is that of the threatened refusal to -work of the compositors against the newspapers who denied -fair play to the railwaymen. Here our judgement may -depend on what view is taken of the function of newspapers; -how far are newspapers what their name implies, the public -purveyors of news? Supposing that all the capitalist -press were deliberately to boycott all Labour news, whilst -deliberately giving currency to false statements about -Labour Leaders and the Labour Movement, would the -compositors, as representing the Trade Union world in this -industry, be justified in a strike? The only conclusion we -can suggest is that, human nature being instinctively -militant, any anarchic use of the power given by one form -of monopoly will lead to a similar anarchic use of the power -given by another form of monopoly.</p> - -<p>We come now to the third class of use of the method of -Direct Action, a general strike of the manual workers to -compel the Government of the country to abstain from -political courses distasteful to those who control a monopoly -of labour power, or to the majority of them. This form of -Direct Action is justified by a minority of Trade Unionists, -who consider that under the present constitution of Parliament -the organised workmen have practically no chance -of getting their fair share of representation—an argument -strengthened by every election trick, and especially by the -partisan use of the capitalist press as an election instrument. -The majority of Trade Unionists, however, do not, at the -present time, seem to support this view. They reply that -the manual workers and their wives now constitute, in -every district, a majority of the electorate. They can, if -they choose, return to Parliament a Labour majority and -make a Labour Government. This very consideration, -indeed, seems to make any such general strike impracticable, -and, as a matter of fact, no such proposal of a general strike -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_672">[Pg 672]</span> -has yet been endorsed by the Trades Union Congress. We -can imagine occasions that might, in the eyes of the Trade -Union world, fully justify a general strike of non-economic -or political character. If, for instance, a reactionary -Parliament were to pass a measure disfranchising the bulk -of the manual workers, or depriving them of political power -by such a device as the “Three Class Franchise” of Prussia -and Saxony—if any Act were passed depriving the Trade -Unions of the rights and liberties now conceded to them—if -the Executive or the judges were to use against the Trade -Unions, by injunction or otherwise, any weapon that might -be fished up from the legal armoury, confiscating their funds -or prohibiting their action—then, indeed, we might see the -Trades Union Congress recommending a General Strike; and -it would be supported not only by the wage-earning class -as a whole, but also by a large section of the middle class, -and even by some members of the House of Lords. That -is one reason why, short of madness, no such act would be -committed by the Government or by Parliament. If any -such act were perpetrated, it would probably involve a -revolution not in the British but in the continental sense. -It must be remembered that the “last word” in Direct -Action is with the police and the army, and there not with -the officers but with the rank and file.</p> - -<p>To sum up, the vast majority of Trade Unionists object -to Direct Action, whether by landlords or capitalists or by -organised workers, for objects other than those connected -with the economic function of the Direct Actionists. Trade -Unionists, on the whole, are not prepared to disapprove of -Direct Action as a reprisal for Direct Action taken by other -persons or groups. With regard to a general strike of non-economic -or political character, in favour of a particular -home or foreign policy, we very much doubt whether the -Trade Union Congress could be induced to endorse it, or -the rank and file to carry it out, except only in case the -Government made a direct attack upon the political or -industrial liberty of the manual working class, which it -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_673">[Pg 673]</span> -seemed imperative to resist by every possible means, not -excluding forceful revolution itself.</p> - -<h3><span class="smcap">The Demand for the Elimination of the -Capitalist Profit-maker</span></h3> - -<p>It is interesting to note that this widening enlargement -of the aspirations and purposes of Trade Unionism has -been accompanied, not by any decline, but by an actual -renewal of the faith in Communal Socialism, towards which -we described the Trade Union Movement as tending in -1889-94. For the Trade Unionist objects, more strongly -than ever, to any financial partnership with the capitalist -employers, or with the shareholders, in any industry or -service, on the sufficient ground that any such sharing of -profits would, whilst leaving intact the tribute of rent and -interest to proprietors, irretrievably break up the solidarity -of the manual working class. To the new school of Trade -Unionists the nationalisation or municipalisation of industry, -or its assumption by consumers’ co-operation, is a necessary -preliminary to the partnership of Labour in its government. -What they are after is to alter, not only the status of the -manual worker, but also the status of the employer who is -the director of industry; they wish them both to become -the agents of the community; they desire that manual -workers and brain workers alike should be inspired, not by -the greed of gain made by profit on price, but by the desire -to produce the commodities and services needed by the -community in return for a sufficient livelihood, and the -personal freedom and personal responsibility which they -believe would spring from vocational self-government. -Thus we find Mr. Hodges, the General Secretary of the -Miners’ Federation, in one of his numerous speeches in -favour of the nationalisation of the mines, declaring that -what they demanded was “a new status for the worker as -a controller of his industry. Miners were not anarchists, -although they had the power to be. They realised that -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_674">[Pg 674]</span> -their interests were bound up with those of the community, -and therefore they demanded conditions which would -develop the corporate sense.... Education was carrying -men along social rather than individualistic lines, and right -throughout the mining industry there was the desire to be -something different from what they were. This desire to -be master of the work in which the man was engaged was -the great thing that was vital in working-class life.... -There had never been a movement born of greater moral -aspiration than this movement for the nationalisation of the -mines. The miner wanted to be in a position where it would -be to him a point of honour not to allow even a piece of -timber to be wasted, where he would want to do his work -well. He wanted a Social Contract.” -<a id="FNanchor_705" href="#Footnote_705" class="fnanchor">[705]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_675">[Pg 675]</span></p> - -<p>The demand for the nationalisation or municipalisation -of industries and services, or their absorption by the Consumers’ -Co-operative Movement, was greatly strengthened -by the experience, during the war and after the Armistice, -of the failure of every alternative method of preventing -“profiteering.” The rapid development of capitalist combinations -and price-agreements<a id="FNanchor_706" href="#Footnote_706" class="fnanchor">[706]</a>; the ill-success of the -most stringent Government control in preventing alarming -increases of price; the inability of even legally fixed maximum -prices to do anything more, under private ownership, -than authorise the charge required to cover the cost at the -least efficient and least well-equipped establishment of -which the output was needed; the enormous and even -unprecedented profits made throughout the whole range of -business enterprise; the helplessness of the consumers, in -the mere expectation of shortage, and their willingness to -pay almost any price that was demanded rather than go -without—combined with the obvious breakdown of capitalist -competition as a safeguard of the public which the -proceedings under the Profiteering Act revealed—all these -things co-operated to convince the bulk of the wage-earning -class, many of the families living on fixed incomes, and (in -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_676">[Pg 676]</span> -spite of the objection to “bureaucratic control”) some even -among business men, that there was practically no other -course open, in the industries and services that were sufficiently -highly developed to render such a course practicable, -than a gradual substitution of public for private ownership. -This advance in public opinion is naturally reflected in the -passionate support of public ownership, with participation -of the workers in administration and control, given by the -Trades Union Congress and Labour Party Conference.</p> - -<p>It will have become clear from our review of the larger -conception now current of the place of Trade Unionism in -the State, that the Trade Unionist, as such, no longer retains -the acquiescent and neutral attitude towards the two great -parties of British politics, nor to the Capitalist System -itself, which characterised the Trade Unionism of thirty -or forty years ago. The object and purpose of the New -Unionism of 1913-19—not without analogy with that -of 1830-34, but with a significant difference—cannot be -attained without the transformation of British politics, -and the supersession, in one occupation after another, -of the capitalist profit-maker as the governor and director -of industry. Meanwhile, as a result of the successive -attacks upon the very existence of Trade Unionism, even in -its most limited form, there has been growing up a distinct -political organisation of the Trade Union Movement, aiming -at securing the acceptance by the electorate, as a whole, of a -definitely Socialist policy in the administration of both -home and foreign affairs. It is this formation of a Labour -Party, ready for the carrying into effect of the new ideas, that -we have now to describe.</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_651" href="#FNanchor_651" class="label">[651]</a>William Abraham (South Wales Miners), J. Mawdsley (Cotton-spinners), -Michael Austin, M.P. (Irish Labour), and Tom Mann (Amalgamated -Society of Engineers).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_652" href="#FNanchor_652" class="label">[652]</a>For the Labour Commission see its Report and Evidence, published -in 1892-94 in many volumes, the Report itself being C. 2421 of 1894. An -epitome was published as <i>The Labour Question</i>, by T. G. Spyers, 1894; -see also “The Failure of the Labour Commission,” by Mrs. Sidney Webb, -in <i>Nineteenth Century</i>, 1893. The Trade Unionist Minority Report had a -wide circulation as an Independent Labour Party pamphlet. It reads, -in 1920, curiously prophetic of the actual legislative and administrative -changes that have taken place.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_653" href="#FNanchor_653" class="label">[653]</a>For half a century after the repeal of the Combination Acts in -1824-25 the controversy as to the legal position of Trade Unionism was -always muddled up, in the minds of lawyers as well as economists and -the public, with that of physical violence. Because angry strikers here -and there committed assaults, and occasionally destroyed property, it -was habitually assumed, as it still is by some people thinking themselves -educated, that Trade Unionism practically depended on, and inevitably -involved, personal molestation of one sort or another. This led magistrates, -right down to 1891, occasionally to regard as a criminal offence, -under the head of “intimidation,” any threat or warning uttered by a -Trade Unionist to an employer or a non-unionist workman, even if the -consequences alluded to were of the most peaceful kind. In 1891 a -specially constituted Court of the Queen’s Bench Division definitely laid -it down that “intimidation,” under the Act of 1875, was confined to the -threat of committing a criminal offence against person or tangible -property (Memorandum by Sir Frederick Pollock in Appendix to Report -of Royal Commission on Labour, C. 7063; see also <i>Law Quarterly Review</i>, -January 1892; <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, by S. and B. Webb, Appendix I., -1897; Gibson <i>v.</i> Lawson, and Curran <i>v.</i> Treleaven, 1891, 2 Q.B. 545).</p> - -<p>Magistrates continued, however, for some time to treat unfairly such -breaches of public order as “obstructing the thoroughfare” or committing -acts of annoyance to the public, when committed in connection with a -strike of which they disapproved, which would not be proceeded against -as criminal if they had been done by an excited crowd of stockbrokers -in the City, by the audience of a street-corner preacher, or by a gathering -of the Primrose League. Such discrimination by the police or the -magistrate is unjust.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_654" href="#FNanchor_654" class="label">[654]</a>Mogul Steamship Company <i>v.</i> M’Gregor, Gow & Co. (1892), A.C. 25; -Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society <i>v.</i> Glasgow Fleshers’ Trade -Defence Association (1897), 35 Sc.L.R. 645; see <i>History of Co-operation -in Scotland</i>, by William Maxwell, 1910, p. 349.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_655" href="#FNanchor_655" class="label">[655]</a>For all these cases see <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, by S. and B. Webb, -Appendix I., 1897; <i>Trade Union Law</i>, by H. Cohen and G. Howell, 1901; -<i>The Law Relating to Trade Unions</i>, by D. R. C. Hunt, 1902; <i>Trade Unions -and the Law</i>, by G. F. Assinder, 1905; <i>The Present and Future of Trade -Unions</i>, by A. H. Ruegg and H. Cohen, 1906; Report of Royal Commission -on Trade Disputes, Cd. 2825, 1906; Temperton <i>v.</i> Russell (1893), 1 Q.B. -715; 62 L.T.Q.B. 412; 62 L.T. 78; 41 W.R. 565. 57. J.P. 676; Trollope -and Others <i>v.</i> The London Building Trades Federation and Others (1895), -72 L.T. 342; 11 T.L.R. 280; Pink <i>v.</i> The Federation of Trade Unions -(1893), 67 L.T. 258; 8 T.L.R. 216, 711; 36 S.T. 201; J. Lyons and Son -<i>v.</i> Wilkin (1896), 1 Ch. 811; the same again (1899), 1 Ch. 255; Allen <i>v.</i> -Flood (1898), A.C. 1; 67 L.J.Q.B. 119; 77 L.T. 717; 14 T.L.R. 125; -46 W.R. 258; 47 S.J. 149; 62 J.P. 595; Quinn <i>v.</i> Leathem (1901), A.C. -495; 70 L.J.P.C. 76; 85 L.T. 289; 17 T.L.R. 749; 50 W.R. 139; 65 J.P. -708; W.N. 170. For foreign comments see <i>La Situation juridique des -Trade Unions en Angleterre</i>, by Morin (Caen, 1907); <i>Le Droit d’Association -en Angleterre</i>, by H. E. Barrault (Paris, 1908); <i>Das englische Gewerkvereinsrecht -seit 1870</i>, by F. Haneld, 1909.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_656" href="#FNanchor_656" class="label">[656]</a>Taff Vale Railway Company <i>v.</i> Amalgamated Society of Railway -Servants (1901), A.C. 426; 70 L.J.K.B. 905; 85 L.T. 147; 17 T.L.R. -698; 65 J.P. 596; 50 W.R. 44; Report of Royal Commission on Trade -Disputes, 1906, Cd. 2825; <i>The Law and Trade Unions: A Brief Review -of Recent Litigation, specially prepared at the instance of Richard Bell, M.P.</i>, -1901; <i>Statement by the Parliamentary Committee on the Taff Vale Case</i>, -1902; <i>History of the British Trades Union Congress</i>, by W. J. Davis, -vol. ii. 1916, pp. 201-2; <i>Trade Union Law</i>, by H. Cohen and George -Howell, 1901; <i>The Legal Position of Trade Unions</i>, by H. H. Slesser and -W. S. Clark, 1912; <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, by S. and B. Webb, Introduction -to the 1902 edition, pp. xxiv-xxxvi. It does not appear that, in -the strictly legal sense, the Taff Vale judgement was unwarranted. Though -the Act of 1871 had been supposed to prevent a Trade Union from being -proceeded against, it contained no explicit grant of immunity from being -made answerable for any damage that might be wrongfully caused. In -fact, both the 1871 Act and that of 1876 expressly provided that the -registered Trade Union itself should be liable to be brought into Court -for the petty penalties instituted for failure to supply the Registrar with -copies of rules and balance-sheets; and also that the trustees of a -registered Union should sue and be sued on its behalf. What the Act -of 1871 did was to relieve the Trade Union from its character of criminality -by reason of its purposes being in restraint of trade, and of its character -of illegality from the same cause; and to prohibit legal proceedings -directly to enforce certain agreements among its members, or between it -and its members, or among different Unions. These were assumed to be -all the cases that could arise. It seems to have been taken for granted -by the Minority of the Trade Union Commission of 1869, by the Home -Office in 1870-71, by the Parliament of 1871-76, and the Royal Commission -on Labour in 1893, that an unincorporated body could not be -sued for damages in tort any more than for a civil debt. But in the -following years, without any reference to Trade Unionism, the Courts -successively enlarged their procedure so as to admit of any group of -persons having a common interest being made parties to a “representative -action” (Duke of Bedford <i>v.</i> Ellis, 1901, A.C. 1, where the tenants of -shops in Covent Garden were parties). This enabled even an unregistered -Trade Union to be sued (Yorkshire Miners’ Association <i>v.</i> Howden, 1905, -A.C. 256). In 1893, and again in 1895, actions against unregistered Trade -Union organisations had been maintained in the lower Courts (Trollope -and Others <i>v.</i> The London Building Trades Federation and Others, 1895, -72 L.T. 342; 11 T.L.R. 280; W.N. 45; Pink <i>v.</i> The Federation of Trades -and Labour Unions, etc., 1893, 67 L.T. 258; 8 T.L.R. 216, 711; 36 S.J. -201). But these had not been noticed by the Trade Union Movement as -a whole; and they had not been seriously defended, not fully argued, -and not carried to the highest tribunal.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_657" href="#FNanchor_657" class="label">[657]</a>The number of stoppages through disputes known to the Labour -Department of the Board of Trade, which between 1891 and 1899 had -never been fewer than 700 in a year, did not again reach this figure for a -whole decade; and sank in 1903-5—years during which trade was -checked, and some reduction of wages took place—to only half the -number. Of the 135 claims to the Strike Benefit admitted by the General -Federation of Trade Unions in 1903, we read that “no less than 130 have -been caused by attempts on the part of employers to encroach upon the -recognised conditions prevailing in the particular trades” (<i>Fifth Annual -Report of the Federation</i>, 1904, p. 11).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_658" href="#FNanchor_658" class="label">[658]</a>In addition, twelve workmen, mostly miners, were elected under the -auspices of the Liberal Party. Nearly all these came over to the Labour -Party in 1910 (<i>History of Labour Representation</i>, by A. W. Humphrey, -1912).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_659" href="#FNanchor_659" class="label">[659]</a><i>Report of Royal Commission on Trade Disputes and Trade Combinations</i>, -Cd. 2825.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_660" href="#FNanchor_660" class="label">[660]</a>6 Edward VII. c. 47.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_661" href="#FNanchor_661" class="label">[661]</a>Trade Unionists would be well advised not to presume too far on -this apparently absolute immunity from legal proceedings. It must not -be imagined that either the ingenuity of the lawyers or the prejudice of -the judges has been exhausted. It has already been urged that the -immunity of a Trade Union from being sued should be regarded as implicitly -limited to acts done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade -dispute; but such a limitation has so far been negatived (Vacher <i>v.</i> -London Society of Compositors, 29 T.R. 73). It is now suggested that -the immunity might one day be held to be limited to acts committed by -a Trade Union <i>in the exercise of its specifically Trade Union functions</i>, or -for the “statutory objects” of Trade Unions as defined by the Act, and -not to acts which the Court might hold to be beyond its legitimate scope, -or not specifically connected with what they might in their wisdom consider -to be the principal purpose of a Trade Union. (But see Shinwell v. -National Sailors’ and Firemen’s Union, 1913, a decision of the Scottish -Court of Session, limiting the liability of a Union to reimburse its trustees -for damages incurred by them.) Thus, a new Taff Vale case, at a moment -when public opinion was exceptionally hostile to Trade Unionism, is by -no means impossible. Similarly, Trade Union officials should remember -that their privileged position is confined to a <i>trade dispute</i>, which, as -specifically defined in the Act, <i>does not include all strikes</i>; and what limits -the Courts might set to the phrase is uncertain. Moreover, the Trade -Disputes Act does not repeal other statutes; and Trade Union officials -have been fined for persuading sailors not to embark, in contravention of -the Merchant Shipping Acts. The Trade Disputes Act does not protect -officials committing illegalities other than those to which it expressly -refers, or under circumstances other than those indicated. See Valentine -<i>v.</i> Hyde (1919); Conway <i>v.</i> Wade (1908), A.C. 506; Larkin <i>v.</i> Belfast -Harbour Commissioners (1908), 2 Ir.K.B.D. 214; <i>Legal Position of Trade -Unions</i>, by H. H. Slesser and W. S. Clark, 1912.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_662" href="#FNanchor_662" class="label">[662]</a>A verbatim report of the proceedings (November 1908) in the Court -of Appeal in Osborne <i>v.</i> Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants was -published by the defendants (Unity House, Euston Road, London). The -House of Lords’ judgement was given on December 21, 1909, when it was -widely commented on. The most convenient analysis is that by Professor -W. M. Geldart, <i>The Osborne Judgment and After</i>, 1910, and <i>The Present -Law of Trade Disputes and Trade Unions</i>, 1914. See “The Osborne -Revolution,” by Sidney Webb, in <i>The English Review</i> for January 1911; -and <i>My Case</i>, by W. V. Osborne, 1910.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_663" href="#FNanchor_663" class="label">[663]</a><i>Political Theories of the Middle Ages</i>, by O. Gierke, with introduction -by F. W. Maitland, 1900; see also the works of J. N. Figgis.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_664" href="#FNanchor_664" class="label">[664]</a><i>Firma Burgi</i>, by T. Madox, 1726, pp. 50, 279.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_665" href="#FNanchor_665" class="label">[665]</a><i>Conflicts of Capital and Labour</i>, by G. Howell, 1st edition, 1878, -2nd edition, 1890, p. 479.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_666" href="#FNanchor_666" class="label">[666]</a>It should be recorded, as an instance of the prescience of Sir Charles -Dilke, that he is reported to have declared at the time that “the trade -union Acts were spoilt during their passage through the House by the -insertion of obscure definition clauses” (<i>Conflicts of Capital and Labour</i>, -by G. Howell, 1890, p. 479).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_667" href="#FNanchor_667" class="label">[667]</a>Whewell, <i>History of Scientific Ideas</i>, vol. ii. p. 120; J. S. Mill, <i>System -of Logic</i>, vol. ii. p. 276.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_668" href="#FNanchor_668" class="label">[668]</a>George Howell, in his <i>Conflicts of Capital and Labour</i>, 1890, gives a -list, three pages long, of Acts which, as he expressly testifies from personal -knowledge, were promoted or supported by the Trade Unions; and in -his <i>Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and Labour Leaders</i>, 1902, -pp. 469-73, a still longer one.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_669" href="#FNanchor_669" class="label">[669]</a><i>Industrial Democracy</i>, pp. 124, 251, 258-60.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_670" href="#FNanchor_670" class="label">[670]</a><i>A Great Labour Leader</i>[Thomas Burt], by Aaron Watson, 1908.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_671" href="#FNanchor_671" class="label">[671]</a><i>Industrial Democracy</i>, by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, 1897, pp. 838-40.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_672" href="#FNanchor_672" class="label">[672]</a>For this reason the Trades Union Congress now refuses to entertain -any motion on this subject.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_673" href="#FNanchor_673" class="label">[673]</a>If the main object of a newspaper is political, any expenditure by -a Trade Union upon it (including the purchase of shares) is itself political -(Bennett <i>v.</i> National Amalgamated Society of Operative Painters (1915), -31 T.L.R. 203).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_674" href="#FNanchor_674" class="label">[674]</a>3 George V. c. 30.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_675" href="#FNanchor_675" class="label">[675]</a>“The average weekly earnings of railway servants, as given by the -Board of Trade, were lower in 1910 than in 1907” (<i>Trade Unionism on -the Railways</i>, by G. D. H. Cole and R. Page Arnot, 1917, pp. 21-22).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_676" href="#FNanchor_676" class="label">[676]</a><i>The Legal Position of Trade Unions</i>, by H. H. Slesser and W. Smith -Clark, 2nd ed., 1914; <i>The Present Law of Trade Disputes and Trade -Unions</i>, by Professor W. M. Geldart, 1914; <i>Entwicklung des Koalisationsrechts -in England</i>, by G. Krojanker, 1914; <i>An Introduction to Trade -Union Law</i>, by H. H. Slesser, 1919; <i>The Law of Trade Unions</i>, by H. -H. Slesser and C. Baker (to be published in 1920).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_677" href="#FNanchor_677" class="label">[677]</a>Henry Broadhurst (Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons) was -Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (1885-86); and -Thomas Burt (Northumberland Miners’ Mutual Confident Society) Parliamentary -Secretary to the Board of Trade (1892-95).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_678" href="#FNanchor_678" class="label">[678]</a>For the facts as to Trade Unionism during the war, the most convenient -source is the <i>Labour Year Book</i> for 1916 and 1919; see also <i>Labour -in War Time</i>, by G. D. H. Cole, 1915, and <i>Self-Government in Industry</i>, by -the same, 1917; the large number of Government publications issued -by the Local Government Board, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of -Labour, and especially the Ministry of Munitions, together with the -awards of the Committee on Production, most of which are briefly noticed -in the monthly <i>Labour Gazette</i>; the monthly Circular (since 1917) of the -Labour Research Department; the unpublished monthly journal of the -Ministry of Munitions; Reports of the Trades Union Congress, 1915-19, -and of the Labour Party Conferences, 1914-19; publications of the War -Emergency Workers’ National Committee; <i>The Restoration of Trade Union -Conditions</i>, by Sidney Webb, 1916; <i>Women in the Engineering Trades</i>, by -Barbara Drake, 1917.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_679" href="#FNanchor_679" class="label">[679]</a><i>Compulsory Military Service and Industrial Conscription: what -they mean to the Workers</i>(War Emergency Workers’ National Committee, -1915); <i>Memorandum on Industrial and Civil Liberties</i>(Woolwich Joint -Committee on Problems arising from the War).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_680" href="#FNanchor_680" class="label">[680]</a>The Government seems to have hoodwinked the public into believing -that 80 per cent of all the excess profits was the same thing as 100 per cent -of the profits in excess of 20 per cent addition to the pre-war profits.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_681" href="#FNanchor_681" class="label">[681]</a><i>Report of the War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry</i>, Cmd. 135, -1919. The Minority Report by Mrs. Sidney Webb was republished by -the Fabian Society, under the title of <i>Men’s and Women’s Wages: Should -they be equal?</i>, 1919.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_682" href="#FNanchor_682" class="label">[682]</a>Restoration of Pre-War Practices Act, 1919 (9 and 10 George V. c. 42). -During the first year after the cessation of hostilities the problem of restoration -did not assume so acute a form as had been expected. A large part -of the new automatic machinery which had been introduced in 1915-18 -was found to have been greatly deteriorated by excessive working and -had to be scrapped; there was an immediate demand for ordinary engineering -work of the old type; and the British employers did not, in -fact, set themselves at once to apply “mass production” to the making -of steam engines and motor cars, agricultural implements and machinery -generally, nor make any dramatic advances in its application to the -production of sewing-machines, bicycles, and electrical apparatus. During -1919: the extensive readaptation of the machine-shops, and the great -demand for new tools (especially machine-tools) facilitated the absorption, -often in new situations, of all the skilled engineers. There was, accordingly, -little difficulty in finding employment at good wages for practically -all the skilled workmen, and (except for temporary dislocations arising in -consequence of the disputes in coalmining, ironfounding, and other trades) -the percentage of members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and -other Unions of skilled craftsmen remained throughout the year at a -minimum. The great bulk of the “dilutees,” including substantially all -the women, received their discharge on the cessation of their jobs of -“repetition work” on munitions of war, the employers preferring, in face -of the immediate demand, to avoid trouble, to revert to the old methods -and to get back their former staffs, rather than engage in the hazardous -enterprise of reorganising their factory methods. Hence, taking the -engineering industry as a whole, the men got back the work from the -women; though not without some attempts at resistance by individual -employers, which were not persisted in; and not without leaving the -total number of women employed in 1920 in what might be deemed their -own branches of the engineering industry apparently double that of 1913. -Many of the male “dilutees” on discharge also reverted to other employment, -but some proportion of them, who had acquired skill, and were -members of various Unions admitting semi-skilled workers, found employment -in engineering shops on particular machines or in particular jobs. -There has apparently been a continuous increase in the proportion of -machines demanding less than full skill (such as milling machines and -small turret lathes), and therefore of “semi-skilled” men in employment, -without (owing to the expansion of the industry as a whole) any reduction -in the number of skilled men. In face of the great demand for output, -and of the fact that hardly any members of the skilled Unions were unemployed, -this fact did not evoke objection. The position as regards -the Premium Bonus System or other form of “Payment by Results” -was left unchanged. Few, if any, legal proceedings were actually taken -against employers in the Munitions Courts under the Restoration of -Pre-War Practices Act. The employers and the Government were, -during the first half of the year, in a state of alarm lest there should be a -Labour uprising, which would seriously interfere with the resumption of -business; and great care was exercised to avoid any disputes. Successive -advances of wages were awarded to meet the rising cost of living, and -all rates were “stabilised” by law, so as to prevent any employer from -effecting a reduction, first until May 20, 1919, then until November 20, -1919, and finally until September 30, 1920; a new “Industrial Court” -being set up by statute (Industrial Courts Act 1919) empowered to give -non-obligatory decisions in any disputes that might be voluntarily referred -to it—a measure from which the Parliamentary Labour Party succeeded -in eliminating every implication of Compulsory Arbitration, Obligatory -Awards, or the Abrogation of the Right to Strike. But the difficulties are -not yet surmounted; and when there comes a slump in business, and -skilled engineers find themselves unemployed, the Government pledge -will be heard of again.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_683" href="#FNanchor_683" class="label">[683]</a>See this noted in the report of the Parliamentary Committee in the -<i>Annual Report of the Trades Union Congress</i>, 1917.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_684" href="#FNanchor_684" class="label">[684]</a>The “Whitley Report,” published early in 1917, when possibilities -of industrial and social “reconstruction” were much discussed, made a -great stir, which was increased by the definite endorsement of its recommendations -by the Government, and its energetic promotion of their adoption -throughout British industry. Whilst significantly abstaining from -any suggestion of “profit-sharing, co-partnership, or particular systems of -wages,” the Report emphasised the importance of (<i>a</i>) “adequate organisation -on the part of both employers and employed”; (<i>b</i>) the imperative -need for a greater opportunity of participating in the discussion about and -adjustment of “those parts of industry by which they are most affected” -of the work-people in each occupation; (<i>c</i>) the subordination of any -decisions to those of the Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations. -Among the subjects to be dealt with by the hierarchy of National, District, -and Works Councils or Committees were: (i.) “the better utilisation of the -practical knowledge and experience of the work-people ... and for -securing to them a greater share in and responsibility for the determination -and observance of the conditions under which their work is carried -on”; (ii.) “the settlement of the general principles governing the conditions -of employment ... having regard to the need for securing to -the work-people a share in the increased prosperity of the industry”; -(iii.) the methods to be adopted for negotiations, adjusting wages, determining -differences and “ensuring to the work-people the greatest possible -security of earnings and employment”; (iv.) technical education, industrial -research, utilisation of inventions, and improvement of processes; -(v.) proposed legislation affecting the industry. After two years’ propagandist -effort, it seems (1920) as if the principal industries, such as agriculture, -transport, mining, cotton, engineering, or shipbuilding are unlikely -to adopt the scheme; but two or three score trades have equipped themselves -either with “Whitley Councils”—the District Councils and Works -Committees are much more slow to form—or with “Interim Industrial -Reconstruction Committees,” which may be regarded as provisional -Councils, in such industries as pottery, house-building, woollen manufacture, -hosiery, heavy chemicals, furniture-making, bread-baking, match-making, -metallic bedstead manufacturing, saw-milling, and vehicle building. -The Government found itself constrained, after an obstinate resistance -by the heads of nearly all the departments, to institute the Councils -throughout the public service. We venture on the prediction that some -such scheme will commend itself in all nationalised or municipalised industries -and services, including such as may be effectively “controlled” by -the Government, though remaining nominally the property of the private -capitalist—possibly also in the Co-operative Movement; but that it is -not likely to find favour either in the well-organised industries (for which -alone it was devised) or in those in which there are Trade Boards legally -determining wages, etc.; or, indeed, permanently in any others conducted -under the system of capitalist profit-making. See the series of “Whitley -Reports,” Cd. 8606, 9001, 9002, 9085, 9099, and 9153; the Industrial -Reports, Nos. 1 to 4, of the Ministry of Reconstruction; the able and -well-informed article, “La politique de paix sociale en Angleterre,” by -Élie Halévy, in <i>Revue d’Économie Politique</i>, No. 4 of 1919; <i>Recommendation -on the Whitley Report put forward by the Federation of British Industries</i>, -1917; <i>National Guilds or Whitley Councils?</i>(National Guilds League), -1918. For the “Builders’ Parliament,” in many ways the most interesting -of these Councils, though as yet achieving only schemes in which the -employers, as a whole, do not concur, see <i>A Memorandum on Industrial -Self-Government</i>, by Malcolm Sparkes; <i>Masters and Men, a new Co-partnership</i>, -by Thomas Foster; and <i>The Industrial Council for the Building -Industry</i>, by the Garton Foundation, 1919.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_685" href="#FNanchor_685" class="label">[685]</a>It must be remembered that the conditions of the manual worker’s -life dealt with by the Trade Unions up to 1894 included a wide range of -material circumstances and moral considerations. Besides the maintenance -of standard rates and methods of remuneration, the reduction of the -normal day, and payment for overtime, we find among the objects of Trade -Unions, as reported to the Commission, the prevention of stoppages from -wages; the maintenance of the apprenticeship system and the keeping -out of the trade all who are not qualified; the abolition of the character -note; the prevention of victimisation; the provision of legal assistance -to members in respect of compensation for accidents; the establishment -of an agency through which employers may obtain efficient men; watching -over the proceedings of local boards and law courts; the enforcement -of the Factory Acts and other protective legislative enactments; the -improvement of dietary scales and house and shop accommodation where -workers have to live in; the collection and circulation of information on -trade matters; the establishment of benefit funds for unemployment, -disputes, sickness, accidents and death; the assistance of members -anxious to migrate or emigrate; the establishment of “that reciprocal -confidence which is so essential between workmen and masters,” and the -promotion of arbitration and conciliation; the regulation of output; the -promotion of friendly intercourse with workers of other countries; the -assistance of other trades in times of difficulty; and political action—the -support of Parliamentary and Municipal Labour candidates, of Trades -Councils, of the Trades Union Congress, and of Labour newspapers. Some -Unions decide to promote co-operative enterprise, “to secure the legal -recognition of the natural rights of labourers to the produce of their toil,” -whilst others promote the “moral, social, intellectual and professional -advancement” of the working class. “Trade Societies,” state the rules -of the Associated Shipwrights, “must be maintained as the guard of -workmen against capitalists until some higher effort of productive co-operation -has been inaugurated which shall secure to workers a more -equitable share of the product of labour.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_686" href="#FNanchor_686" class="label">[686]</a><i>Minutes of Evidence, Royal Commission on Labour</i>: “Report of -Evidence from Co-operative Societies and Public Officials,” 1893, C -7063-1 (Q 2098, 2117-8).</p> - -<p>Mr. Tom Mann was also in favour of the Consumers’ Co-operative -Movement, and had in those days a distinct bias for legal enactment -over direct action in determining the conditions of employment. “I -should have said,” he stated in the witness-chair, “that I, as a Trade -Unionist, am of opinion that in my capacity of citizen I have just as full -a right to use Parliament for the general betterment of the conditions of -the workers, of whom I am one, as I have to use the Trade Union; and -when I could use the institution of Parliament to do that constructive -work that I sometimes use the Trade Union for, and could use Parliament -more effectively than I could the Trade Union, then I should favour the -use of Parliament, not necessarily in order to enforce men to do something -which they might not wish to do, but because it was the more -effective instrument to use to bring about changed conditions” (<i>Ibid.</i> -Q 2531).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_687" href="#FNanchor_687" class="label">[687]</a>An interesting sidelight is afforded by the reprobation by the German -Social Democratic Party, in 1894, of Eduard Bernstein for translating -our <i>History of Trade Unionism</i>, on the ground that Trade Unionism had -no place in the Socialist State, and that it was needless to trouble about it!</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_688" href="#FNanchor_688" class="label">[688]</a>See, for convenient summaries, <i>Syndicalism in France</i>, by Louis -Levine, 1911, and <i>What Syndicalism Means</i>, by S. and B. Webb, 1912; -see also <i>American Syndicalism</i>, by J. Graham Brooks, 1913.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_689" href="#FNanchor_689" class="label">[689]</a><i>Socialism made Easy</i>, by James Connolly, 1905, pp. 13, 16-17.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_690" href="#FNanchor_690" class="label">[690]</a><i>The Miners’ Next Step</i>, 1912.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_691" href="#FNanchor_691" class="label">[691]</a><i>The Syndicalist</i>, January 1912. Column entitled, “What we Syndicalists -are after” (by Tom Mann).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_692" href="#FNanchor_692" class="label">[692]</a><i>The Industrial Syndicalist</i>, March 1911. “The Weapon Shaping” -(by Tom Mann; p. 5).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_693" href="#FNanchor_693" class="label">[693]</a><i>Ibid.</i>, April 1911. “A Twofold Warning” (by Tom Mann). We -are concerned, in this volume, only with the effect of these new movements -of working-class thought upon British Trade Unionism, and this is not -the occasion for any complete appreciation of Syndicalism or Industrial -Unionism. The Syndicalist Movement in this country had died down -prior to the war, but the Industrial Unionist Movement simmered on in -the Clyde district and in South Wales. Its chief organisation is the -Socialist Labour Party, which is not, and has never been, connected either -with any other Socialist organisation in this country or with the Labour -Party that is described in the next chapter. It was, we think, the moving -spirits of the Socialist Labour Party who were, as Trade Unionist workmen, -mainly responsible for the aggressive action of the Clyde Workers Committee -between 1915 and 1918, and also for the rise of the Shop Stewards -Movement, and for its spread from the Clyde to English engineering -centres. At the present moment (1920) the Socialist Labour Party, owing -to the personal qualities of its leading spirits, J. T. Murphy and A. -MacManus, holds the leading position in this school of thought, which -received a great impulse from the accession of Lenin to power in Russia. -But it remains a ferment rather than a statistically important element in -the Trade Union world.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_694" href="#FNanchor_694" class="label">[694]</a>The revival of the Owenite proposal to develop existing Trade -Unions into great Associations of Producers for the carrying on of each -industry must be attributed perhaps to Mr. A. J. Penty (<i>The Restoration -of the Gild System</i>, 1906), or to Mr. A. R. Orage, aided by Mr. S. G. Hobson, -in a series of articles in <i>The New Age</i>, 1911 (afterwards published in a -volume, <i>National Guilds</i>, 1913, edited by A. R. Orage). But <i>The New -Age</i> had a limited circulation in the Trade Union world, and the plan -proposed was not worked out in detail. The idea was afterwards developed -by Mr. G. D. H. Cole and his associates, and widely promulgated -in the Trade Union world. An organisation for this propaganda, the -National Guilds’ League, was started in 1915, and has now a membership -of several hundred, amongst whom are included some of the younger -leaders of the Trade Union Movement. It publishes a monthly, <i>The -Guildsman</i>, edited by Mr. and Mrs. G. D. H. Cole. The various books -by Mr. Cole—especially <i>The World of Labour</i>, <i>Self-Government in Industry</i>, -and <i>Labour in the Commonwealth</i>—should also be consulted.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_695" href="#FNanchor_695" class="label">[695]</a><i>N.U.R. Agenda and Decisions of the Annual General Meeting</i>, June -1914, p. 7.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_696" href="#FNanchor_696" class="label">[696]</a>The resolution runs as follows: “That in view of the success which, -in spite of unparalleled difficulties, has attended the working of the railways -under State control, this Congress urge the Parliamentary Congress -to press the Government to arrange for the complete nationalisation of -all the railways, and to place them under a Minister of Railways, who -shall be responsible to Parliament, and <i>be assisted by national and local -advisory committees, upon which the organised railway workers shall be -adequately represented</i>” (<i>Trades Union Congress Annual Report</i>, 1917, p. 345).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_697" href="#FNanchor_697" class="label">[697]</a><i>Postal and Telegraph Record</i>, May 22, 1919, p. 237.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_698" href="#FNanchor_698" class="label">[698]</a><i>Ibid.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_699" href="#FNanchor_699" class="label">[699]</a><i>The Nationalisation of Mines Bill</i>(Fabian Tract, No. 171, 1913).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_700" href="#FNanchor_700" class="label">[700]</a>The Nationalisation of Mines and Minerals Bill, 1919, given in full in -<i>Further Facts from the Coal Commission</i>, by R. Page Arnot, 1919. The -Miners’ Federation Conference of 1918 had passed the following resolution: -“That in the opinion of this Conference the time has arrived in the history -of the coal-mining industry when it is clearly in the national interests to -transfer the entire industry from private ownership and control to State -ownership with joint control and administration by the workmen and the -State. In pursuance of this opinion the National Executive be instructed -to immediately reconsider the draft Bill for the Nationalisation of the -Mines ... in the light of the newer phases of development in the industry, -so as to make provision for the aforesaid joint control and administration -when the measure becomes law; further, a Conference be called at an -early date to receive a report from the Executive Committee upon the -draft proposals and to determine the best means of co-operating with the -National Labour Party to ensure the passage of a new Bill into law” (<i>Report -of Annual Conference of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain</i>, July 9, -1918, p. 44).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_701" href="#FNanchor_701" class="label">[701]</a>At the end of our chapter on the “Method of Collective Bargaining” -we cursorily dealt with the strike as a necessary incident of collective bargaining: -“It is impossible to deny that the perpetual liability to end in -a strike or a lock-out is a grave drawback to the Method of Collective -Bargaining. So long as the parties to a bargain are free to agree or not -to agree, it is inevitable that, human nature being as it is, there should -now and again come a deadlock, leading to that trial of strength and -endurance which lies behind all bargaining. We know of no device for -avoiding this trial of strength except a deliberate decision of the community -expressed in legislative enactment” (<i>Industrial Democracy</i>, p. 221).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_702" href="#FNanchor_702" class="label">[702]</a>See, for instance, <i>Trade Unionism New and Old</i>, by George Howell, -1891.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_703" href="#FNanchor_703" class="label">[703]</a>Mr. G. H. Roberts (Typographical Society), then Parliamentary -Secretary to the Board of Trade; and Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, Treasurer -of the Labour Party.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_704" href="#FNanchor_704" class="label">[704]</a>The Rt. Hon. Arthur Henderson (Friendly Society of Ironfounders), -and M. Camille Huysmans, Secretary of the International Socialist Congress.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_705" href="#FNanchor_705" class="label">[705]</a> -These extracts from a speech by Mr. Hodges are put together from -the separate imperfect reports in the <i>Times</i>, <i>Daily News</i>, and <i>Daily Herald</i> -of October 27, 1919. A more explicit statement of Mr. Hodges’ views -will be found in his speech at the Annual Conference of the Miners’ -Federation in July 1918: “For the last two or three years a new movement -has sprung up in the labour world which deals with the question -of joint control of the industry by representatives from the side which -represents, for the most part, the consumer, and representatives of the -workmen, who are the producers. Nationalisation in the old sense is no -longer attractive. As a matter of fact, you can have nationalisation, but -still be in no better position than you are now under private ownership. -That is the experience of institutions which have been State owned and -State controlled for many years. The most remarkable scheme worked -out during the last year is the theory worked out by the ... Postmen’s -Federation. He has endeavoured to provide a scheme by which the postal -workers should have a definite amount of control, a definite form of control, -in the postal service, and in working it out he has demonstrated beyond all -doubt how at every point he is up against the power of the bureaucrats, -as exemplified by the State. Now, is it any good to have these mines -nationalised unless we are going to exercise some form of control as producers? -If not, the whole tendency will be towards the power of bureaucracy. -We shall be given no status at all in the industry, except to be the -mere producers, as we have been in the past years. Under State ownership -the workmen should be desirous of having something more than the -mere question of wages or the mere consideration of employment; the -workmen should have some directive power in the industry in which they -are engaged. Now, how are we going to have this directive power under -State control? I think we must admit that the side representing the -consumers (the State) should have some form of control on property -which will be State property, and when a national industry becomes State -controlled you must have permanent officials to look after the consumers’ -interests, and from the purely producers’ point of view the Miners’ Federation -must represent the producers in the central authority and in the -decentralised authority, right down to the separate collieries. Are we -ready to do this? Are we prepared for this, starting at the separate -collieries, indicating how the industry is to be developed locally? -Men must take their share in understanding all the relations embodied -in the export side of the trade; they must take a share even in controlling -the banking arrangements which govern the financial side of the -industry, and with that comes a very great deal of responsibility. Now, -are we prepared to assume that responsibility, a responsibility which is -implied in the term workmen’s control? It is going to be a big task and -a test of the educational attainments of the miners themselves if they -assume control of the industry, and if it did not thrive under that control -there is the possibility we should have to hark back to private ownership -in order to make it successful.... I hold these views, and unless they -are accompanied by an effective form of working-class control, I do not -believe that nationalisation will do any good for anybody” (<i>Report of -Annual Conference of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain, July 9, -1918</i>, pp. 49-51).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_706" href="#FNanchor_706" class="label">[706]</a>Report of the Committee on Combinations and Trusts, 1919.</p> - -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_677">[Pg 677]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XI">CHAPTER XI</h2> -</div> - -<p class="h2sub">POLITICAL ORGANISATION<br /> -[1900-1920]</p> - -<p>Fifty years ago, when Professor Brentano described the -British Trade Union Movement with greater knowledge and -insight than any one else had then shown,<a id="FNanchor_707" href="#Footnote_707" class="fnanchor">[707]</a> nothing seemed -more unlikely than that the Movement would become -organised as an independent political party, appealing to -the whole electorate on a general programme, returning its -own contingent of members to the House of Commons, and -asserting a claim, as soon as that contingent should become -the strongest party in Parliament, to constitute a national -administration. For nearly a quarter of a century more, as -we have described in a previous chapter, though Trade -Unionism was making itself slowly more and more felt in -politics, it was still possible for economists and statesmen -to believe that “Labour” in Great Britain would organise -only to maintain its sectional industrial interests, and that -it would impinge on politics, if at all, only occasionally, in -defence of Trade Unionism itself, or in support of some -particular project of industrial law. By 1894, when the -first edition of this book was published, there was already -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_678">[Pg 678]</span> -manifest, as we then stated, a great shifting of Trade Union -opinion on the</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“pressing question of the position to be taken by the Trade -Union world in the party struggles of To-day and the politics of -To-morrow. In our chapter on ‘The Old Unionism and the -New,’ we described the rapid conversion of the superior workman -to the general principles of Collectivism. This revolution -of opinion in the rank and file has been followed by a marked -change of front on the part of the salaried officials, and by a -growing distrust of the aristocratic and middle-class representatives -of both the great political parties. To the working-man -politician of 1894 it seems inconceivable that either landlords or -capitalists will actively help him to nationalise land and mining -royalties, to absorb unearned incomes by taxation, or to control -private enterprise in the interests of the wage-earner. Thus we -find throughout the whole Trade Union world an almost unanimous -desire to make the working-class organisations in some -way effective for political purposes. Nor is this a new thing. -The sense of solidarity has, as we have seen, never been lacking -among those active soldiers and non-commissioned officers who -constitute the most vital element in the Trade Union army. -The generous aid from trade to trade, the pathetic attempts to -form General Unions, the constant aspirations after universal -federation, all testify to the reality and force of this instinctive -solidarity. The Collectivist faith of the ‘New Unionism’ is -only another manifestation of the same deep-rooted belief in the -essential Brotherhood of Labour. But, as we have seen, the -basis of the association of these million and a half wage-earners -is, primarily, sectional in its nature. They come together, and -contribute their pence, for the defence of their interests as -Boilermakers, Miners, Cotton-spinners, and not directly for the -advancement of the whole working class. Among the salaried -officers of the Unions, it is, as we have said, the Trade Official, -chosen and paid for the express purpose of maintaining the -interests of his own particular trade, who is the active force. -The effect has been to intensify the sectionalism to which an -organisation based on trades must necessarily be prone. The -vague general Collectivism of the non-commissioned officers has -hitherto got translated into practical proposals only in so far as -it can be expressed in projects for the advantage of a particular -trade. Some organised trades have known how to draft and to -extort from Parliament a voluminous Labour Code, the provisions -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_679">[Pg 679]</span> -of which are exceptionally well adapted for the protection -of the particular workers concerned. The ‘particulars -clause’<a id="FNanchor_708" href="#Footnote_708" class="fnanchor">[708]</a> and the law against the ‘over-steaming’ of weaving -sheds are, for instance, triumphs of collective control which -could hardly have been conceived by any one except the astute -trade officials of the Cotton Operatives. But there is no attempt -to deal with any question as a whole. Trade Unionists are, for -instance, unanimously in favour of drastic legislation to put -down ‘sweating’ in all trades whatsoever. But no salaried -officer of the Trade Union world feels it to be his business to -improve the Labour Code for any industry but his own. Thus, -whereas the Factory Acts have been effectively elaborated to -meet the special circumstances of a few trades, for all the rest -they remain in the form of merely general prohibitions which it -is practically impossible to enforce. How far it is possible, -by the development of Trades Councils, the reform of the -Trades Union Congress, the increased efficiency of the Parliamentary -Committee, the growth of Trade Union representation -in the House of Commons, or, finally, by the creation of -any new federal machinery, to counteract the fundamental -sectionalism of Trade Union organisation, to supplement the -specialised trade officials by an equally specialised Civil Service -of working-class politicians, and thus to render the Trade Union -world, with its million of electors, and its leadership of Labour, -an effective political force in the State, is, on the whole, the -most momentous question of contemporary politics.” -<a id="FNanchor_709" href="#Footnote_709" class="fnanchor">[709]</a></p> -</div> - -<p>The quarter of a century that has elapsed since these -words were written has seen an extensive political development -of the Trade Union Movement, taking the form of -building up a separate and independent party of “Labour” -in the House of Commons, which we have now to record. -<a id="FNanchor_710" href="#Footnote_710" class="fnanchor">[710]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_680">[Pg 680]</span></p> - -<p>The continued propaganda of the Socialists, and of others -who wished to see the Trade Union Movement become an -effective political force, which we have described as active -from 1884 onwards, did not, for nearly a couple of decades, -produce a political “Labour Party.” So strong was at -that time the resistance of most of the Trade Union leaders -to any participation of their societies in general politics, -even on the lines of complete independence of both Liberal -and Conservative Parties, that “Labour Representation” -had still, for some years, to be fought for apart from Trade -Unionism. The leaders, indeed, did not really care about -Trade Union influence in the House of Commons.<a id="FNanchor_711" href="#Footnote_711" class="fnanchor">[711]</a> Many -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_681">[Pg 681]</span> -of them, as we have described, remained for a whole generation -averse even from legal regulation of the conditions of -employment. In national politics they were mostly Liberals, -with the strongest possible admiration for Gladstone and -Bright; or else (as in Lancashire) convinced Conservatives, -concerned to defend the Church of England or Roman -Catholic elementary schools in which their children were -being educated or carried away by the glamour of an -Imperialist foreign policy. They asked for nothing more -than a few working-class members in the House of Commons, -belonging to one or other of the “respectable” parties, to -which they could thus obtain access for the adjustment of any -matters in which their societies happened to be interested.</p> - -<p>In 1887, at his first appearance at the Trades Union -Congress, J. Keir Hardie,<a id="FNanchor_712" href="#Footnote_712" class="fnanchor">[712]</a> representing a small Union of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_682">[Pg 682]</span> -Ayrshire Miners, demanded a new start. He called upon -the Trade Unionists definitely to sever their connection -with the existing political parties, by which the workmen -were constantly befooled and betrayed, and insisted on the -necessity of forming an entirely independent party of Labour, -to which the whole working-class movement should rally. -On the Congress he produced no apparent effect.<a id="FNanchor_713" href="#Footnote_713" class="fnanchor">[713]</a> But, six -months later, when a Parliamentary vacancy occurred in -Mid-Lanark, Keir Hardie was nominated, against Liberal -and Tory alike, on the principle of entire independence; -and in spite of every effort to induce him to withdraw,<a id="FNanchor_714" href="#Footnote_714" class="fnanchor">[714]</a> he -went to the poll, obtaining only 619 votes. A society was -then formed to work for independent Labour representation, -under the designation of the Scottish Labour Party, having -for chairman Mr. R. B. Cunninghame Graham, M.P., who -had been elected as a Liberal but who had become a Socialist. -The “new spirit” of 1889, which we have described, -put heart into the movement for political independence; -and after much further propaganda by the Socialists,<a id="FNanchor_715" href="#Footnote_715" class="fnanchor">[715]</a> at the -General Election of 1892 Keir Hardie was elected for West -Ham, avowedly as the first member of an independent Party -of Labour; together with fourteen other workmen,<a id="FNanchor_716" href="#Footnote_716" class="fnanchor">[716]</a> whose -independence of the Liberal Party, even where it was -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_683">[Pg 683]</span> -claimed, was less marked than their obvious jealousy of -Keir Hardie. There was apparently still no hope of gaining -the adherence of the Trade Unions as such; and at the -Glasgow Trades Union Congress of 1892 arrangements were -made by a few of the delegates to hold a smaller conference, -which took place at Bradford, in 1893, under the chairmanship -of Keir Hardie, when those who were determined to -establish a separate political party formed a society, made -up of individual adherents, which was styled the Independent -Labour Party. In this the Scottish Labour Party was -merged, but it remained without the affiliation of Trade -Unions in their corporate capacity. The Independent -Labour Party, of which throughout his life Keir Hardie -was the outstanding figure, carried on a strenuous propagandist -campaign, and during the next two years put up -independent candidates at by-elections, with uniform ill-success. -At the General Election of 1895, no fewer than -twenty-eight “I.L.P.” candidates went to the poll, every one -of them (including Keir Hardie himself at West Ham) being -unsuccessful. With two or three exceptions, the Trade -Unionist members in alliance with the Liberal Party successfully -maintained their seats. The establishment of an -aggressively independent Labour Party in Parliament still -looked hopeless.</p> - -<p>With the new century an effort was made on fresh lines. -The continuous propaganda had had its effect, even on the -Trades Union Congress. In 1898 it could be suggested in -the presidential address<a id="FNanchor_717" href="#Footnote_717" class="fnanchor">[717]</a> that a “committee should be -appointed to draft a scheme of political organisation for the -Trade Union world on the ground that just as trades federation -is a matter of vital necessity for industrial organisation, -so also will a scheme of political action be of vital -necessity if we wish Parliament to faithfully register the -effect of the industrial revolution on our social life.” The -very next year a resolution—which had been drafted in -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_684">[Pg 684]</span> -London by the members of the Independent Labour Party—was -carried on the motion of the Amalgamated Society -of Railway Servants, against the votes of the miners as well -as of the textile workers, directing the convening of a -special congress representing Trade Unions, Co-operative -Societies, and Socialist organisations, in order to devise -means of increasing the number of Labour members.<a id="FNanchor_718" href="#Footnote_718" class="fnanchor">[718]</a> It -was urged on the Parliamentary Committee that the Socialist -organisations had a right to be strongly represented on the -proposed Committee; and the Parliamentary Committee, -which had no faith in the scheme and attached little importance -to it, nominated four of its members (S. Woods, W. C. -Steadman, R. Bell, and W. Thorne), all of whom afterwards -became Members of Parliament, to sit with two representatives -each from the Independent Labour Party (Keir Hardie -and J. Ramsay MacDonald), the Fabian Society (G. Bernard -Shaw and E. R. Pease), and the Social Democratic Federation -(H. Quelch and H. R. Taylor). This Committee took -the business into its own hands, and drew up a constitution, -upon a federal basis, for a “Labour Representation Committee,” -as an independent organisation, including Trade -Unions and Trades Councils, along with Co-operative and -Socialist Societies; and in February 1900 a specially summoned -congress, attended by 129 delegates, representing -Trade Unions aggregating half a million members, and -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_685">[Pg 685]</span> -Socialist societies claiming fewer than seventy thousand, -adopted the draft constitution, established the new body, -appointed its first executive, and gave it, in Mr. J. Ramsay -MacDonald, not merely its first secretary but also a skilful -organiser, to whose patient and persistent effort no small -part of its subsequent success has been due.</p> - -<p>For two years the Labour Representation Committee, in -spite of diligent propaganda among Trade Union Executives, -seemed to hang fire. The General Election of 1900 found -it unprepared; and, though it put fifteen candidates in the -field, only two of them were successful. No Co-operative -Society joined; the Social Democratic Federation withdrew; -scarcely a score of Trades Councils were enrolled; and -though sixty-five separate Trade Unions gradually adhered—being -only about five or six per cent of the total number—the -aggregate affiliated membership of the Party did not reach -half a million. Then the tide turned, mainly through the -rally of Trade Unionism as it became aware of the full -implications of the assault upon it made by the decision in -the Taff Vale case, which we have already described. The -miners stood aloof only because they preferred to use their -own organisation. In 1901 the Miners’ Federation voted a -levy of a penny per month on all its membership in order -to create a Parliamentary Fund; and the running of -as many as seventy candidates was then talked about. -During the year 1902 the number of adhering Trade Unions -and Trades Councils, and the total affiliated membership, -were alike practically doubled. In the next two years the -Committee contested no fewer than six Parliamentary by-elections, -returning its members in half of them.<a id="FNanchor_719" href="#Footnote_719" class="fnanchor">[719]</a> Meanwhile -the Conservative Government obstinately refused to -allow legislation restoring to Trade Unions the statutory -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_686">[Pg 686]</span> -status of 1871-76, of which the judges’ decision in the Taff -Vale case had deprived them. Careful preparation was -accordingly made for a successful appeal to Trade Unionists -at the General Election which was approaching; and when -it came, in January 1906, no fewer than fifty independent -Labour candidates were put in the field against Liberals and -Conservatives alike. To the general surprise of the political -world, as many as twenty-nine of these were successful; -besides a dozen other workmen, mostly miners, who again -stood with Liberal Party support and were still regarded as -belonging to that Party. The twenty-nine at once formed -themselves into, and were recognised as, a separate independent -party in the House of Commons, with its own -officers and whips, concerned to push its own programme -irrespective of the desires and convenience of the other -political parties. At the same time the Labour Representation -Committee changed its name to the Labour Party.</p> - -<p>We need not concern ourselves with the Parliamentary -struggles of the next three years, during which the Parliamentary -Labour Party may claim to have indirectly secured -the passage, as Government measures, of the Trade Disputes -Act, the Miners’ Eight Hours Act, and the Trade Boards -Act, and to have developed something like a Parliamentary -programme. It suffered, however, in the Trade Union -world, from its inevitable failure to impress its will on the -triumphant Liberal majority of these years. What saved -the Labour Party from decline, and gave it indeed fresh -impetus in the Trade Union movement, was the renewed -legal assault on Trade Unionism itself, which in 1909, as we -have described, culminated in the Osborne Judgement of -the highest Appeal Court, by which the Trade Unions were -prohibited from applying any of their funds to political -activities and to the support of the Labour Party in particular. -The refusal of the Liberal Government for four -whole years to remedy this gross miscarriage of justice -though conscious that it was not permanently defensible; -and the unconcealed desire of the Liberal Party politicians -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_687">[Pg 687]</span> -to put the Labour Party out of action as an independent -political force, swung over to its side the great bulk of -active Trade Unionists, including many, especially in Lancashire, -who had hitherto counted to the Conservative Party. -By 1913, in spite of a large number of injunctions restraining -Trade Unions from affiliating, the Labour Party could count -on a membership of nearly two millions, and this number -has since steadily grown. The two General Elections of 1910, -though dominated by other issues, left the Parliamentary -Labour Party unshaken; whilst the accession to the Party -of the Miners’ members raised its Parliamentary strength to -forty-two. Payment of members was secured in 1911, and -the Mines (Minimum Wage) Act in 1912, but not until -1913 could the Government be induced to pass into law the -Trade Union Act, which once more permitted Trade Unions -to engage in any lawful purposes that their members desired. -This concession was, even then, made subject to any objecting -member being enabled to withhold that part of his -contribution applicable to political purposes—an illogical -restriction, because it applied only to the dissentient’s tiny -fraction of money, and he was not empowered to prevent -the majority of members from using the indivisible corporate -power of the Union itself. This restriction, not put upon -any other corporate body, was universally believed to have -been imposed, in the assumed interest of the Liberal Party, -with the object of crippling the political influence of Trade -Unionism; and is still bitterly resented. -<a id="FNanchor_720" href="#Footnote_720" class="fnanchor">[720]</a></p> - -<p>Whilst it was very largely the successive assaults on -Trade Unionism itself that built up the Labour Party, the -ultimate defeat of these assaults, the concession of Payment -of Members, and the attainment of legal security by the -Trade Union Act of 1913, did nothing to stay its progress. -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_688">[Pg 688]</span> -At the same time, the injunctions of the years 1909-12, and -the fear of litigation, together with a certain disillusionment -with Parliamentary action among the rank and file, led to -the gradual falling away of some Trade Unions, mostly of -comparatively small membership. The very basis of the -Labour Party, upon which alone it has proved possible to -build up a successful political force—the combination, within -a political federation, of Trade Unions having extensive -membership and not very intense political energy, and -Socialist societies of relatively scanty membership but overflowing -with political talent and zeal—necessarily led to -complications. It needed all the tact and patient persuasion -of the leaders of both sections to convince the Socialists -that their ideals and projects were not being sacrificed to -the stolidity and the prejudices of the mass of Trade -Unionists; and at the same time to explain to the Trade -Unionists how valuable was the aid of the knowledge, -eloquence, and Parliamentary ability contributed by such -Socialist representatives as Keir Hardie, Philip Snowden, -J. Ramsay MacDonald, and W. C. Anderson. Moreover, -the complications and difficulties of Parliamentary action -in a House of Commons where the Government continuously -possessed a solid majority; the political necessity of supporting -the Liberal Party Bills relating to the Budget and -the House of Lords, and of not playing into the hands of a -still more reactionary Front Opposition Bench, were not -readily comprehended by the average workman. What the -militants in the country failed to allow for was the impotence -of a small Parliamentary section to secure the adoption of -its own policy by a Parliamentary majority. But it is, we -think, now admitted that it was a misfortune that the -Parliamentary Labour Party of these years never managed -to put before the country the large outlines of an alternative -programme based on the Party’s conception of a new social -order, eliminating the capitalist profit-maker wherever -possible, and giving free scope to communal and industrial -Democracy—notably with regard to the administration of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_689">[Pg 689]</span> -the railways and the mines, the prevention of Unemployment, -and also the provision for the nation’s non-effectives, which -the Government dealt with so unsatisfactorily in the -National Insurance Act of 1911. The failure of the Parliamentary -Labour Party between 1910 and 1914 to strike the -imagination of the Trade Union world led to a certain -reaction against political action as such, and to a growing -doubt among the active spirits as to the value of a Labour -Party which did not succeed in taking vigorous independent -action, either in Parliament or on the platform and in the -press, along the lines of changing the existing order of -society. A like failure to strike the imagination characterised -<i>The Daily Citizen</i>—the organ which the Labour -Party and the Trade Union Movement had established with -such high hopes—and its inability to gain either intellectual -influence or adequate circulation did not lighten the somewhat -gloomy atmosphere of the Labour Party councils of -1913-14.<a id="FNanchor_721" href="#Footnote_721" class="fnanchor">[721]</a> This reaction did not appreciably affect the -numerical and financial strength of the Labour Party itself, -as the relatively few withdrawals of Unions were outweighed -by the steady increase in membership of the hundred -principal Unions which remained faithful, by the accession -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_690">[Pg 690]</span> -of other Unions, and by the continual increase in the number -and strength of the affiliated Trades Councils and Local -Labour Parties. But the reaction in Trade Union opinion -weakened the influence of the members of the Parliamentary -Party, alike in the House of Commons and in their own -societies. A wave of “Labour Unrest,” of “Syndicalism,” -of “rank and file movements” for a more aggressive Trade -Unionism, of organisation by “shop stewards” in opposition -to national executives, and of preference for “Direct -Action” over Parliamentary procedure swept over British -Trade Unionism, affecting especially the London building -trades, the South Wales Miners, and the engineering and -shipbuilding industry on the Clyde. The impetuous strikes -in 1911-13 of the Railwaymen, the Coal-miners, the Transport -Workers, and the London Building Trades, which we -have already described, were influenced, partly, by this new -spirit. The number of disputes reported to the Labour -Department, which had sunk in 1908 to only 399, rose in -1911 to 903, and culminated in the latter half of 1913 and -the first half of 1914 in the outbreak of something like a -hundred and fifty strikes per month. British Trade Unionism -was, in fact, in the summer of 1914, working up for an -almost revolutionary outburst of gigantic industrial disputes, -which could not have failed to be seriously embarrassing -for the political organisation to which the movement had -committed itself, when, in August 1914, war was declared, -and all internal conflict had perforce to be suspended.</p> - -<p>During the war (1914-18) the task of the Labour Party -was one of exceptional difficulty. It had necessarily to -support the Government in a struggle of which five-sixths of -its Parliamentary representatives and probably nine-tenths -of its aggregate membership approved. The very gravity -of the national crisis compelled the Party to abstain from -any action that would have weakened the country’s defence. -On the other hand, the three successive Administrations -that held office during the war were all driven by their needs, -as we have already described, to impose upon the wage-earners -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_691">[Pg 691]</span> -cruel sacrifices, and to violate, not once but repeatedly, -all that Organised Labour in Britain held dear. The -Party could not refrain, at whatever cost of misconstruction, -from withstanding unjustifiable demands by the Government;<a id="FNanchor_722" href="#Footnote_722" class="fnanchor">[722]</a> -protesting against its successive breaches of faith -to the Trade Unions; demanding the conditions in the -forthcoming Treaty of Peace that, as could be already -foreseen, would be necessary to protect the wage-earning -class; standing up for the scandalously ill-used “conscientious -objectors,” and doing its best to secure, in the eventual -demobilisation and social reconstruction, the utmost possible -protection of the mass of the people against Unemployment -and “Profiteering.” In all this the Labour Party earned -the respect of the most thoughtful Trade Unionists, but -necessarily exposed itself to a constant stream of newspaper -misrepresentation and abuse. Any opposition or resistance -to the official demands was inevitably misrepresented as, -and mistaken for, an almost treasonable “Pacifism” or -“Defeatism”—a misunderstanding of the attitude of the -Party to which colour was lent by the persistence and -eloquence with which the small Pacifist Minority within the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_692">[Pg 692]</span> -Party—a minority which, it must be said, included some -of the most talented and active of its leading members in -the House of Commons—used every opportunity publicly -to denounce the Government’s conduct in the war. But -although the Pacifist Group in Parliament was strenuously -supported in the country by the relatively small but -extremely active constituent society of the Labour Party -styled The Independent Labour Party—the very name -helping the popular misunderstanding—the Trade Unionists, -forming the vast majority of the Labour Party, remained, -with extremely few exceptions, grimly determined at all -costs to win the war.</p> - -<p>If Organised Labour had been against the war, it is safe -to say that the national effort could not have been maintained. -The need for the formal association of the Labour -Party with the Administration was recognised by Mr. -Asquith in 1915, when he formed the first Coalition Cabinet, -into which he invited the chairman of the Parliamentary -Labour Party, Mr. Arthur Henderson (Friendly Society of -Ironfounders), who became President of the Board of -Education. Later on, in 1916, Mr. G. N. Barnes (Amalgamated -Society of Engineers) was appointed to the new -office of Minister of Pensions. When, in December 1916, -Mr. Asquith resigned, and Mr. Lloyd George formed a new -Coalition Government, Mr. Henderson entered the small -War Cabinet that was then formed, with the nominal office -of Paymaster-General; whilst Mr. Barnes continued -Minister of Pensions, Mr. John Hodge (British Steel -Smelters’ Society) was appointed to the new office of -Minister of Labour, and three other members of the Party -(Mr. W. Brace, South Wales Miners; Mr. G. H. Roberts, -Typographical Society; and Mr. James Parker, National -Union of General Workers) received minor ministerial posts. -<a id="FNanchor_723" href="#Footnote_723" class="fnanchor">[723]</a></p> - -<p>Throughout the whole period of the war all the several -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_693">[Pg 693]</span> -demands of the Government upon the organised workers, -the abrogation of “Trade Union Conditions” in all industries -working for war needs, the first and second Munitions -of War Acts, the subversion of individual liberty by the -successive orders under the Defence of the Realm Acts, the -successive applications of the Military Service Acts, the -imposition of what was practically Compulsory Arbitration -to settle the rates of wages—were accepted, though only -after serious protest, by large majorities at the various -Conferences of the Labour Party, as well as by the various -annual Trades Union Congresses,<a id="FNanchor_724" href="#Footnote_724" class="fnanchor">[724]</a> in spite of the resistance -of minorities, including more than “pacifists.” The entry -of Mr. Henderson into Mr. Asquith’s first Coalition Government, -and that of Mr. Barnes into Mr. Lloyd George’s -War Cabinet, together with the acceptance of ministerial office -by other leading members of the Labour Party—though -any such ministerial coalition was in flagrant violation of -the very principles of its existence, and was strenuously combated -on grounds of expediency by many of its members -who loyally supported the war—equally received the endorsement -of large majorities at the Party Conferences. From -the beginning of the war to the end, the Labour Party, -alike in all its corporate acts and by the individual efforts of -its leading members (other than the minority already mentioned), -stuck at nothing in its determination to help the -Government to win the war.</p> - -<p>More controversial were the persistent efforts made by -the Labour Party to maintain its international relations -with the Labour and Socialist Movements of Continental -Europe. From the first it was seen to be important to get -the representatives of the Trade Unions and Socialist -organisations of the Allied Nations, and not merely their -Governments, united in a declaration of the aims and the -justification of a war that was everywhere outraging -working-class idealism. Such a unanimity was successfully -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_694">[Pg 694]</span> -achieved in February 1915 at a conference, held in -London at the instance of the Labour Party, of delegates -from the working-class organisations of France, Belgium, -and Great Britain, with Russian representatives, then allied -in arms against the Central Empires.<a id="FNanchor_725" href="#Footnote_725" class="fnanchor">[725]</a> Later on, when a -Minority Party had been formed among the German -Socialists, and when the Austrian and Hungarian working-class -Movements were also in revolt against the militarism of -their Government, repeated efforts were made by the Labour -Party to encourage this revolt, and for this purpose to obtain -the necessary Government facilities for a meeting, in some -neutral city, of the working-class “International,” at which -the Allied Case could be laid before the neutrals, and a basis -found for united action with all the working-class elements -in opposition to the dominant military Imperialism. After -the Russian revolution of March 1917, the Petrograd Workmen’s -and Soldiers’ Council actually issued an invitation for -a working-class “International” at Stockholm; and the -participation of the British Labour Party in this International -Congress, which was not then favoured by Mr. -Henderson, received at one time no small support from the -Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George. In the end the Government -despatched Mr. Henderson on an official mission to -Petrograd (incidentally empowering him, if he thought fit, -to remain there as Ambassador at £8000 a year). Meanwhile -the proposal for an International Congress had been -modified, first into one for a purely consultative gathering, -and then into one for a series of separate interviews between -a committee of neutrals and the representatives of each of -the belligerents in turn, with a view to discovering a possible -basis for peace—a project to which Mr. Henderson, from -what he learnt at Petrograd, was converted. A National -Conference of the Labour Party in August 1917 approved -of participation in such a Congress at Stockholm; but -the French and Italian Governments would not hear of it, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_695">[Pg 695]</span> -and Mr. Lloyd George went back on his prior approval, -absolutely declining to allow passports to be issued. Amid -great excitement, and under circumstances of insult and -indignity which created resentment among the British -working class, Mr. Henderson felt obliged to tender his -resignation of his place in the War Cabinet, in which he was -succeeded by Mr. Barnes, who was getting more and more -out of sympathy with the majority of the Party.<a id="FNanchor_726" href="#Footnote_726" class="fnanchor">[726]</a> The -Labour Party Executive, in alliance with the Parliamentary -Committee of the Trades Union Congress, then applied -itself to getting agreement among the Labour and Socialist -Movements of the Allied Nations as to the lines on which—assuming -an Allied victory—the terms of peace should be -drawn, in order to avert as much as possible of the widespread -misery which, it could be foreseen, must necessarily -fall upon the wage-earning class. In this effort, in which -Mr. Henderson displayed great tact and patience, he had the -implicit sanction of the British Government, and, with some -reluctance, also of the Governments of the other Allied -Nations by whom the necessary passports were issued for an -Inter-Allied Conference in London in August 1917, which was -abortive; for provisional discussions at Paris in February -1918; and for a second Inter-Allied Conference at the end of -the same month in London, which resulted in a virtually -unanimous agreement upon what should be the terms of -peace,<a id="FNanchor_727" href="#Footnote_727" class="fnanchor">[727]</a> on a basis already approved on December 28, -1917, by a Joint Conference of the Trades Union Congress -and the Labour Party, and widely published all over the -world. The terms thus agreed were, in fact, immediately -adopted in outline in a public deliverance by Mr. Lloyd -George as those on which Germany could have peace at any -time; and the same proposals were promptly made the -basis of President Wilson’s celebrated “Fourteen Points” -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_696">[Pg 696]</span> -on which eventually (but only after another ten months’ -costly war) the Armistice of November 11, 1918, was concluded. -Profound was the disappointment, and bitter the -resentment, of the greater part of the organised Labour -Movement of Great Britain when it was revealed how -seriously the diplomatists at the Paris Conference had -departed from these terms in the Treaty of Peace which was -imposed on the Central Empires. -<a id="FNanchor_728" href="#Footnote_728" class="fnanchor">[728]</a></p> - -<p>We have already attempted to sum up the effect of the -Great War on the industrial status of Trade Unionism. It -is more difficult to estimate its effect on the political organisation -of the movement. The outbreak of the war had -found the Labour Party, in the see-saw of Trade Union -opinion to which we have elsewhere referred, suffering from -an inevitable disillusionment among Trade Unionists as to -the immediate potency of Parliamentary representation—a -disillusionment manifested in the outbreak of rebellious -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_697">[Pg 697]</span> -strikes that characterised the years 1911-14. The achievements -of the Labour Party in the House of Commons had -fallen short of the eager hopes with which the new party -had raised its standard on its triumphant entry in 1906. -In 1914, it may be said, the Labour Party was at a dead -point. The effect upon it of the Great War was to raise -it in proportion to the height of the vastly greater -issues with which it was compelled to deal. Amid the -stress of war, and of the intensely controversial decisions -which it had necessarily to take, the Labour Party revised -its constitution, widened its aims, opened its ranks to the -“workers by brain” as well as the workers by hand, and -received the accession of many thousands of converts from -the Liberal and Conservative Parties. It made great progress -in its difficult task of superimposing, on an organisation -based on national societies, the necessary complementary -organisation of its affiliated membership by geographical -constituencies. It equipped itself during the war, for the -first time, with a far-reaching and well-considered programme -not confined to distinctively “Labour” issues, but covering -the whole field of home politics, and even extending to -foreign relations.<a id="FNanchor_729" href="#Footnote_729" class="fnanchor">[729]</a> The formulation of such a programme, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_698">[Pg 698]</span> -from beginning to end essentially Socialist in character, and -including alike ideals of social reconstruction and detailed -reforms of immediate practicability, together with the wholehearted -adoption of this programme, after six months’ consideration -by the constituent societies and branches, was a -notable achievement, which placed the British Labour Party -ahead of those of other countries. Moreover, the formulation -of a comprehensive social programme and of “terms -of Peace,” based on the principles for which the war had -ostensibly been fought—principles which were certainly not -carried in the Treaty of Peace—transformed the Labour -Party from a group representing merely the class interests -of the manual workers into a fully constituted political -Party of national scope, ready to take over the government -of the country and to conduct both home and foreign affairs -on definite principles. Taken together with the intellectual -bankruptcy of the Liberal Party and its apparent incapacity -to formulate any positive policy, whether with regard to -the redistribution of wealth within our own community or -with regard to our attitude towards other races within or -without the British Empire, the emergence of the Labour -Party programme meant that the Party stood forth, in -public opinion, as the inevitable alternative to the present -Coalition Government when the time came for this to fall. -The result was that, aided by the steady growth of Trade -Unionism, the Party came near, between 1914 and 1919, -to doubling its aggregate membership. When hostilities -ceased, it insisted on resuming the complete independence -of the other political parties, which it had, by joining the -successive Coalition Governments, consented temporarily to -forgo; and such of its leaders as refused to withdraw -from ministerial office<a id="FNanchor_730" href="#Footnote_730" class="fnanchor">[730]</a> were unhesitatingly shed from the -Party. Meanwhile, the extension of the franchise and -redistribution of seats, which had been carried by general -consent in the spring of 1918, turned out to raise the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_699">[Pg 699]</span> -electorate to nearly treble that of 1910, whilst the new -constituencies proved to have been so adjusted as greatly -to facilitate an increase in the number of miners’ representatives. -When the General Election came, in December 1918, -though the Labour Party fought under great disadvantages -and it was seen that most of the soldier electors would be -unable to record their votes, it put no fewer than 361 Labour -candidates in the field against Liberal and Conservative -alike, contesting two-thirds of all the constituencies in Great -Britain. In face of a “Lloyd George tide” of unprecedented -strength these Labour candidates received nearly one-fourth -of all the votes polled in the United Kingdom; and though -five-sixths of these numerous Labour candidatures were -unsuccessful (including, unfortunately, most of its ablest -Parliamentarians such as Messrs. Henderson,<a id="FNanchor_731" href="#Footnote_731" class="fnanchor">[731]</a> MacDonald, -Anderson, and Snowden), the Party increased its numerical -strength in the House of Commons by 50 per cent, and, to -the universal surprise, returned more than twice as many -members as did the remnant of the Liberal Party adhering -to Mr. Asquith—becoming, in fact, entitled to the position -of “His Majesty’s Opposition.” -It can hardly be said that during the session of 1919 -the Parliamentary Labour Party, considerably strengthened -in numbers but weakened by the defeat of its ablest Parliamentarians, -has, under the leadership of the Right Honourable -W. Adamson (Scottish Miners), made as much of its -opportunities as the Labour Party in the country expected -and desired. The political organisation of the Trade Union -world remains, indeed, very far from adequate to the -achievement of its far-reaching aims. It is not merely that -the average British Trade Unionist, unlike the German, the -Danish, Swedish, or the Belgian, has learnt so little the -duty of subordinating minor personal or local issues, and -of voting with his Party with as much loyalty as he shows -in striking with his fellow-unionists, that by no means all -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_700">[Pg 700]</span> -the aggregate British Trade Union membership can steadfastly -be relied on to vote for the Labour candidates. -Nor is it only that the British Labour Party still fails to -command the affiliation of as many Trade Unions as the -Trades Union Congress, and that the great majority of the -smaller and the local societies—less from dissent than out -of apathy—remain aloof from both sides of the national -organisation. The Trades Union Congress itself, after engendering, -as independent organisations, first the General -Federation of Trade Unions, and then the Labour Party, -has not yet resigned itself to limiting its activities. The -General Federation of Trade Unions may be said, indeed, -to have now disappeared from the Trade Union world as -an effective force in the determination of industrial or -political policy. There remain three separate organisations -of national scope; the Parliamentary Committee of the -Trades Union Congress which it is now proposed to transform -into a General Council, the Executive Committee of the -Labour Party, and the members of the House of Commons -who form the Parliamentary Labour Party. Unfortunately, -between these three groups there has been some lack of -mutual consultation, and an indefiniteness if not a confusion -of policy which stands in the way of effective leadership.<a id="FNanchor_732" href="#Footnote_732" class="fnanchor">[732]</a> -This has prevented the bringing to bear upon the political -field of the full force, now almost a moiety of the whole -registered electorate of Great Britain, that the Trade -Union world may (including the wives of Trade Unionist -electors) fairly claim to include. Fundamentally, however, -the shortcomings of the political organisation of the Trade -Union world are to be ascribed to its failure, down to the -present, to develop a staff of trained political officers at -all equal to those of the Trade Union organisers and Trade -Union negotiators in the industrial field. The Labour -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_701">[Pg 701]</span> -Party, which can as yet rely only on the quite inadequate -contribution from its affiliated societies of no more than -twopence per member annually, has, so far, not succeeded -in obtaining and keeping the services, as Registration -Officers and Election Agents, of anything like so extensive -and so competent a staff as either of the other political -parties; and Labour Party candidatures are still run, -occasionally with astonishing success, very largely upon -that transient enthusiasm of the crowd upon which experienced -electioneers wisely decline to rely for victory. What -is, however, much more crippling to the Labour Party than -the scanty funds with which its constituent societies supply -it, and this insufficiency in the staff of trained election -organisers, is the scarcity of trained Parliamentary representatives. -Down to to-day the great bulk of Labour Members -of Parliament have been drawn from the ranks of the -salaried secretaries and other industrial officers of Trade -Unions, who are nearly always not only men of competence -in their own spheres, but also exceptionally good speakers -for popular audiences, and, generally, in many respects -above the average of middle-class candidates. But as -Members of Parliament they have serious shortcomings. -They can, to begin with, seldom devote the necessary time -to their new duties. They usually find themselves compelled -to strive to combine attendance at the House of -Commons with the onerous industrial service of their -societies. The Trade Unions have, as yet, only in a few -cases realised the necessity of setting free from the constant -burden of Trade Union work—as they might by promotion -to some such consultative office as that of a salaried President—such -of their officials as secure election to Parliament; -whilst these officers, unable to maintain themselves and -their families in London on their Parliamentary allowance -for expenses of £400 a year, and afraid lest the loss of their -seats may presently leave them without incomes, dare not -resign their Trade Union posts. The result is an imperfect -and always uncertain attendance of the Labour Members at -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_702">[Pg 702]</span> -the House of Commons; a fatal division and diversion of -their attention; and an inevitable failure on their part to -discharge with the fullest efficiency the duties of their two -offices. Equally destructive of Parliamentary efficiency is -the omission of the Trade Union world to provide or secure -any training in the duties of a Member of Parliament for -those whom they select as candidates and whose election -expenses they defray with unstinted liberality. The lifelong -training which these candidates have enjoyed as Branch -and District Secretaries, as industrial organisers and negotiators, -and as administrators of great Trade Unions, valuable -as it is for Trade Union purposes, does not include, and indeed -tends rather to exclude, the practical training in general -politics, the working acquaintance with the British Constitution, -the knowledge of how to use and how to control -the adroit and well-equipped Civil Service, and the ability -to translate both the half-articulate desires of the electorate -to the House of Commons, and the advice of the political -expert to the electorate, which, coupled with the general -art of “Parliamentarianism,” constitutes the equipment of -the really efficient Member of the House of Commons. Add -to this that the very training which the life of the successful -Trade Union official has given him, his perpetual struggle -to rise in his vocation in competitive rivalry, not with -persons of opposite views but actually with personal -acquaintances of the same craft and the same political -opinions as himself, is, in itself, not a good preparation for -the incessant mutual consultation and carefully planned -“team-work” which contributes so much to the effectiveness -of a minority party in the House of Commons. Add -to this again the personal rivalries among members of the -Party, the jealousies from which no party is free, and -the almost complete lack of opportunity for the constant -social intercourse with each other away from the House of -Commons that the members of the other parties enjoy—and -it will be realised how seriously the Parliamentary Labour -Party is handicapped by being made up, as it is at present, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_703">[Pg 703]</span> -almost entirely of men who are compelled also to serve as -Trade Union officials. Already, however, there are signs -of improvement. Some Trade Unions, whilst willing to -spend large sums on Parliamentary candidatures, are -demurring to their salaried officials going to Westminster. -The Workers’ Educational Association, Ruskin College, and -other educational agencies are doing much to provide a -wider political training than Trade Unionists have heretofore -enjoyed. And as the Parliamentary Labour Party, -claiming to-day to represent, not the Trade Unionists only, -but the whole community of “workers by hand or by brain,” -expands from sixty to four or six times that number—as -it must before it can be confronted with the task of -forming a Government—it will necessarily come to include -an ever-increasing proportion of members drawn from other -than Trade Union ranks; whilst even its Trade Union -members cannot fail to acquire more of that habit of mutual -intercourse and that art of combined action which, coupled -with the Parliamentary skill and capacity for public administration -of those who rise to leadership, is the necessary -basis of successful party achievement.</p> - -<p>Meanwhile, the political organisation of the Trade Union -Movement, and the enlargement of its ideas on Communal -and Industrial Democracy, have been manifesting themselves -also in the important sphere of Local Government. -After the “Labour” successes at the elections of Local -Authorities, which continued for a whole decade from 1892, -and placed over a thousand Trade Unionists and Socialists -on Parish, District, Borough and County Councils, there -ensued another decade in which, in the majority of districts, -this active participation in local elections was impaired by -the diversion of interest, both to Parliament and to industrial -organisation. From 1914 to 1919 local elections were -suspended. On their resumption in the latter year, they -were energetically contested by the Labour Party, all over -Great Britain, on its new and definitely Socialist programme, -with the unexpected result that, up and down the country, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_704">[Pg 704]</span> -the Labour candidates frequently swept the board, polling -in the aggregate a very substantial proportion of the votes, -electing altogether several thousand Councillors (five or six -hundred in Scotland alone), and being returned in actual -majorities in nearly half the Metropolitan Boroughs, several -important Counties and Municipalities, and many Urban -Districts and Parishes.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>It must be apparent that any history of Trade Unionism -that breaks off at the beginning of 1920 halts, not at the -end of an epoch, but—we may almost say—at the opening -of a new chapter. British Trade Unionism, at a moment -when it is, both industrially and politically, stronger than -ever before, is seething with new ideas and far-reaching -aspirations. At the same time, its most recent advances in -status and power are by no means yet accepted by what -remains the governing class; its political and industrial -position is still precarious, and within a very brief space it -may again find itself fighting against a frontal attack upon -its very existence. And in face of the common enemy—now -united as an autocratic capitalism—Industrial Democracy -is uncertain of itself, and almost blindly groping after -a precise adjustment of powers and functions between -Associations of Producers and Associations of Consumers.</p> - -<p>Let us elaborate these points in detail. One result of -the Great War has been, if not the actual enthronement of -Democracy, a tremendous shifting of authority to the mass -of the people. Of this shifting of the basis of power the -advance in the status of Trade Unionism and the advent, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_705">[Pg 705]</span> -in British politics, of the Labour Party, are but preliminary -manifestations. As yet the mass of the people, to whom -power is passing, have made but little effective use of their -opportunities. At least seven-eighths of the nation’s accumulated -wealth, and with it nearly all the effective authority, -is still in the hands of one-eighth of the population; and -the seven-eighths of the people find themselves in consequence -still restricted, as regards the means of life, to less -than half of that national income which is exclusively the -product of those who labour, by hand or by brain. The -“leisure class”—the men and women who live by owning -and not by working, a class increasing in actual numbers, -if not relatively to the workers—seem to the great mass of -working people to be showing themselves, if possible, more -frivolous and more insolent in their irresponsible consumption, -by themselves and their families, of the relatively -enormous share that they are able to take from the national -income. It is coming to be more and more felt that the -continued existence of this class involves a quite unwarranted -burden upon their fellow-citizens working by hand or by -brain. Very naturally there is widespread discontent, and -the emergence of all sorts of exasperated criticisms and -extravagant schemes.</p> - -<p>The truth is, of course, that Democracy, whether political -or industrial, is still in its infancy. The common run of -men and women, who have only just been enfranchised -politically, and are even yet only partially organised industrially, -are as yet unable to make full use of Democratic -institutions. The majority of them cannot be induced, in -the economic pressure to which Capitalism subjects them, -to take the trouble or give the continuous thought involved -in any effective participation in public affairs. The result -is that such Democratic institutions as we possess are, of -necessity, still inefficiently managed; and neither the -citizen-consumers nor the Trade Unionist producers find -themselves exercising much effective control over their own -lives. The active-minded minority sees itself submerged -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_706">[Pg 706]</span> -by the “apathetic mass”; the individual feels enslaved by -the “machine.” The complaint of the “rank and file”—using -that term to mean, not any “extremist” minority, -but merely the majority, the “common run of men”—comes -to no more than that they do not find themselves -obtaining the results in their daily lives which they expected, -and which they were, as they understood, promised. This, -we think, is the explanation of the perpetual “see-saw” -within the Labour Movement, decade after decade, between -an infatuation for industrial or “direct” action and an -equal infatuation for political or Parliamentary and Municipal -action—each, unfortunately, to the temporary neglect -of the other. Or to state the Democratic problem in a more -fundamental form, the see-saw is between the aspiration -to vest the control over the instruments of production in -Democracies of Producers, and the alternating belief that -this control can best be vested in Democracies of Consumers. -But it is abundantly clear, alike from history and economic -analysis, that in any genuine Democracy both forms of -organisation are indispensably required. In the modern -State every person throughout his whole life consumes a -great variety of commodities and services which he cannot -produce; whilst men and women, occupied in production, -habitually produce a single commodity or service for other -persons to consume. Their interests and desires as -producers, and as producers of a single commodity or -service, are not, and can never be, identical with the interests -and desires of these same people as consumers of many -different commodities and services—just as their interests -and desires as citizens of a community, or as members of a -race which they wish to continue in independent existence, -are not necessarily identical with those of which they are -conscious either as producers or as consumers.</p> - -<p>It is, in fact, now realised that Democratic organisation -involves the acceptance, not of a single basis—that of the -undifferentiated human being—but of various separate and -distinct bases: man as a producer; man as a consumer; -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_707">[Pg 707]</span> -man as a citizen concerned with the continued existence -and independence of his race or community; possibly also -other bases, such as man as a scientist or man as a religious -believer. What is wrong in each successive generation is -the intolerant fanaticism of the enthusiasts which leads -them to insist on any one form of this multiplex Democracy -to the exclusion of the other forms. We see to-day uppermost -a revival of faith in Associations of Producers, as -being, in an industrial community, the form of Democratic -organisation most important to the working people. To -some one-sided minds, as was inevitable, the all-embracing -Association of Producers seems the only form that Democratic -organisation can validly take. Interesting to the -historian is the intellectual connection of this revival with -the previous manifestations, in the Trade Union Movement, -of the idea of “Co-operative Production,” whether in the -revolutionary Owenism of 1830-34, the Christian Socialism -of 1848-52, or the experiments of particular Unions in 1872. -As we have explained, the Trade Union, being essentially an -Association of Producers, has never quite lost the idea that, -so far as industry is concerned, this form of association, and -no other, is Democracy. But the new form in which the -faith in Associations of Producers is now expressing itself -is concerned less with the ownership of the instruments of -production (it being to-day commonly taken for granted -that this must be vested in the community as a whole) -than with the management of industry. According to the -most thoroughgoing advocates of this creed, the management -of each industry should be placed, not separately in -the hands of those engaged in each establishment, any more -than in the hands of private capitalist employers, but in the -hands of the whole body of persons throughout the community -who are actually co-operating in the work of the -industry, whether by hand or by brain; this management -being shared, by Workshop or Pit Committees, District -Councils and National Boards, among all these “workers.”</p> - -<p>This conception seems to us too one-sided to be adopted -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_708">[Pg 708]</span> -in its entirety, or to be successful if it were so adopted. -We venture to give, necessarily in a cursory and generalised -form, the results of our own investigations into the management -of industries and services by Democracies of Producers -and Democracies of Consumers respectively. In so far as -we may draw any valid inferences from previous experiments -of different kinds, we must note that the record of the -successive attempts, in modern industry, to place the entire -management of industrial undertakings in the hands of -Associations of Producers has been one of failure. In -marked contrast, the opposite form of Democracy, in which -the management has been placed in the hands of Associations -of Consumers, has achieved a large and constantly -increasing measure of success. We do not refer merely to -the ever-growing development throughout the civilised -world, in certain extensive fields of industrial operation, of -Municipal and National Government, though from this some -valuable lessons may be learnt. Even more instructive is -the continuous and ever-widening success, in the importing, -manufacturing, and distributing of household supplies, of -the voluntary Associations of Consumers known as the -Co-operative Movement, which is almost entirely made up -of the same class of men and women—often, indeed, of the -very same individuals—as we find in the abortive “self-governing -workshops” and in the Trade Union Movement. -Why, for instance, is it possible for the manual workers, -organised as consumers, to carry on successfully the most -extensive establishments for the milling of flour, the baking -of bread, the making of boots and shoes, and the weaving -of cloth, when repeated attempts to conduct such establishments -by the same kind of members organised as Associations -of Producers have not succeeded? -<a id="FNanchor_733" href="#Footnote_733" class="fnanchor">[733]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_709">[Pg 709]</span></p> - -<p>The Democracy of Associations of Consumers, whatever -its shortcomings and defects, has, we suggest, the great -advantage of being demonstrably practicable. The job can -be done. It has also the further merit that it solves the -problem presented by what the economists call the Law of -Rent. It does not leave to any individual or group of -individuals the appropriation and enjoyment of those -advantages of superior sites and soils, and other differential -factors in production, which should be, economically and -ethically, taken only by the community as a whole. Moreover, -management by Associations of Consumers, whether -National, Municipal, or Co-operative, gives one practical -solution to the problem of fixing prices without competition, -by enabling every producer to be paid at his own full -Standard Rate, and distributing the various products at -prices just over cost, the whole eventual surplus being -returned to the purchasers in a rebate or discount on -purchases, called “dividend”; or otherwise appropriated -for the benefit and by direction of the consumers themselves. -Hence there is no danger of private monopoly; no opportunity -for particular groups of producers to make corners in -raw materials; to get monopoly prices for commodities in -times of scarcity, or to resist legitimate improvements in -machinery or processes merely because these would interfere -with the vested interests of the persons owning particular -instruments of production or possessing a particular kind of -skill. In short, the control of industries and services by -Democracies of Consumers realises the Socialist principle of -production for use and not for exchange, with all its manifold -advantages. The most significant of these superiorities -of Production for Use over Production for Exchange is its -inevitable effect on the structure and working of Democracy. -Seeing that the larger the output the smaller the burden of -overhead charges—or, to put it in another way, the greater -the membership the more advantageous the enterprise—Associations -of Consumers are not tempted to close their -ranks. This kind of Democracy automatically remains -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_710">[Pg 710]</span> -always open to new-comers. On the other hand, Associations -of Producers, whether capitalists, technicians or -manual workers, exactly because they turn out commodities -and services not for their own use, but for exchange, are -perpetually impelled to limit their numbers, so as to get, -for the existing membership, the highest possible remuneration. -This kind of Democracy is, therefore, instinctively -exclusive, tending always to become, within the community, -a privileged body. All this amounts to a solid reason in -favour of “nationalisation,” “municipalisation,” and the -consumers’ Co-operative Movement, which is reflected in the -continuous and actually accelerating extension of all of -them, not in one country only, but throughout the civilised -world. -<a id="FNanchor_734" href="#Footnote_734" class="fnanchor">[734]</a></p> - -<p>But the Democracy based on Associations of Consumers, -whether in the National Government, the Municipality, or the -Co-operative Society, reveals certain shortcomings and -defects, some transient and resulting only from the existing -Capitalism, and others needing the remedy of a complementary -Democracy of Producers. So long as we have a -society characterised by gross inequalities of income, it is -inevitable that the conduct of industries and services by -Associations of Consumers should be even more advantageous -to the rich than to the poor, and of little or no use to those -who are destitute. The same trail of a Capitalist environment -affects also the conditions of employment. The -Co-operative Society, the Municipality or the Government -Department cannot practically depart far from the normal -conditions of the rest of the community; and thus avails -little to raise the condition of the manual working class. If, -however, the Associations of Consumers were co-extensive -with the community, they would themselves fix the standard. -But there is a more fundamental criticism. The Democracy -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_711">[Pg 711]</span> -of Consumers, in Co-operative Society, Municipality or -State—however wide may be the franchise, however effective -may be the Parliamentary machinery, and however -much the elected executive is brought under constituency -control—has the outstanding defect to the manual-working -producer that, so far as his own working life is concerned, -he does not feel it to be Democracy at all! The management, -it is complained, is always “government from above.” -It is exactly for this reason that in the evolution of British -Democracy the conduct of industries and services by Associations -of Consumers—whether in the voluntary Co-operative -Society or in the geographically organised Municipality -or State—has had, for a correlative, the organisation of -Associations of Producers, whether Professional Societies -or Trade Unions. Their first object was merely to maintain -and improve their members’ Standard of Life. Without -the enforcement of a Standard Rate and protection against -personal tyranny, government by Associations of Consumers -is apt to develop many of the evils of the “sweating” -characteristic of unrestrained capitalism. It is not now -denied, even by the economists, that Trade Unionism, in -its establishment of the Doctrine of the Common Rule, -and the elaboration of this into the Standard Rate, the -Normal Day, and the Policy of the National Minimum, -has to its credit during the past three-quarters of a century -no small measure of success, with more triumphs easily -within view. Trade Unionism among the manual workers, -like Professional Association among the brain-workers,<a id="FNanchor_735" href="#Footnote_735" class="fnanchor">[735]</a> -has emphatically justified itself by its achievements.</p> - -<p>But Trade Unionism, though it has gone far to protect -the worker from tyranny, has not, as yet, gained for him any -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_712">[Pg 712]</span> -positive participation in industrial management. To this -extent the complaints of the objectors among the manual-working -class are justified. In the perpetual see-saw of -opinion in the Labour world the movement towards Parliamentary -action and in favour of what we may call Communal -Socialism became, at one time, almost an infatuation, -in that its most enthusiastic advocates thought that it would, -by itself, solve all problems. A reaction was inevitable. -The danger is that this reaction may itself take on the -character of an infatuation—this time in favour of the -universal domination of Associations of Producers, and the -“Direct Action” to which they are prone—against which, -in the perpetual see-saw, there will come, in its turn, a -contrary reaction, in the course of which Trade Unionism -itself may suffer.</p> - -<p>This is not to say that the legitimate and desirable movement, -specially characteristic of the present century, for -increased direct participation in “management” of the -Associations of Producers—whether of Professional Societies -or of Trade Unions, of doctors and teachers, or of miners and -railwaymen—has been, in this or any other country, anything -like exhausted. In our view, in fact, it is along these -lines that the next developments are to be expected. But, -unless we are mistaken in our analysis, this does not mean -that the Trade Unions or Professional Societies will take -over the entire management of their industries or services, -for which, in our opinion, no Association of Producers can -be fitted.<a id="FNanchor_736" href="#Footnote_736" class="fnanchor">[736]</a> Democracies of Producers, like Democracies of -Consumers, have their peculiar defects, and develop certain -characteristic toxins from the very intensity of the interests -that they represent. The chief of these defects is the -corporate exclusiveness and corporate selfishness habitually -developed by associations based on the common interest of -a particular section of workers, as against other sections of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_713">[Pg 713]</span> -workers on the one hand, and against the whole body of -consumers and citizens on the other. When Democracies -of Producers own the instruments of production, or even -secure a monopoly of the service to be rendered, they have -always tended in the past to close their ranks, to stereotype -their processes and faculties, to exclude outsiders and to -ban heterodoxy. We see this tendency at work alike in -the ancient and modern world, in the castes of India and -the Gilds of China, in the mediæval Craft Gilds as well as -in the modern Trade Unions and Professional Associations. -So long as the Trade Union is an organ of revolt against -the Capitalist System—so long as the manual workers are -fighting a common enemy in the private owner of land and -capital—this corporate selfishness is held in check; though -the frequency of demarcation disputes, even in the Trade -Union Movement of to-day, gives some indication of what -might happen if the Trade Union became an organ of -government. We see no way of securing the community -of consumers and citizens against this spirit of corporate -exclusiveness, and against the inherent objection of an -existing generation of producers to new methods of working -unfamiliar to them, otherwise than placing the supreme -control in the Democracies of Consumers and citizens. -There is a further and more subtle defect in Democracies -of Producers, the very mention of which may perhaps be -resented by those Industrial Unionists who seek to curb -the “corporateness” of National Gilds by the “self-government” -of the workshop. The experience of self-governing -workshops shows that the relationship between -the indispensable director or manager (who must, like the -conductor of an orchestra, decide the tune and set the -time) and the workers whom he directs becomes hopelessly -untenable if this director or manager is elected or dismissible -by the very persons to whom he gives orders. Over and -over again, in the records of the almost innumerable self-governing -workshops that have been established in Great -Britain or on the Continent, we find their failure intimately -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_714">[Pg 714]</span> -connected with the impracticable position of a manager -directing the workers during the day, and being reprimanded -or altogether superseded by a committee meeting of these -same workers in the evening! Finally, there is the difficult -question of the price to be put on the article when it passes -to the consumer. Normally the price of a commodity must -cover the cost of production, and this cost is, in the main, -determined by the character of the machinery and process -employed. Hence, if the organised workers are given the -power to decide not only the number and qualifications of -the persons to be employed but also the machinery and -process to be used, they will, in fact, determine the price to -be charged to the consumer—not always to the consumer’s -advantage, or consistently with the interests of other sections -of workers. -<a id="FNanchor_737" href="#Footnote_737" class="fnanchor">[737]</a></p> - -<p>To sum up, we expect to see the supreme authority in -each industry or service vested, not in the workers as such, -but in the community as a whole. Any National Board -may well include representatives of the producers of the -particular product or service, and also of its consumers, -but they must be reinforced by the presence of representatives -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_715">[Pg 715]</span> -of the community organised as citizens, interested in -the future as well as the present prosperity of the community. -The management of industry, a complex function -of many kinds and grades, will, as we see it, not be the -sole sphere of either the one or the other set of partners, -but is clearly destined to be distributed between them—the -actual direction and decision being shared between the -representatives of the Trade Union or Professional Society -on the one hand, and those of the community in Co-operative -Society, Municipality, or National Government on the other. -And this recognition of the essential partnership in management -between Associations of Producers and that Association -of Consumers which is the community in one or other -form, will, we suggest, take different shapes in different -industries and services, in different countries, and at different -periods; and, as we must add, will necessarily take time -and thought to work out in detail. One thing is clear. -There will be a steadily increasing recognition of a fundamental -change in the status both of the directors and -managers of industry (who are now usually either themselves -capitalists, or hired for the service of capitalist interests), -and of the technicians and manual workers. The directors -and managers of industry, however they may be selected -and paid, will become increasingly the officers of the community, -serving not their own but the whole community’s -interests. The technicians and manual workers will become -ever less and less the personal servants of the directors and -managers; and will be more and more enrolled, like them, -in the service, not of any private employer, but of the -community itself, whether the form be that of State or -Municipality or Co-operative Society, or any combination -or variant of these. To use the expression of the present -General Secretary of the Miners’ Federation (Frank Hodges), -manager, technician, and manual worker alike will become -parties to a “social” as distinguished from a commercial -contract. All alike, indeed, whatever may be the exact -form of ownership of the instruments of production, will, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_716">[Pg 716]</span> -so far as function is concerned, become increasingly partners -in the performance of a common public service.</p> - -<p>We see in this evolution a great future for the Trade -Unions, if they will, in organisation and personal equipment, -rise to the height of their enlarged function. They will -need, by amalgamation or federation, and by affording -facilities for easy admission and for a simple transfer of -membership, to make themselves much more nearly than -at present co-extensive with their several industries. They -will have to make special provision in their constitutions to -secure an effective representation, on their own executive and -legislative councils, of distinct crafts, grades, or specialisations, -which must always form small minorities of the whole -body. They will find it necessary to make the local organisation -of their members, in branch or district, much more -coincident than at present with their members’ several -places of employment, so as to approximate to making -identical the workshop and the branch. There would seem -to be a great development opening up for the Works Committees -and the “Shop Stewards,” brought effectively into -organic relation with the nationally settled industrial policy. -At any rate, in industries already passing under the control -of Associations of Consumers, whether by nationalisation or -municipalisation, or by the spread of consumers’ co-operation, -there will be great scope for District Councils and National -Boards, as well as for Advisory and Research Committees -representative of different specialities, in which managers -and foremen, technicians and operatives, will jointly supersede -the capitalist Board of Directors. But the management -of each industry is very far from being the whole of the task. -In Parliament itself, and on Municipal Councils, the World -of Labour, by hand or by brain, will need to give a continuous -and an equal backing to its own political party, in order to see -to it that it has its own representatives—specialised and -trained for this supreme political function—not by ones and -twos, but in force; gradually coming, in fact, to predominate -over the representatives of the surviving capitalist -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_717">[Pg 717]</span> -and landlord parties. Trade Unionists, in the mass, will -not only have to continue and extend the loyalty and self-devotion -which have always been characteristic of successful -Trade Unionism, but also to acquire a more comprehensive -understanding of the working of democratic institutions, a -more accurate appreciation of the imperative necessity of -combining both the leading types of democratic self-government—on -the one hand the self-government based -on the common needs of the whole population divided into -geographical constituencies, and on the other the self-government -springing from the special requirements of -men and women bound together by the fellowship of a -common task and a common technique. The Trade Unions -and Professional Societies, if they are increasingly to participate -in the government of their industries and services, will -in particular have to provide themselves with a greater -number of whole-time specialist representatives, better paid -and more considerately treated than at present, and supplied -with increased opportunities for education and training.</p> - -<p>We end on a note of warning. The object and purpose -of the workers, organised vocationally in Trade Unions and -Professional Associations, and politically in the Labour -Party, is no mere increase of wages or reduction of hours.<a id="FNanchor_738" href="#Footnote_738" class="fnanchor">[738]</a> -It comprises nothing less than a reconstruction of society, -by the elimination, from the nation’s industries and services, -of the Capitalist Profitmaker, and the consequent shrinking -up of the class of functionless persons who live merely by -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_718">[Pg 718]</span> -owning. Profit-making as a pursuit, with its sanctification -of the motive of pecuniary self-interest, is the demon that -has to be exorcised. The journey of the Labour Party -towards its goal must necessarily be a long and arduous -one. In the painful “Pilgrim’s Progress” of Democracy -the workers will be perpetually tempted into by-paths -that lead only to the Slough of Despond. It is not so -much the enticing away of individuals in the open pursuit -of wealth that is to be feared, as the temptation of particular -Trade Unions, or particular sections of the workers, to -enter into alliances with Associations of Capitalist Employers -for the exploitation of the consumer. “Co-partnership,” -or profit-sharing with individual capitalists, has -been seen through and rejected. But the “co-partnership” -of Trade Unions with Associations of Capitalists—whether -as a development of “Whitley Councils” or otherwise—which -far-sighted capitalists will presently offer in specious -forms (with a view, particularly, to Protective Customs -Tariffs and other devices for maintaining unnecessarily -high prices, or to governmental favours and remissions -of taxation) is, we fear, hankered after by some Trade -Union leaders, and might be made seductive to particular -grades or sections of workers. Any such policy, however -plausible, would in our judgement be a disastrous undermining -of the solidarity of the whole working class, and a -formidable obstacle to any genuine Democratic Control of -Industry, as well as to any general progress in personal -freedom and in the more equal sharing of the National -Product.</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_707" href="#FNanchor_707" class="label">[707]</a>See his <i>Arbeitergilden der Gegenwart</i>, 1871-72; his more generalised -survey, <i>Das Arbeitsverhältniss gemäss den heutigen Recht</i>(Leipsic, 1877), -translated as <i>The Relation of Labour to the Law of To-day</i>(New York, -1890); and his article on “The Growth of a Trades Union,” in the <i>North -British Review</i>, October 1870.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_708" href="#FNanchor_708" class="label">[708]</a>Sec. 24 of the Factory Act of 1891 provides, as regards textile manufactures, -that the employer shall supply every worker by the piece with -certain particulars as to the quantity of work and rate of remuneration -for it.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_709" href="#FNanchor_709" class="label">[709]</a><i>History of Trade Unionism</i>, by S. and B. Webb, 1st ed., 1894, -pp. 476-78.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_710" href="#FNanchor_710" class="label">[710]</a>The most important sources of information are the Annual Reports -of the Trades Union Congress, 1874-1919, and other publications of its -Parliamentary Committee; those of the Annual Conferences of the -Labour Representation Committee, 1901-5, and of the Labour Party, -1906-19, together with the Party’s other publications, especially <i>Labour -and the New Social Order</i>, 1918; the reports and contemporary publications -of the Socialist Societies, especially the Independent Labour Party -from 1893, and the Fabian Society from 1884; <i>Labour Year Book</i> for -1916 and 1919; <i>History of British Socialism</i>, by M. Beer, vol. ii., 1920; -<i>History of the British Trades Union Congress</i>, by W. J. Davis, 2 vols., -1910, 1916; <i>Die englische Arbeiterpartei</i>, by G. Guettler, 1914; <i>Aims of -Labour</i>, by Rt. Hon. A. Henderson, 1918; <i>History of the Fabian Society</i>, -by E. R. Pease, 1916; <i>History of Labour Representation</i>, by A. W. Humphrey, -1912; biographies of Joseph Arch, Henry Broadhurst, Robert Applegarth, -Thomas Burt, John Wilson, J. H. Thomas, W. J. Davis, etc.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_711" href="#FNanchor_711" class="label">[711]</a>The movement for “Labour Representation” (which “at that time -meant working-men members of Parliament and nothing else,” <i>History -of Labour Representation</i>, by A. W. Humphrey, 1912) was first got under -way by George Potter’s London Working Men’s Association in 1866, -mentioned at the end of Chapter VI. At the second Trades Union Congress, -at Birmingham in 1869, a paper had been read on “Direct Labour -Representation in Parliament,” but Congress took no action. A separate -“Labour Representation League” was then formed under the presidency -of R. M. Lathom, a Chancery barrister, to which many leading Trade -Unionists belonged, of which Henry Broadhurst was secretary from 1872 -to about 1878, and which sought from the Liberal Party opportunities -for the return of a few working-class members; but (as formerly in the -cases of William Newton’s contest for the Tower Hamlets in 1852 and -George Odger’s at Southwark in 1870) in vain. At the General Election -of 1874, as we have already described, fourteen workmen went to the poll; -but in ten of the constituencies they were fought by both parties, and -only in the other four did the Liberals allow them to be fought by Conservatives -alone, with the result that two only (out of the latter four) -were elected, namely, Alexander Macdonald and Thomas Burt. At the -General Election in 1880, again with Liberal acquiescence, Henry Broadhurst -was added to their number; and in 1885 this was raised to eleven -(of whom six were miners). All these, whilst pushing measures desired -by the Trade Unions, acted habitually with the Liberal Party. In 1886—the -Labour Representation League having faded away about 1881—the -Congress appointed a “Labour Electoral Committee” to do the -same work; but this was never able to free itself from subserviency to -the Liberal Party, and it achieved no success, dying away in 1893. Some -personal reminiscences are given in “Labour Representation Thirty Years -Ago,” by Henry Broadhurst, M.P., in the <i>Fourth Annual Report of General -Federation of Trade Unions</i>, 1903; see also <i>History of Labour Representation</i>, -by A. W. Humphrey, 1912.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_712" href="#FNanchor_712" class="label">[712]</a>In a “scribbling diary” of 1884 is the following entry:</p> - -<p>“Written by Jas. K. Hardie, born August 15, 1856, married August 3, -1879, began work as a message boy in Glasgow when 8 years and 9 months -old, wrought for some time also in a printing office in Trongate, in the -brass finishing shop of the Anchor Line Shipping Co., also as a rivet -heater in Thompson’s heatyard. Left Glasgow in the year 1866 and went -into No. 18 pit of the Moss at Newarthill, from thence to Quarter Iron -Works, and again to one or two other collieries in neighbourhood of -Hamilton. Was elected Secretary to Miners’ Association in 1878, and -for the same position in Ayrshire in 1879; resigned April, 1882, when got -appointment unsolicited as correspondent to <i>Cumnock News</i>. Brought -up an atheist, converted to Christianity in 1878.”</p> - -<p>Keir Hardie, whose kindliness and integrity of character endeared him -to all who knew him, was from 1887 down to his death in 1915 the apostle -of “independency” in the political organisation of Labour. He sat in -the Trades Union Congress from 1887 to 1895 as representative of the -Ayrshire Miners; and in the House of Commons from 1892 to 1895 (for -West Ham), from 1906 to 1915 (for Merthyr). He was Chairman of the -“I.L.P.” from 1893 to 1898, and again in 1914. Pending the publication -of a biography by W. Stewart, reference may be made to a biographical -Sketch entitled <i>From Pit to Parliament</i>, by Frank Smith; a character -sketch by F. Pethick Lawrence in the <i>Labour Record</i> for August 1905; -the issues of the <i>Labour Leader</i> for September 30 and October 7, 1915; -and an article entitled “An Old Diary,” by F. J. in the <i>Socialist Review</i>, -January 1919.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_713" href="#FNanchor_713" class="label">[713]</a><i>Annual Report of Trades Union Congress</i>, 1887.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_714" href="#FNanchor_714" class="label">[714]</a>It is said that the Liberal Party agents attempted, in vain, to bribe -him to withdraw; eventually offering as high a price as a safe Liberal -seat on the first opportunity, all his election expenses, and £300 a year—if -only he would wear the Liberal badge!</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_715" href="#FNanchor_715" class="label">[715]</a>See, for instance, the following “Fabian Tracts,” which had a large -circulation among Trade Unionists: No. 6 of 1887, “The True Radical -Programme”; No. 11 of 1890, “The Workers’ Political Programme”; -No. 40 of 1892, “The Fabian Election Manifesto”; No. 49 of 1894, “A -Plan of Campaign for Labour” (<i>History of the Fabian Society</i>, by E. R. -Pease, 1916).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_716" href="#FNanchor_716" class="label">[716]</a>These included John Burns (Amalgamated Society of Engineers), -J. Havelock Wilson (National Sailors’ and Firemen’s Union), Joseph -Arch (Agricultural Labourers’ Union), W. R. (afterwards Sir William) -Cremer (General Union of Carpenters), G. Howell (Operative Bricklayers’ -Society), J. Rowlands (an ex-watchcase-maker), and eight coalminers.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_717" href="#FNanchor_717" class="label">[717]</a>By J. O’Grady (Furnishing Trades), afterwards M.P. for Leeds; -<i>Annual Report of Trades Union Congress</i>, 1898.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_718" href="#FNanchor_718" class="label">[718]</a>This was adopted in preference to what was considered a more -extreme proposal (moved by P. Vogel of the Waiters’ Union, a Socialist), -appointing the Trades Union Congress itself the organisation for independent -Labour representation in Parliament; requiring every Union -to contribute a halfpenny per member per annum, and making the -Parliamentary Committee disburse the election expenses and the salaries -of the members returned to the House of Commons (<i>Annual Report of -Trades Union Congress</i>, 1899).</p> - -<p>It was afterwards stated that the leaders of the Trades Union Congress -had had in contemplation the subordination of the Labour Representation -Committee to the Congress. But with a different constituency -the new body had necessarily to be an independent organisation; and in -1904 the General Purposes Committee reported to the Trades Union -Congress, which endorsed the report, that any resolution to endorse or -amend the constitution of the Labour Representation Committee would -not be in order at the Trades Union Congress (<i>ibid.</i>, 1904).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_719" href="#FNanchor_719" class="label">[719]</a>D. J. (afterwards Sir David) Shackleton (Lancashire Weavers) was -allowed a walk-over at Clitheroe in 1902; and in 1903 W. (afterwards -the Rt. Honourable W.) Crooks (Coopers) carried Woolwich after an -exciting contest, and Arthur (afterwards the Rt. Honourable Arthur) -Henderson (Friendly Society of Ironfounders) won Barnard Castle in a -three-cornered fight.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_720" href="#FNanchor_720" class="label">[720]</a>In some Unions outside influence, notably that of the railway companies, -went to the expense of printing and distributing hundreds of -thousands of forms by which dissentient members could claim exemption -from the tiny “political” contribution; and in the Amalgamated Society -of Railway Servants, in particular, thousands of such claims were made. -The number has now greatly diminished (1920).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_721" href="#FNanchor_721" class="label">[721]</a><i>The Daily Citizen</i> was started by a separate limited company, in -which the control was permanently secured to representatives of the Trade -Unions and the Labour Party, on November 8, 1912. The total capital -raised from the Trade Unions from first to last was approximately -£200,000. This important journalistic venture, starting under good -auspices, met with untoward circumstances. It was crippled by a legal -decision that Trade Unions had no power to subscribe to its cost, or even -to make investments in its shares (an inference from the Osborne Judgement, -which was reversed by the Trade Union Act of 1913, subject to -compliance with the conditions as to political expenditure). Before this -set-back could be got over, the outbreak of war upset all financial calculations, -and made the conduct of a newspaper increasingly onerous. The -paper stopped on June 5, 1915, and the company was wound up, all -creditors being paid in full, but the shareholders losing practically all that -they had ventured. The failure was a serious blow to the Labour Party, -which has been badly in want of a daily newspaper—a lack supplied in -1919 by the energetic and adventurous <i>Daily Herald</i>, which, under the -direction of Mr. George Lansbury, has drawn to itself an unusual amount -of talent, and now needs only whole-hearted support from the Trade -Unions.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_722" href="#FNanchor_722" class="label">[722]</a>It was, for instance, only the determined private resistance of the -Trade Unionist leaders of the Labour Party that compelled the Government -to abandon its project of introducing several hundred thousand -Chinese labourers into Great Britain; a project which, if carried out, -not only might have been calamitous in its effect upon the Standard of -Life of the British workman—not to mention other evil consequences—but -would almost certainly have also led to a Labour revolt against the -continuance of the war. In this connection may be noted the valuable -work done throughout the war, not in the interests of Trade Unionism -only, but in those of the wage-earning class, and of the community as a -whole, by the War Emergency Workers’ National Committee (J. S. -Middleton, Honorary Secretary), a body which included representatives -not only of the Parliamentary Committee, Labour Party, and General -Federation, but also of the Co-operative Union, the National Union of -Teachers, and other organisations. The valuable though often unwelcome -assistance which this Committee gave to the Government by insisting on -the redress of grievances that officialdom would have ignored, and by its -working out of policy and persistence in agitation on such matters as -pensions, limitation of prices, food-rationing, rent restriction, and other -subjects, on which its publications had marked results, deserve the attention -of the historian.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_723" href="#FNanchor_723" class="label">[723]</a>Subsequently Mr. J. R. Clynes (National Union of General Workers) -was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Food; and on -Lord Rhondda’s death he succeeded him as Minister of Food.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_724" href="#FNanchor_724" class="label">[724]</a>See the printed reports of Labour Party Conferences and Trades -Union Congresses, 1914-19.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_725" href="#FNanchor_725" class="label">[725]</a><i>Report of the Inter-Allied Socialist and Labour Conference</i>, February -15, 1915.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_726" href="#FNanchor_726" class="label">[726]</a>Mr. Hodge succeeded to Mr. Barnes as Minister of Pensions, Mr. -Roberts to Mr. Hodge as Minister of Labour, and Mr. G. J. Wardle (National -Union of Railwaymen) to Mr. Roberts as Parliamentary Secretary of the -Board of Trade.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_727" href="#FNanchor_727" class="label">[727]</a><i>Memorandum on War Aims</i>(Labour Party), February 1918.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_728" href="#FNanchor_728" class="label">[728]</a>It is difficult not to be struck with the greater breadth of vision, -the higher idealism, and (as we venture to say) the larger statesmanship -of the Labour Party in its projects and proposals for the resettlement of -the world after the Great War, compared with those which the statesmen -and diplomatists of the capitalist parties of Great Britain, France, Italy, -and, as we grieve to say, also the United States, with the acquiescence of -deliberately inflamed popular electorates, succeeded in embodying in the -Treaty of Peace. Apart from the indefensible redistributions of political -sovereignty, not essentially differing in spirit from those of the Congress -of Vienna in 1814-15 (and probably less stable even than these), against -which Labour opinion had strongly protested in advance, it is impossible -not to regret the failure to incorporate in the Treaty the proposals, for which -the Labour Party had secured the support of the organised working-class -opinion of the world, for (i.) the universal abandonment of discriminatory -fiscal barriers to international trade; (ii.) the administration of -Colonial possessions exclusively in the interest of the local inhabitants, -and on the basis of equality of opportunity for traders of all nations; -(iii.) concerted international control of the exportable surplus of materials -and food-stuffs of all the several countries, so as to mitigate, as far as -possible, in the general world-shortage which the Labour Party foresaw, -the inevitable widespread starvation in the most necessitous areas, whether -enemy, allied, or neutral; (iv.) deliberate Government action in each -country for the prevention of unemployment, instead of letting it occur -and then merely relieving the unemployed. In questions of foreign -policy the Labour Party, inspired by its idealism, has shown itself at its -best, instead of this department of politics being, as is often ignorantly -assumed, altogether beyond its capacity.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_729" href="#FNanchor_729" class="label">[729]</a>The new constitution and enlarged programme which the Labour -Party adopted at its Conferences of 1917-18, after six months’ consideration -and discussion by the constituent organisations, were little more -than a ratification for general adoption of what had become the practice -of particular districts. Thus, the more active Local Labour Parties, such -as those of Woolwich and Blackburn, had long welcomed the adhesion of -supporters who were not manual workers. The successive annual Conferences -had passed resolutions which, taken together, amounted to a -pretty complete programme of constructive legislation, wholly Collectivist -in principle. Hence the deliberate and formal opening of the Party, -through the Local Labour Parties, to “workers by brain” as well as -“workers by hand”; and the explicit adoption, as a programme, of -<i>Labour and the New Social Order</i> were not such innovations as the newspapers -made out and as the public generally supposed. But they created -a sensation, not only in the United Kingdom, but also in the United States -and in the British Dominions; and they led to a considerable accession -of membership, largely from the professional and middle classes, which -was steadily increased as the unsatisfactory character of the Treaty of -Peace, the continued “militarism” of the Government, and the aggression -of a “Protectionist” capitalism became manifest.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_730" href="#FNanchor_730" class="label">[730]</a>Messrs. Barnes, Roberts (who became Minister of Food), Parker, and -Wardle.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_731" href="#FNanchor_731" class="label">[731]</a>Mr. Henderson was re-elected to Parliament in 1919 at a bye-election, -capturing a strong Conservative seat at Widnes (Lancashire).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_732" href="#FNanchor_732" class="label">[732]</a>A “Joint Board”—from which the General Federation of Trade -Unions was afterwards excluded—and, later on, joint meetings of the -Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress and the Executive -Committee of the Labour Party, did something to remove friction.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_733" href="#FNanchor_733" class="label">[733]</a>For the successive experiments in Co-operative Production by -Associations of Producers the student is referred to <i>The Co-operative -Movement in Great Britain</i>, by Beatrice Potter (Mrs. Sidney Webb) (1891); -<i>Co-operative Production</i>, by Benjamin Jones (1894); and, for a more -recent survey, the supplement to <i>The New Statesman</i> of February 14, -1914, entitled “Co-operative Production and Profit Sharing.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_734" href="#FNanchor_734" class="label">[734]</a>See <i>Towards Social Democracy?</i> by Sidney Webb (1916); and for -recent surveys, the supplements to <i>The New Statesman</i> of May 30, 1914, -and May 8, 1915, entitled, respectively, “The Co-operative Movement” -and “State and Municipal Enterprise.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_735" href="#FNanchor_735" class="label">[735]</a>For a recent survey of Professional Association in England and -Wales—the only general study of it known to us—see the supplements to -the <i>New Statesman</i> of September 25 and October 2, 1915 (“English -Teachers and their Professional Associations”), and April 21 and 28, -1917 (“Professional Associations”). The student will note the distinction -between two types of associations among professional brain-workers, one -having essentially Trade Union purposes, the other (which we distinguish -as the Scientific Society) concerned only for the increase of knowledge.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_736" href="#FNanchor_736" class="label">[736]</a>We add as an Appendix an extract from the concluding chapter of -our <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, published in 1897, in which we dealt with this -point.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_737" href="#FNanchor_737" class="label">[737]</a>We do not discuss here all the difficulties inherent in the government -of a large and populous community—such, for instance, as that of -combining a large measure of local autonomy (which is what many people -mean by freedom) with the necessary unity of national policy and central -control (without which there would be gross inequality, internecine strife, -and chaos). This difficulty has to be faced alike by Industrial Unionists, -Gild Socialists, and the advocates of Democracy based on geographical -constituencies. Nor have we mentioned the problems, in which the Trade -Unions have their own wealth of experience, as to the relationship between -elected representatives and their constituents; between representative -assemblies and executive committees; and between executive committees -and the official staff. These problems and difficulties (on which we have -written in our <i>Industrial Democracy</i>) are common to all democratic systems -of administration, whether based on constituencies of producers, consumers, -or citizens. It seems to us that constituencies of producers present -special difficulties of their own, such as (i.) that of defining the boundaries -between industries or services, and (ii.) the problem, within an industry -or a service, of how to provide for the representation of numerically -unequal distinct sections, groups, or grades, each with its own <i>technique</i>. -The further we go in Democracy the more complicated it becomes, and -the greater the need for knowledge.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_738" href="#FNanchor_738" class="label">[738]</a>This is well put by an American economist. “The Trade Union -programme, or rather the Trade Union programmes, for each Trade -Union has a programme of its own, is not the unrelated economic demands -and methods which it is usually conceived to be, but it is a closely integrated -social philosophy and plan of action. In the case of most Union types -the programme centres indeed about economic demands and methods, but -it rests on the broad foundation of the conception of right, of rights, and -of general theory peculiar to the workers; and it fans out to reflect all -the economic, ethical, juridical, and social hopes and fears, aims, attitudes, -and aspirations of the group. It expresses the workers’ social theory and -the rules of the game to which they are committed, not only in industry -but in social affairs generally. It is the organised workers’ conceptual -world” (<i>Trade Unionism in the United States</i>, by R. F. Hoxie, p. 280).</p> - -</div> -</div> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_719">[Pg 719]</span></p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_720">[Pg 720]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="APPENDIX">APPENDICES</h2> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_721">[Pg 721]</span></p> -<h3 id="APPENDIX_I">APPENDIX I</h3> -</div> - -<p class="h3sub">ON THE ASSUMED CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TRADE UNIONS -AND THE GILDS IN DUBLIN</p> - -<p>In Dublin the Trade Union descent from the Gilds is embodied -in the printed documents of the Unions themselves, and is -commonly assumed to be confirmed by their possession of the -Gild charters. The Trade Union banners not only, in many -cases, bear the same arms as the old Gilds, but often also the -date of their incorporation. Thus, the old society of “regular” -carpenters (now a branch of the Amalgamated) claims to date -from 1490; the “Regular Operative House-painters’ Trade -Union” connects itself with the Guild of St. Luke, 1670; and -the local unions of bricklayers and plasterers assume the date -of the incorporation of the Bricklayers’ and Plasterers’ Company -by Charles II. (1670). The box of the Dublin Bricklayers’ -Society does, in fact, contain a parchment which purports to -be the original charter of the latter Company. How this document, -given to the exclusively Protestant incorporation of -working masters, which was abolished by Statute in 1840, came -into the possession of what has always been a mainly Roman -Catholic body of wage-earners, dating certainly from 1830, is -not clear. The parchment, which is bereft of its seal and bears -on the back, in the handwriting of a lawyer’s clerk, the words -“Bricklayers, 28th June, 1843,” was probably thrown aside as -worthless after the dissolution of the Company.</p> - -<p>A search among contemporary pamphlets brought to light -an interesting episode in the history of the Dublin building -trades. It appears that, after the dissolution of the Company, -Benjamin Pemberton, who had been Master, and who was -evidently a man of energy and ability, attempted to form an -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_722">[Pg 722]</span> -alliance between the then powerful journeymen bricklayers’ and -plasterers’ societies and the master bricklayers and plasterers, -in order to resist the common enemy, the “foreign contractor.” -This had long been a favourite project of Pemberton’s. Already -in 1812 he had urged the rapidly decaying Company to resist the -uprising of “builders,” and to admit Roman Catholic craftsmen. -But the Company, which then included scarcely a dozen practising -master bricklayers or plasterers, took no action. In 1832 -Pemberton turned to the men, and vainly proposed to the -“Trades Political Union,” a kind of Trades Council, that they -should take common action against “the contract system.” -At last, in 1846, six years after the abolition of the Company, -he seems to have succeeded in forming some kind of alliance. -The journeymen bricklayers and plasterers were induced to -accept, from himself and his associates, formal certificates of -proficiency. Several of these certificates, signed by Pemberton -and other employers, are in the possession of the older workmen, -but no one could explain to us their use. The alliance probably -rested on some promise of preference for employment on the -one part, and refusal to work for a contractor on the other. -This close connection between a leading member of the Company -and the Trade Unionists may perhaps account for the old charter, -then become waste paper, finding its way into the Trade Union -chest.</p> - -<p>Particulars of Pemberton’s action will be found in the pamphlet -entitled <i>An Address of the Bricklayers and Plasterers to the -Tradesmen of the City of Dublin on the necessity of their co-operating -for the attainment of their corporate rights and privileges</i>, by -Benjamin Pemberton (Dublin, 1833, 36 pages), preserved in -Vol. 1567 of the <i>Haliday Tracts</i> in the Royal Irish Academy. -In no other case, either in Dublin or elsewhere, have we found -a Trade Union in possession of any Gild documents or relics.</p> - -<p>The absolute impossibility of any passage of the Dublin -Companies into the local Trade Unions will be apparent when -we remember that the bulk of the wage-earning population of -the city are, and have always been, Roman Catholics. The -Dublin Companies were, to the last, rigidly confined to Episcopalian -Protestants. Even after the barriers had been nominally -removed by the Catholic Emancipation in 1829, the Companies, -then shrunk up into little cliques of middle-class capitalists, with -little or no connection with the trades, steadfastly refused to -admit any Roman Catholics to membership. A few well-to-do -Roman Catholics forced themselves in between 1829 and 1838 -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_723">[Pg 723]</span> -by mandamus. But when inquiry was made in 1838 by the -Commissioners appointed under the Municipal Corporations Act, -only half a dozen Roman Catholics were members, and the -Companies were found to be composed, in the main, of capitalists -and professional men. There is no evidence that even one wage-earner -was in their ranks. Long before this time the Trade -Unions of Dublin had obtained an unenviable notoriety. Already, -in 1824, the Chief Constable of Dublin testified to the complete -organisation of the operatives in illegal associations. In 1838 -O’Connell made his celebrated attack upon them in the House -of Commons, which led to a Select Committee. In short, whilst -the Dublin Companies were, until their abolition by the Act of -1840, in much the same condition as those of London, with the -added fact of religious exclusiveness, the Dublin Trade Unions -were long before that date at the height of their power.</p> - -<p>The adoption by the Dublin Trade Unions of the arms, -mottoes, saints, and dates of origin of the old Dublin Gilds is -more interesting as a trait of Irish character than as any proof -of historic continuity. Thus, in their rules of 1883, the bricklayers -content themselves with repeating the original preface -common to the Trade Societies which were formed in the beginning -of this century, to the effect that “the journeyman -bricklayers of the City of Dublin have imposed on themselves -the adoption of the following laudable scheme of raising a Fund -for friendly society purposes.” A card of membership, dated -1830, bears no reference to the Gild or Company of Bricklayers -and Plasterers from whom descent is now claimed. The rules -of 1883 are entitled those of the “incorporated” brick or stone -layers’ association, and in the edition of 1888 this had developed -into the “Ancient Gild of Saint Bartholomew.” Finally, the -coat of arms of the old company with the date of its incorporation -(“<span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 1670”) appear on the new banner of the society. -Similarly, the old local society of “Regular Carpenters,” which -was well known as a Trade Union in 1824, and was engaged -in a strike in 1833 (seven years before the abolition of the -“Company of Carpenters, Millers, Masons, and Tylers, or Gild -of the fraternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the house of -St. Thomas the Martyr,” established by Henry VIII. in 1532), -adopted for the first time, in its rules of 1881, the coat of arms -and motto of the Gild, but retained its own title of “The United -Brothers of St. Joseph.” The card of membership, printed in -1887, boldly gives the date of establishment as 1458, whilst -other printed matter places it at 1490. The Dublin painters -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_724">[Pg 724]</span> -now inscribe 1670 on their new banner, but the earliest traditions -of their members date only from 1820. In short, the Irish -Trade Unionist, with his genuine love for the picturesque, and -his reverence for historical association, has steadily “annexed” -antiquity, and has embraced every opportunity for transferring -the origin of his society a few generations further back.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_725">[Pg 725]</span></p> -<h3 id="APPENDIX_II">APPENDIX II</h3> -</div> - -<p class="hanging2"><span class="allsmcap">RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE GRAND NATIONAL -CONSOLIDATED TRADES UNION OF GREAT BRITAIN AND -IRELAND, INSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE MORE -EFFECTUALLY ENABLING THE WORKING CLASSES TO SECURE, -PROTECT, AND ESTABLISH THE RIGHTS OF INDUSTRY</span>(1834). -(Goldsmiths’ Library, University of London.)</p> - -<p>I. Each Trade in this Consolidated Union shall have its -Grand Lodge in that town or city most eligible for it; such -Grand Lodge to be governed internally by a Grand Master, -Deputy Grand Master, and Grand Secretary, and a Committee -of Management.</p> - -<p>II. Each Grand Lodge shall have its District Lodges, in any -number, to be designated or named after the town or city in -which the District Lodge is founded.</p> - -<p>III. Each Grand Lodge shall be considered the head of its -own particular trade, and to have certain exclusive powers -accordingly; but in all other respects the Grand Lodges are to -answer the same ends as the District Lodges.</p> - -<p>IV. Each District Lodge shall embrace within itself all -operatives of the same trade, living in smaller towns or villages -adjacent to it; and shall be governed internally by a President, -Vice-President, Secretary, and a Committee of Management.</p> - -<p>V. Each District Lodge shall have (if necessary) its Branch -Lodge or Lodges, numbered in rotation; such Branch Lodges -to be under the control of the District Lodge from which they -sprung.</p> - -<p>VI. An unlimited number of the above described Lodges -shall form and constitute the Grand National Consolidated -Trades Union of Great Britain and Ireland.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_726">[Pg 726]</span></p> - -<p>VII. Each District shall have its Central Committee, composed -of a Deputy, or Deputies, from every District Lodge of -the different trades in the district; such Central Committee -shall meet once in every week to superintend and watch over -the interests of the Consolidated Union in that District, transmitting -a report of the same, monthly, to the Executive Council -in London, together with any suggestions of improvements they -may think proper.</p> - -<p>VIII. The General government of the G.N.C.T.U. shall be -vested in a Grand Council of Delegates from each of the Central -Committees of all the Districts in the C.U., to be holden every -six months, at such places as shall be decided upon at the -preceding Council; the next Meeting of the Grand Council of -the C.U. to be held on the first day of September 1834, and to -continue its sitting so long as may be requisite.</p> - -<p>IX. During the recess of the Grand Council of Delegates, -the Government of the C.U. shall be vested in an Executive -Council of Five; which Executive will in future be chosen at -the Grand Delegate Council aforesaid.</p> - -<p>X. All dispensations or grants for the formation of new -Lodges shall come from the Grand Lodge of each particular -trade, or from the Executive Council. Applications for dispensations -to come through the Central Committee of the -District or by memorial, signed by at least 20 Operatives of -the place where such new Lodge is proposed to be founded.</p> - -<p>XI. The Executive Council shall act as trustees for all -Funds provided by the C.U., for the adjustment of strikes, the -purchasing or renting of land, establishing provision stores, -workshops, etc.; or for any other purposes connected with the -general benefit of the whole of the Union.</p> - -<p>XII. All sums for the above purposes to be transmitted from -the Lodges to the Executive Council through some safe and -accredited medium.</p> - -<p>XIII. District and Grand Lodges shall have the control of -their own funds, subject to the levies imposed upon them by -the Executive Council.</p> - -<p>XIV. The ordinary weekly subscriptions of members be -threepence each member.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_727">[Pg 727]</span></p> - -<p>XV. No strike or turn out for an <i>advance</i> of wages shall be -made by the members of any Lodge in the Consolidated Union -without the consent of the Executive Council; but in all cases -of a <i>reduction</i> of wages the Central Committee of the District -shall have the power of deciding whether a strike shall or shall -not take place; and should such Central Committee be necessitated -to order a levy in support of such strike brought on by -such reduction of wages, such order shall be made on all the -Lodges; in the first instance, in the District in which such -reduction hath taken place; and on advice being forwarded to -the Executive they shall consider the case, and order accordingly.</p> - -<p>XVI. No higher sum than 10s. per week each shall be paid -to members during a strike or turn out.</p> - -<p>XVII. All Lodges shall be divided into local sections of 20 -men each, or as near that number as may be.</p> - -<h4><i>Miscellaneous and Auxiliary Lodges</i></h4> - -<p>XVIII. In all cases where the number of operatives in a -particular Trade, in any District, is too limited to allow of such -Trade forming a Lodge of itself, the members of such Trade -shall be permitted to become Unionists by joining the Lodge -of any other Trade in the District. Should there be several -Trades in a District thus limited with respect to the number -of their Operatives, they shall be allowed to form together a -District Miscellaneous Lodge, with permission, in order to -extend the sphere of the brotherhood, to hold out the hand of -fellowship to all really useful Labourers employed productively.</p> - -<p>XIX. And, in order that all acknowledged Friends to the -Productive Classes may attach themselves to the C.U., an -Auxiliary Lodge may be established in every City or Town in -the Kingdom. The members of each Lodge shall conform to -all the Rules and Regulations herein contained, and be bound -in the same manner, and subject to all the Laws of the -G.U.C.T.U.; and shall not, in any manner, or at any time or -place, speak or write <i>anything</i> in opposition to these Laws or -the interests of the Union aforesaid. The Auxiliary Lodge shall -be liable to be dissolved according to Article XXII.</p> - -<p>XX. Lodges of Industrious Females shall be instituted in -every District where it may be practicable; such Lodges to be -considered, in every respect, as part of, and belonging to, the -G.N.C.T.U.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_728">[Pg 728]</span></p> - -<h4><i>Employment of Turn Outs</i></h4> - -<p>XXI. In all cases of strikes or turn outs, where it is -practicable to employ Members in the making or producing of -such commodities or articles as are in demand among their -brother Unionists, or any other operatives willing to purchase -the same, each Lodge shall provide a work-room or shop in -which such commodities and articles may be manufactured on -account of that Lodge, which shall make proper arrangements -for the supply of the necessary materials; over which arrangements -the Central Committee of the District shall have the -control, subject to the scrutiny of the Grand Lodge Committee -of the Trade on strike.</p> - -<p>XXII. The Grand Lodge of each Trade to have the power -of dissolving any District Lodge, in that Trade, for any -violation of these Laws, any outrage upon the Public Peace, or -for gross neglect of Duty. All Branch, Miscellaneous, or Auxiliary -Lodges to be subject to the same control.</p> - -<p>XXIII. The internal management and general concerns of -each Grand or District Lodge are vested in a Committee of -Management, composed of at least Seven, and not more than -25 Members, each to be chosen by Ballot, and elected -by having not less than three-fourths of the Votes of the -Members present, at the time of his election, in his favour. -The whole of this Committee to go out of office Quarterly, -eligible, however, to re-election. The Grand Master, or President, -and the Secretary, or Grand Secretary of a Grand or a District -Lodge, to be considered Members of its Committee of Management -by virtue of their Offices.</p> - -<p>XXIV. Each Grand Lodge, in this C.U., to be considered -the centre of information regarding the general affairs of its -particular Trade; each District Lodge to communicate with -its Grand Lodge at the end of each month, and to give an -account to it of the number of people Members in the District -Lodge—the gross number of hours of labour performed by -them in that district—the state of its funds—and any local or -general intelligence that may be considered of interest to the -Grand Lodge.</p> - -<p>XXV. The Committee of Management in each Lodge shall -sit at least on one evening in every week for the despatch of -business—and oftener if necessary.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_729">[Pg 729]</span></p> - -<p>XXVI. Each Grand or District Lodge to hold its meetings -on one evening in every month; at which meeting a Report -of the Proceedings of the Committee, during the past month, -shall be laid before the Members, together with an Abstract of -the state of the Funds, an account of the prospects of the -Society, and any propositions or By-Laws which the Committee -may have to suggest for adoption, and any other information -or correspondence of interest to the Members. All nominations -of fresh Officers to be made at Lodge meetings, and all complaints -of Members to be considered and discussed therein.</p> - -<p>XXVII. The Grand Master or Deputy Grand Master, -President, or Vice-President, or both, shall preside at all meetings -of Grand or District Lodges, to keep order, state and put -questions according to the sense and intention of the Members, -give effect to the resolutions, and cause them to be put in force; -and they shall be addressed by Members, during Lodge hours, -by their proper titles.</p> - -<p>XXVIII. No subject which does not immediately concern -the interests of the Trade shall be discussed at any meetings -of Committees or Lodges; and no proposition shall be adopted -in either without the consent of at least three-fourths of the -members present at its proposal—the question to be decided by -ballot if any Member demand it. Not less than five Members -of Committee of Management to constitute a Quorum, provided -the rest have all been duly summoned; no Grand or District -Lodge to be considered open unless at least 30 members be -present.</p> - -<p>XXIX. Each Grand or District Lodge shall have the power -to appoint Sub-Committees to enquire into or manage any -affair touching their interests, of which Committees the head -officers of the Lodge are always to be considered Members.</p> - -<h4><i>Of Secretaries</i></h4> - -<p>XXX. The duties of a secretary to a Grand or District -Lodge are:—To attend Lodge and Committee meetings and take -minutes of the proceedings, entering the same in a book to be -kept for that purpose.</p> - -<p>To conduct all the correspondence of the Society. To take -down the names and addresses of parties desirous of being -initiated into the Order; and upon receiving the initiation fee -from each, and entering the amount into a book, he will give each -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_730">[Pg 730]</span> -party a card, by which they may be admitted into the place -appointed for the ceremony.</p> - -<p>To receive the subscriptions of members, entering the same -into a small account book, numbering the Subscribers from -No. 1, and following up the sequence in regulation order, giving -to each Subscriber a card, on which his contribution or payment -shall be noted.</p> - -<p>To enter all additional weekly payments, and all levies, into -separate small books; all subscriptions and payments to be -afterwards copied into a ledger, ruled expressly for the purpose.</p> - -<p>The Secretary to be paid an adequate weekly salary; and to -be allowed an Assistant if the amount of business require it.</p> - -<p>The Secretary of each Grand or District Lodge shall balance -his books once every fortnight, and the Managing Committee -shall audit them, going over each item of receipt and expenditure -with strict attention, checking the same with scrupulous -care; and if found correct, three of the Committee shall verify -the same by affixing their signatures to the page on which the -balance is struck.</p> - -<h4><i>Initiation</i></h4> - -<p>XXXI. Any of the Officers or Members of a Lodge may be -appointed by the Committee of Management to perform the -Initiation Service; and to have charge of the Robes, etc., for -that purpose; for which the Committee may allow him a reasonable -remuneration.</p> - -<p>Any party applying to be initiated must bring forward two -witnesses as to character and the identity of his trade or -occupation.</p> - -<h4><i>Of Branch Lodges</i></h4> - -<p>XXXII. Branch Lodge Meetings shall be held on one evening -in every week, in the respective localities; at which Lodges any -motion, proposed by law, etc., may be discussed and considered -by the Members previous to its being finally submitted to the -Grand or District Lodge Committee.</p> - -<p>XXXIII. The Members of each Branch may elect a President -to preside at the Branch Lodge, and a Secretary to collect -subscriptions or levies for their Grand or District Lodge; who -shall also attend meetings of the Committee of Management -for instructions and information, and to submit suggestions, -complaints, etc., from his Branch Lodge. No salaries or fees -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_731">[Pg 731]</span> -to be allowed to officers of Branch Lodges, unless by the -unanimous consent of their Members.</p> - -<h4><i>Wardens, Etc.</i></h4> - -<p>XXXIV. In addition to the Officers before mentioned in -these regulations, there shall be, in each Grand and District -Lodge a Warden, an Inside Tyler, an Outside Tyler, and a -Conductor, whose principal duties are to attend Initiations, and -see that no improper persons be admitted into the meetings. -These officers to be elected in the same manner, and at the same -periods, as other officers.</p> - -<h4><i>Miscellaneous Articles</i></h4> - -<p>XXXV. Any Member shall be liable to expulsion from the -Lodges for any improper conduct therein; and shall be excluded -from the benefits of the Society if his subscriptions be more -than six months in arrear, unless the Committee of Management -shall see cause to decide otherwise.</p> - -<p>XXXVI. The <i>G.U.C.T.U. Gazette</i> to be considered the -official organ of the Executive Council, and the general medium -of intelligence on the affairs of the Union.</p> - -<p>XXXVII. Each Lodge shall, as soon as possible, make -arrangements for furnishing the means of instituting Libraries -or Reading-Rooms, or any other arrangements, affording them -every facility for meeting together for friendly conversation, -mutual instruction, and rational amusement or recreation.</p> - -<p>XXXVIII. In all cases, where it be practicable, each Lodge -shall establish within its locality one or more Depots for -provisions and articles in general domestic use, in order that its -Members may be supplied with the best of such commodities at -little above wholesale prices.</p> - -<p>XXXIX. Each District and Grand Lodge shall endeavour -to institute a Fund for the support of sick and aged Members, -and for defraying the funeral expenses of deceased Members, -on a similar principle to that of Benefit Societies; such fund to -be kept up by small monthly contributions from those Unionists -who are willing to subscribe towards it.</p> - -<p>XL. Each Grand or District Lodge to have the power of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_732">[Pg 732]</span> -making its own By-Laws for purposes not comprised in these -Regulations; but such By-Laws or Laws must not be in -opposition to, or in counteraction of, any of the Articles herein -specified.</p> - -<p>XLI. No Member can enter Lodge Meetings without giving -the proper signs, and producing his card to prove his membership, -and that he is not in arrears of subscription for more than -one month, unless lenity has been granted by order of Committee.</p> - -<p>XLII. That a separate Treasurer be appointed for every -£20 of the funds collected; and that such Treasurers shall not -suffer any money to be withdrawn from their hands without -a written order, signed by at least three of the Managing Committee -and presented by the Secretary, or one of the other officers -of the Society.</p> - -<p>XLIII. All sums under £30 shall be left in the hands of the -Secretary for current expenses; but no outlay shall be made -by him without an express order from the Managing Committee, -signed by at least three of its Members.</p> - -<p>XLIV. That every Member of this Union do use his best -endeavours, by fair and open argument, and the force of good -example, and not by intimidation or violence, to induce his -fellows to join the brotherhood, in order that no workmen may -remain out of the Union to undersell them in the market of -labour; as, while that is done, employers will be enabled to -resist the demands of the Unionists, whereas, if no operatives -remain out of union, employers will be compelled to keep up -the price of Labour.</p> - -<p>XLV. That each Member of the C.U. pay a Registration -Fee of 3d. to defray the general expenses; which fee is to be -transmitted to the Executive once in every month.</p> - -<p>XLVI. That although the design of the Union is, in the -first instance, to raise the wages of the workmen, or prevent -any further reduction therein, and to diminish the hours of -labour, the great and ultimate object of it must be to establish -the paramount rights of Industry and Humanity, by instituting -such measures as shall effectually prevent the ignorant, idle, -and useless part of Society from having that undue control -over the fruits of our toil, which, through the agency of a vicious -money system, they at present possess; and that, consequently, -the Unionists should lose no opportunity of mutually encouraging -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_733">[Pg 733]</span> -and assisting each other in bringing about <span class="smcap">A Different Order -of Things</span>, in which the really useful and intelligent part of -society only shall have the direction of its affairs, and in which -well-directed industry and virtue shall meet their just distinction -and reward, and vicious idleness its merited contempt and -destitution.</p> - -<p>XLVII. All the Rules and Regulations herein contained be -subject to the revision, alteration, or abrogation of the Grand -Delegate Council.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_734">[Pg 734]</span></p> - -<h3 id="APPENDIX_III">APPENDIX III</h3> -</div> - -<p class="h3sub">SLIDING SCALES</p> - -<p>The Sliding Scale, an arrangement by which it is agreed in -advance that wages shall vary in a definite relation to changes -in the market price of the product, appears to have been familiar -to the iron trade for a couple of generations. “About fifty years -ago Mr. G. B. Thorneycroft, of Wolverhampton, head of a well-known -firm of iron-masters, suggested to certain other houses -that wages should fluctuate with the price of ‘marked bars’—these -words indicating a quality of iron that then enjoyed a -high reputation. The suggestion was adopted to this extent, -that when a demand was made by the men for an advance in -wages, any advance that was given was proportionate to the -selling price of ‘marked bars.’ The puddlers received, as a -rule, 1s. for each pound of the selling price; but on exceptional -occasions, a special temporary advance or ‘premium’ was -conceded. The terms of this arrangement do not seem to have -been reduced to writing, though they remained in force for -many years, and were well known as the Thorneycroft scale.” -<a id="FNanchor_739" href="#Footnote_739" class="fnanchor">[739]</a></p> - -<p>At the time of the great strike of Staffordshire puddlers, in -1865, a local understanding of a similar nature appears to have -been in existence. The joint committee of iron-masters and -puddlers, which was established at Darlington in 1869 as the -“North of England Manufactured Iron Board,” soon worked -out a formal sliding scale for its own guidance. This scale, as -well as that adopted by the Midland Iron Trade Board, has been -repeatedly revised, abandoned, and again re-established; but -its working has, on the whole, commended itself to the representatives -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_735">[Pg 735]</span> -of the ironworkers, and has, so far as the principle -is concerned, produced no important dissensions among them. -“We believe,” said Mr. Trow, the men’s secretary, to the -Labour Commission in 1892, “it would be most satisfactory -if this principle were generally adopted.... In all our -experience of the past we have had less trouble in the periods -in which sliding scales have obtained.” The cause of the -exceptional satisfaction of the ironworkers with their Wages -Boards and Sliding Scales is obscure, but it may be interesting -to the student to note that the members of the Ironworkers -Association are largely sub-contractors, themselves employing -workmen who are usually outside the Union, and have no direct -representation on the Board. For a careful statement of the -facts as to these Wage Boards and Sliding Scales in the iron -industry, see <i>The Adjustment of Wages</i>(by Sir W. J. Ashley, -1903), pp. 142-151, and specimen rules, reports, and scales, pp. -268-307. At present (1920) separate Sliding Scales of this nature -are in force for the Cleveland and the North Lincolnshire Blast-furnacemen; -the Scottish Iron and the Consett Millmen; Brown -Bayley’s No. 1 Mill; the Scottish Enginemen and Steel Millmen; -the Staffordshire Sheet Trade; the Midlands Puddling Mills and -Forges; and the South Wales and Monmouthshire Iron and -Steel Trade.</p> - -<p>Widely different has been the result of the Sliding Scale -among the coal miners. Its introduction into this trade dates -from 1874, though it was not until 1879 that its adoption became -common. Since then it has been abandoned in all districts, and -it is energetically repudiated by the Miners’ Federation. The -following table includes all the Sliding Scales in the coal industry -known to us. Between 1879 and 1886 there were a number of -informal Sliding Scales in force for particular collieries, which -were mostly superseded by the more general scales, or otherwise -came to an end. It is believed that no Sliding Scale is now in -force in any coal district.</p> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">July 24,</td> -<td class="tdl">1874</td> -<td class="tdl">South Staffordshire I.</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1877.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">May 28,</td> -<td class="tdl">1875</td> -<td class="tdl">South Wales I.</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1880.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">April 13,</td> -<td class="tdl">1876</td> -<td class="tdl">Somerset.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdl">1889.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">February 6,</td> -<td class="tdl">1877</td> -<td class="tdl">Cannock Chase I.</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1879.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">March 14,</td> -<td class="tdl">1877</td> -<td class="tdl">Durham I.</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1879.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">November 1,</td> -<td class="tdl">1877</td> -<td class="tdl">South Staffordshire II.</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1882.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">April 14,</td> -<td class="tdl">1879</td> -<td class="tdl">Cannock Chase II.</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1882.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">October 11,</td> -<td class="tdl">1879</td> -<td class="tdl">Durham II.</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1887.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">October 31,</td> -<td class="tdl">1879</td> -<td class="tdl">Cumberland I.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdl">1881.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">November 3,</td> -<td class="tdl">1879</td> -<td class="tdl">Ferndale Colliery I. (S. Wales).</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1881.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_736">[Pg 736]</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">November 10,</td> -<td class="tdl">1879</td> -<td class="tdl">Bedworth Colliery I. (Warwick).</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1880.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">November 15,</td> -<td class="tdl">1879</td> -<td class="tdl">Northumberland I.</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1883.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">December 19,</td> -<td class="tdl">1879</td> -<td class="tdl">Ocean Colliery I. (S. Wales).</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1882.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">January 17,</td> -<td class="tdl">1880</td> -<td class="tdl">South Wales II.</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1882.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">January 20,</td> -<td class="tdl">1880</td> -<td class="tdl">West Yorkshire.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdc">?</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">January 26,</td> -<td class="tdl">1880</td> -<td class="tdl">North Wales.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdl">1881.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">February 14,</td> -<td class="tdl">1880</td> -<td class="tdl">Bedworth Colliery II.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdc">?</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">January 1,</td> -<td class="tdl">1881</td> -<td class="tdl">Ashton and Oldham I.</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1882.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">December 31,</td> -<td class="tdl">1881</td> -<td class="tdl">Ferndale Colliery II.</td> -<td /> -<td class="tdc">?</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">January 1,</td> -<td class="tdl">1882</td> -<td class="tdl">South Staffordshire III.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdl">1884.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">April 29,</td> -<td class="tdl">1882</td> -<td class="tdl">Durham III.</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1884.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">June 6,</td> -<td class="tdl">1882</td> -<td class="tdl">South Wales III.</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1889.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">June 22,</td> -<td class="tdl">1882</td> -<td class="tdl">Cannock Chase, &c. III.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdl">1883.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">July 18,</td> -<td class="tdl">1882</td> -<td class="tdl">Ashton & Oldham II.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdl">1883.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">August 24,</td> -<td class="tdl">1882</td> -<td class="tdl">South Wales (Anthracite).</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdc">?</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">September 29,</td> -<td class="tdl">1882</td> -<td class="tdl">Cumberland II.</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1884.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">March 9,</td> -<td class="tdl">1883</td> -<td class="tdl">Northumberland II.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdl">1886.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">June 12,</td> -<td class="tdl">1884</td> -<td class="tdl">Durham IV.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdl">1889.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">November 28,</td> -<td class="tdl">1884</td> -<td class="tdl">Cumberland III.</td> -<td class="tdl">Revised</td> -<td class="tdl">1886.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">March 12,</td> -<td class="tdl">1886</td> -<td class="tdl">Forest of Dean.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdl">1888 ?</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">April 14,</td> -<td class="tdl">1886</td> -<td class="tdl">Altham Colliery (Northd.).</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdc">?</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">February 25,</td> -<td class="tdl">1887</td> -<td class="tdl">Cumberland IV.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdl">1888 ?</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">May 24,</td> -<td class="tdl">1887</td> -<td class="tdl">Northumberland III.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdl">1887.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">June,</td> -<td class="tdl">1887</td> -<td class="tdl">Lanarkshire.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdl">1889.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">October,</td> -<td class="tdl">1888</td> -<td class="tdl">South Staffordshire IV.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdc">?</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">January 18,</td> -<td class="tdl">1890</td> -<td class="tdl">South Wales IV.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdc">?</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">September,</td> -<td class="tdl">1893</td> -<td class="tdl">Forest of Dean.</td> -<td class="tdl">Ended</td> -<td class="tdc">?</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>An exposition of the construction and working of Sliding -Scales is contained in <i>Industrial Peace</i>, by L. L. Price. Details -of numerous Scales are given in the report made by a Committee -to the British Association, entitled <i>Sliding Scales in the Coal -Industry</i>, which was prepared by Professor J. E. C. Munro -(Manchester, 1885), and in the <i>Particulars of Sliding Scales, -Past, Present, and Proposed</i>; printed by the Lancashire Miners’ -Federation in 1886 (Openshaw, 1886, 20 pp.). Supplementary -information is given in Professor Munro’s papers before the -Manchester Statistical Society, entitled, “Sliding Scales in the -Iron Industry” (Manchester, 1885), and “Sliding Scales in the -Coal and Iron Industries from 1885 to 1889” (Manchester, 1889). -The whole question is discussed in <i>The Adjustment of Wages</i>(by -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_737">[Pg 737]</span> -Sir William Ashley, 1903), pp. 45-71; and in our own <i>Industrial -Democracy</i>, 1897.</p> - -<p>The proceedings in the numerous arbitrations in the coal -and iron trade in the North of England, as well as several others -which are printed, furnish abundant information on the subject -of their working. A table of the variations of wages under -sliding scales was prepared by Professor J. E. C. Munro for the -Royal Commission on Mining Royalties, and published as -Appendix V. to the First Report, 1890 (C 6195).</p> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_739" href="#FNanchor_739" class="label">[739]</a>Statement furnished to Professor Munro by Mr. Daniel Jones, of the -Midland Iron and Steel Wages Board, quoted in <i>Sliding Scales in the Coal -and Iron Industries</i>(p. 141).</p> - -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_738">[Pg 738]</span></p> - -<h3 id="APPENDIX_IV">APPENDIX IV</h3> -</div> - -<p class="h3sub">THE SUMMONS TO THE FIRST TRADE UNION CONGRESS</p> - -<p>No copy of the invitation to the first Trade Union Congress -has been preserved, either in the archives of the Congress, the -Manchester Trades Council, or any other organisation known -to us. Fortunately, it was printed in the <i>Ironworkers’ Journal</i> -for May 1868. But of this only one file now exists, and as the -summons is of some historical interest we reprint it for convenience -of reference.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="right">“<span class="smcap">Manchester</span>, <i>April 16, 1868</i>.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Sir</span>—You are requested to lay the following before your -Society. The vital <i>interests</i> involved, it is conceived, will justify -the officials in convening a special meeting for the consideration -thereof.</p> - -<p>“The Manchester and Salford Trades Council having -recently taken into their serious consideration the present aspect -of Trades Unions, and the profound ignorance which prevails in -the public mind with reference to their operations and principles, -together with the probability of an attempt being made by the -Legislature, during the present Session of Parliament, to introduce -a measure which might prove detrimental to the interests of such -Societies <i>unless some prompt and decisive action be taken by the -working classes themselves</i>, beg most respectfully to intimate that -it has been decided to hold in Manchester, as the main centre -of industry in the provinces, a Congress of the representatives -of Trades Councils, Federations of Trades, and Trade Societies -in general.</p> - -<p>“The Congress will assume the character of the Annual -Meetings of the Social Science Association, in the transactions of -which Society the artisan class is almost excluded; and papers -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_739">[Pg 739]</span> -previously carefully prepared by such Societies as elect to do so, -will be laid before the Congress on the various subjects which at -the present time affect the Trade Societies, each paper to be -followed by discussion on the points advanced, with a view of the -merits and demerits of each question being thoroughly ventilated -through the medium of the public press. It is further decided -that the subjects treated upon shall include the following:</p> - -<p>“1. Trade Unions an absolute necessity.</p> - -<p>“2. Trade Unions and Political Economy.</p> - -<p>“3. The effect of Trade Unions on foreign competition.</p> - -<p>“4. Regulation of the hours of labour.</p> - -<p>“5. Limitation of apprentices.</p> - -<p>“6. Technical Education.</p> - -<p>“7. Courts of Arbitration and Conciliation.</p> - -<p>“8. Co-operation.</p> - -<p>“9. The present inequality of the law in regard to conspiracy, -intimidation, picketing, coercion, etc.</p> - -<p>“10. Factory Acts Extension Bill, 1867: the necessity of -compulsory inspection and its application to all places where -women and children are employed.</p> - -<p>“11. The present Royal Commission on Trades Unions—how -far worthy of the confidence of the Trade Union interests.</p> - -<p>“12. Legalization of Trade Societies.</p> - -<p>“13. The necessity of an Annual Congress of Trade Representatives -from the various centres of industry.</p> - -<p>“All Trades Councils, Federations of Trades, and Trade -Societies generally are respectfully solicited to intimate their -adhesion to this project on or before the 12th of May next, -together with a notification of the subject of the paper that each -body will undertake to prepare, and the number of delegates by -whom they will be respectively represented; after which date -all information as to the place of meeting, etc., will be supplied.</p> - -<p>“It is not imperative that all Societies should prepare papers, -it being anticipated that the subjects will be taken up by those -most capable of expounding the principles sought to be maintained. -Several have already adhered to the project, and have -signified their intention of taking up the subjects Nos. 1, 4, 6, -and 7.</p> - -<p>“The Congress will be held on Whit-Tuesday, the 2nd of -June next, its duration not to exceed five days; and all -expenses in connection therewith, which will be very small, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_740">[Pg 740]</span> -and as economical as possible, will be equalized amongst those -Societies sending delegates, and will not extend beyond their -sittings.</p> - -<p>“Communications to be addressed to Mr. W. H. Wood, -Typographical Institute, 29 Water Street, Manchester.</p> - -<p>“By order of the Manchester & Salford Trades Council.</p> - -<p class="right"> -“<span class="smcap">S. C. Nicholson</span>, President.<br /> -“<span class="smcap">W. H. Wood</span>, Secretary.” -</p> - -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_741">[Pg 741]</span></p> - -<h3 id="APPENDIX_V">APPENDIX V</h3> -</div> - -<p class="h3sub">DISTRIBUTION OF TRADE UNIONISTS IN THE UNITED -KINGDOM</p> - -<p>We endeavoured in 1893-94 to analyse the membership of all -the Trade Unions of which we could obtain particulars, in such -a way as to show the number and percentage to population in -each part of the United Kingdom. The following table gives -the local distribution of 1,507,026 Trade Unionists in 1892. -The distribution was, in most cases, made by branches, special -estimates being prepared for us in a few instances by the officers -of the Unions concerned. With regard to a few Unions having -about 4000 members no local distribution could be arrived at.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i>Table showing the distribution of Trade Union membership in 1892 in -each part of the United Kingdom, with the percentage to population -in each case.</i></p> -</div> - -<table class="autotable" summary="Union Membership Distribution"> -<tr> -<td class="tdc bt bb">County.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bt bb">Population in 1891.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bt bb">Ascertained Trade Unionists in 1892.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bt bb">Number of Trade Unionists per 100 of population.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Bedfordshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">165,999</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">553</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·33</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Berkshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">268,357</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">975</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·36</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Buckinghamshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">164,442</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">720</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·44</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cambridgeshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">196,269</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">2,855</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1·45</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cheshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">707,978</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">32,000</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">4·52</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cornwall</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">318,583</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">630</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·20</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Cumberland</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">266,549</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">10,280</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">3·86</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Derbyshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">432,414</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">29,510</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">6·82</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Devonshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">636,225</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">6,030</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·95</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Dorsetshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">188,995</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">305</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·16</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Durham<span class="pagenum" id="Page_742">[Pg 742]</span></td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1,024,369</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">114,810</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1·21</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Essex<br /> -(without West Ham, included in London).</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">396,057</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">3,370</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·85</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Gloucestershire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">548,886</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">26,030</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">4·74</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Hampshire<br /> -(without Isle of Wight, treated separately).</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">587,578</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">5,665</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·96</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Herefordshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">113,346</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">385</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·34</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Hertfordshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">215,179</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1,125</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·52</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Huntingdonshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">50,289</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">20</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·04</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Isle of Wight</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">78,672</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">295</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·37</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Kent<br /> -(without Bromley, included in London).</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">737,044</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">12,445</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1·69</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Lancashire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">3,957,906</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">331,535</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">8·63</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Leicestershire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">379,286</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">27,845</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">7·34</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Lincoln</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">467,281</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">9,480</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">2·03</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">London<br /> -(including Bromley, Croydon, Kingston, Richmond, West Ham and Middlesex).</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">5,517,583</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">194,083</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">3·52</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Norfolk</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">460,362</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">4,880</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1·06</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Northamptonshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">308,072</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">12,210</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">3·96</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Northumberland</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">506,030</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">56,815</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">11·23</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Nottinghamshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">505,311</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">31,050</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">6·14</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Oxford</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">188,220</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1,815</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·96</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Rutland</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">22,123</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·00</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Shropshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">254,765</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">3,225</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1·26</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Somerset</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">510,076</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">6,595</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1·29</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Staffordshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1,103,452</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">49,545</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">4·49</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Suffolk</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">353,758</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">14,885</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">4·21</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Surrey<br /> -(without Croydon, Kingston, and Richmond, included in London).</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">275,638</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">730</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·26</td> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Sussex</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">554,542</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">2,810</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·51</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Warwickshire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">801,738</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">33,600</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">4·19</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Westmoreland</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">66,215</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">530</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·80</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Wiltshire<span class="pagenum" id="Page_743">[Pg 743]</span></td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">255,119</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">3,680</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1·44</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Worcestershire</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">422,530</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">7,840</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1·86</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Yorkshire, East Riding</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">318,570</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">23,630</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">7·42</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Yorkshire, North Riding<br /> -(with York City).</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">435,897</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">15,215</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">3·49</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Yorkshire, West Riding</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">2,464,415</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">141,140</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">5·73</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr bb">Total, England</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">27,226,120</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">1,221,141</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">4·49</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">North Wales</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">451,090</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">8,820</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1·96</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl ">South Wales and Monmouth</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">1,325,315</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">88,810</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">6·70</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr bb">Total, Wales and Monmouth</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">1,776,405</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">97,630</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">5·50</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr bb">Total, England and Wales</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">29,002,525</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">1,318,771</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">4·55</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Scotland</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">4,033,103</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">146,925</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">3·64</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Ireland</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">4,706,162</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">40,045</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·85</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Isle of Man</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">55,598</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">75</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·13</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Guernsey</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">35,339</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1,170</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">3·31</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Jersey</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">54,518</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">40</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">0·07</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Alderney and Sark</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">2,415</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">0</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">0·00</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr bb">Total, United Kingdom</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">37,889,660</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">1,507,026</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl bb">3·98</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_744">[Pg 744]</span></p> - -<h3 id="APPENDIX_VI">APPENDIX VI</h3> -</div> - -<p class="h3sub">THE STATISTICAL PROGRESS OF TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP</p> - -<p>It is unfortunately impossible to present any complete statistics of Trade Union membership at different periods. Until the -appointment, in 1886, of John Burnett as Labour Correspondent to the Board of Trade, no attempt was made to collect any -statistics of the movement; and the old Unions seldom possess a complete series of their own archives. The Friendly Society -of Ironfounders, it is true, has exact figures since its establishment in 1809. No total figures can be given with any confidence.</p> - -<p>The following tables may be useful as placing on record such comparative figures as we have been able to collect:</p> - -<ol> -<li>Amalgamated Society of Engineers.</li> -<li>Friendly Society of Ironfounders.</li> -<li>Steam Engine Makers’ Society.</li> -<li>Associated Ironmoulders of Scotland.</li> -<li>United Society of Boilermakers and Iron Shipwrights.</li> -<li>Operative Stonemasons’ Friendly Society.</li> -<li>Operative Bricklayers’ Society.</li> -<li>General Union of Operative Carpenters and Joiners.</li> -<li>Typographical Association.</li> -<li>London Society of Compositors.</li> -<li>Bookbinders’ and Machine Rulers’ Consolidated Union.</li> -<li>United Kingdom Society of Coachmakers.</li> -<li>Flint Glass Makers’ Friendly Society.</li> -<li>Amicable and Brotherly Society of Machine Printers.</li> -<li>Machine, Engine, and Iron Grinders’ Society.</li> -<li>Associated Blacksmiths’ Society.</li> -<li>Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners.</li> -<li>Associated Carpenters and Joiners.</li> -<li>National Association of Operative Plasterers.</li> -<li>Northumberland Miners’ Mutual Confident Association.</li> -<li>United Journeymen Brassfounders’ Association of Great Britain and Ireland.</li> -<li>United Operative Plumbers’ Association.</li> -<li>Alliance Cabinet Makers’ Association.</li> -<li>United Operative Bricklayers’ Trade, Accident, Sick, and Burial Society.<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_745">[Pg 745]</span></p></li> -<li>Amalgamated Society of Tailors.</li> -<li>Amalgamated Association of Operative Cotton Spinners.</li> -<li>Glass Bottle Makers of Yorkshire United Trade Protection Society.</li> -<li>Durham Miners’ Association.</li> -<li>National Society of Amalgamated Brassworkers.</li> -<li>United Pattern Makers’ Association.</li> -<li>National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives.</li> -<li>Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants.</li> -<li>Yorkshire Miners’ Association.</li> -<li>United Machine Workers’ Association.</li> -<li>National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association.</li> -<li>Railway Clerks’ Association.</li> -<li>Amalgamated Tramway and Vehicle Workers.</li> -<li>National Union of Dock Labourers.</li> -<li>British Steel Smelters.</li> -<li>National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants.</li> -<li>Amalgamated Union of Co-operative Employees.</li> -<li>National Union of Clerks.</li> -<li>Workers’ Union.</li> -<li>Amalgamated Musicians’ Union.</li> -<li>National Amalgamated Union of Labour.</li> -<li>Postmen’s Federation.</li> -<li>Post Office Engineering Stores.</li> -</ol> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_746">[Pg 746]</span></p> - -<p><i>Table showing the Membership of certain Trade Unions at Successive Periods, from 1850 to 1918 inclusive.</i></p> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc bb">Number of Society.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb">Year of Estab­lish­ment.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb">1850.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb">1855.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb">1860.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb">1865.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb">1870.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb">1875.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb">1880.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb">1885.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb">1890.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb">1900.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb">1910.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb">1918.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">1.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1851<a id="FNanchor_740" href="#Footnote_740" class="fnanchor">[740]</a></td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,000</td> -<td class="tdr bl">12,553</td> -<td class="tdr bl">20,935</td> -<td class="tdr bl">30,984</td> -<td class="tdr bl">34,711</td> -<td class="tdr bl">44,032</td> -<td class="tdr bl">44,692</td> -<td class="tdr bl">51,689</td> -<td class="tdr bl">67,928</td> -<td class="tdr bl">87,672</td> -<td class="tdr bl">110,733</td> -<td class="tdr bl">298,782</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">2.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1809</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,073</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,685</td> -<td class="tdr bl">7,973</td> -<td class="tdr bl">10,604</td> -<td class="tdr bl">8,994</td> -<td class="tdr bl">12,336</td> -<td class="tdr bl">11,580</td> -<td class="tdr bl">12,376</td> -<td class="tdr bl">14,821</td> -<td class="tdr bl">18,357</td> -<td class="tdr bl">17,990</td> -<td class="tdr bl">28,586</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">3.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1824</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,068</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,662</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,050</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,521</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,819</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,871</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,134</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,062</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,822</td> -<td class="tdr bl">8,566</td> -<td class="tdr bl">14,401</td> -<td class="tdr bl">27,206</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">4.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1831</td> -<td class="tdr bl">814</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,381</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,084</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,046</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,766</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,346</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,664</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,611</td> -<td class="tdr bl">6,198</td> -<td class="tdr bl">7,504</td> -<td class="tdr bl">7,880</td> -<td class="tdr bl">7,961</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">5.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1832</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,771</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,500</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,146</td> -<td class="tdr bl">8,621</td> -<td class="tdr bl">7,261</td> -<td class="tdr bl">16,191</td> -<td class="tdr bl">17,688</td> -<td class="tdr bl">28,212</td> -<td class="tdr bl">32,926</td> -<td class="tdr bl">47,670</td> -<td class="tdr bl">49,393</td> -<td class="tdr bl">95,761</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">6.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1832</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,671</td> -<td class="tdr bl">8,093</td> -<td class="tdr bl">9,125</td> -<td class="tdr bl">15,483</td> -<td class="tdr bl">13,965</td> -<td class="tdr bl">24,543</td> -<td class="tdr bl">12,610</td> -<td class="tdr bl">11,285</td> -<td class="tdr bl">12,538</td> -<td class="tdr bl">19,419</td> -<td class="tdr bl">7,055</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,929</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">7.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1848</td> -<td class="tdr bl">340</td> -<td class="tdr bl">924</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,641</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,320</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,441</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,832</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,700</td> -<td class="tdr bl">6,412</td> -<td class="tdr bl">12,740</td> -<td class="tdr bl">38,830</td> -<td class="tdr bl">23,284</td> -<td class="tdr bl">34,441</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">8.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1827</td> -<td class="tdr bl">535</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,180</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,228</td> -<td class="tdr bl">6,986</td> -<td class="tdr bl">8,008</td> -<td class="tdr bl">10,885</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,420</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,734</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,485</td> -<td class="tdr bl">7,727</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,653</td> -<td class="tdr bl">12,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">9.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1849</td> -<td class="tdr bl">603</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,288</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,473</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,992</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,430</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,600</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,350</td> -<td class="tdr bl">6,551</td> -<td class="tdr bl">9,016</td> -<td class="tdr bl">16,179</td> -<td class="tdr bl">21,436</td> -<td class="tdr bl">11,602</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">10.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1848</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,800</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,300</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,650</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,800</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,350</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,200</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,100</td> -<td class="tdr bl">6,435</td> -<td class="tdr bl">8,910</td> -<td class="tdr bl">11,287</td> -<td class="tdr bl">12,230</td> -<td class="tdr bl">12,940</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">11.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1835</td> -<td class="tdr bl">420</td> -<td class="tdr bl">340</td> -<td class="tdr bl">500</td> -<td class="tdr bl">748</td> -<td class="tdr bl">915</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,670</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,501</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,788</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,910</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,064</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,027</td> -<td class="tdr bl">— - <a id="FNanchor_741" href="#Footnote_741" class="fnanchor">[741]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">12.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1834</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,567</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,040</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,086</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,599</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,801</td> -<td class="tdr bl">7,251</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,989</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,560</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,367</td> -<td class="tdr bl">6,536</td> -<td class="tdr bl">6,854</td> -<td class="tdr bl">15,118</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">13.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1849</td> -<td class="tdr bl">500</td> -<td class="tdr bl">897</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,355</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,606</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,776</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,005</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,963</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,985</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,123</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,409</td> -<td class="tdr bl">916</td> -<td class="tdr bl">775</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">14.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1841</td> -<td class="tdr bl">375</td> -<td class="tdr bl">452</td> -<td class="tdr bl">508</td> -<td class="tdr bl">530</td> -<td class="tdr bl">570</td> -<td class="tdr bl">650</td> -<td class="tdr bl">690</td> -<td class="tdr bl">740</td> -<td class="tdr bl">860</td> -<td class="tdr bl">963</td> -<td class="tdr bl">983</td> -<td class="tdr bl">228</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">15.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1844</td> -<td class="tdr bl">200</td> -<td class="tdr bl">110</td> -<td class="tdr bl">330</td> -<td class="tdr bl">449</td> -<td class="tdr bl">280</td> -<td class="tdr bl">390</td> -<td class="tdr bl">258</td> -<td class="tdr bl">277</td> -<td class="tdr bl">304</td> -<td class="tdr bl">433</td> -<td class="tdr bl">703</td> -<td class="tdr bl">746</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">24,737</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">43,405</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">61,084</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">95,289</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">95,087</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">140,802</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">125,339</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">144,717</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">184,948</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">277,616</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">284,538</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">551,075</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">16.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1857</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">856</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,815</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,590</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,113</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,002</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,335</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,300</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,933</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,953</td> -<td class="tdr bl">17,238</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">17.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1860</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">618</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,670</td> -<td class="tdr bl">10,178</td> -<td class="tdr bl">14,917</td> -<td class="tdr bl">17,764</td> -<td class="tdr bl">25,781</td> -<td class="tdr bl">31,495</td> -<td class="tdr bl">65,012</td> -<td class="tdr bl">55,785</td> -<td class="tdr bl" rowspan="2">}124,841</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">18.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1861</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,453</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,585</td> -<td class="tdr bl">6,642</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,673</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,535</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,742</td> -<td class="tdr bl">9,808</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,964</td> - -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">19.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1862</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,441</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,461</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,742</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,211</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,110</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,236</td> -<td class="tdr bl">11,009</td> -<td class="tdr bl">6,522</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,110</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">20.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1863</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,250</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,328</td> -<td class="tdr bl">17,561</td> -<td class="tdr bl">10,707</td> -<td class="tdr bl">13,128</td> -<td class="tdr bl">16,961</td> -<td class="tdr bl">23,950</td> -<td class="tdr bl">37,361</td> -<td class="tdr bl">40,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">21.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1866</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,457</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,821</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,890</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,344</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,162</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,241</td> -<td class="tdr bl">7,500</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">22.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1832</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,537</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,679</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,232</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,666</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,350</td> -<td class="tdr bl">11,186</td> -<td class="tdr bl">10,907</td> -<td class="tdr bl">13,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">23.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1865</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdr bl">242</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,965</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,346</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,246</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,298</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,270</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">—<a id="FNanchor_742" href="#Footnote_742" class="fnanchor">[742]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">24.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1832</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,850</td> -<td class="tdr bl">7,350</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,282</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,975</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,725</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,428</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,655</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,950</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">25.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1866</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,006</td> -<td class="tdr bl">14,352</td> -<td class="tdr bl">12,583</td> -<td class="tdr bl">13,969</td> -<td class="tdr bl">16,629</td> -<td class="tdr bl">13,439</td> -<td class="tdr bl">12,143</td> -<td class="tdr bl">29,422</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">26.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1853</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdr bl">10,518</td> -<td class="tdr bl">14,257</td> -<td class="tdr bl">11,834</td> -<td class="tdr bl">16,579</td> -<td class="tdr bl">18,145</td> -<td class="tdr bl">18,384</td> -<td class="tdr bl">22,992</td> -<td class="tdr bl">24,806</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">27.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1860</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdr bl">792</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,120</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,061</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,522</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,899</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,840</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,450</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,800</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">28.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1869</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">1,899</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">38,000</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">30,000</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">35,000</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">49,000</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">80,260</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">121,805</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">126,250</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl">142,530</td> -<td class="tdr bl">266,321</td> -<td class="tdr bl">227,924</td> -<td class="tdr bl">267,907</td> -<td class="tdr bl">343,890</td> -<td class="tdr bl">546,135</td> -<td class="tdr bl">559,316</td> -<td class="tdr bl">944,992</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">29.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1872</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,271</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,633</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,582</td> -<td class="tdr bl">7,958</td> -<td class="tdr bl">8,675</td> -<td class="tdr bl">7,373</td> -<td class="tdr bl">25,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">30.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1872</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">418</td> -<td class="tdr bl">824</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,241</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,205</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,604</td> -<td class="tdr bl">7,214</td> -<td class="tdr bl">10,290</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">31.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1874</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,311</td> -<td class="tdr bl">6,404</td> -<td class="tdr bl">10,464</td> -<td class="tdr bl">23,459</td> -<td class="tdr bl">27,960</td> -<td class="tdr bl">30,197</td> -<td class="tdr bl">83,017</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">32.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1872</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">13,018</td> -<td class="tdr bl">8,589</td> -<td class="tdr bl">9,052</td> -<td class="tdr bl">26,360</td> -<td class="tdr bl">62,023</td> -<td class="tdr bl">75,153</td> -<td class="tdr bl">—<a id="FNanchor_743" href="#Footnote_743" class="fnanchor">[743]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">33.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1858</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdr bl">8,000</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,800</td> -<td class="tdr bl">8,000</td> -<td class="tdr bl">50,000</td> -<td class="tdr bl">54,475</td> -<td class="tdr bl">88,271</td> -<td class="tdr bl">100,400</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">34.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1844</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdr bl">276</td> -<td class="tdr bl">279</td> -<td class="tdr bl">455</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,501</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,769</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,843</td> -<td class="tdr bl">23,374</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">297,615</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">251,453</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">300,701</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">456,373</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">707,641</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">772,367</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">1,187,073</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr tdt">35.</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1902</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">6,248<br />(1902)</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">6,685</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">47,220</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">36.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1897</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,550</td> -<td class="tdr bl">9,476</td> -<td class="tdr bl">66,130</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">37.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1889</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdr bl">9,214</td> -<td class="tdr bl">17,076</td> -<td class="tdr bl">40,564</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">38.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1889</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdr bl">13,388</td> -<td class="tdr bl">14,253</td> -<td class="tdr bl">45,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr tdt">39.</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1886</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">?</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">10,467</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">17,491</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">40,000(?)<a id="FNanchor_744" href="#Footnote_744" class="fnanchor">[744]</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr tdt">40.</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">1891</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc tdt bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">7,551</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">22,426</td> -<td class="tdr tdt bl">83,000<br />(1919)</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">41.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1891</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">6,733</td> -<td class="tdr bl">29,886</td> -<td class="tdr bl">87,134</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">42.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1891</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">82</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,166</td> -<td class="tdr bl">35,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">43.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1898</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,879</td> -<td class="tdr bl">5,016</td> -<td class="tdr bl">230,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">44.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1893</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,286</td> -<td class="tdr bl">6,182</td> -<td class="tdr bl">14,649</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">45.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1889</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">?</td> -<td class="tdr bl">21,111</td> -<td class="tdr bl">16,017</td> -<td class="tdr bl">143,931</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">46.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1891</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">23,180</td> -<td class="tdr bl">37,892</td> -<td class="tdr bl">65,078</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr">47.</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1896</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdc bl">—</td> -<td class="tdr bl">940</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,500</td> -<td class="tdr bl">14,000</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">106,629</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">189,046</td> -<td class="tdr bl bt">911,706</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr bb"></td> -<td class="tdr bl bb"></td> -<td class="tdr bl bb"></td> -<td class="tdr bl bb"></td> -<td class="tdr bl bb"></td> -<td class="tdr bl bb"></td> -<td class="tdr bl bb"></td> -<td class="tdr bl bb"></td> -<td class="tdr bl bb"></td> -<td class="tdr bl bb"></td> -<td class="tdr bl bb"></td> -<td class="tdr bl bb bt">814,270</td> -<td class="tdr bl bb bt">961,413</td> -<td class="tdr bl bb bt">2,098,779</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>We have suggested that it is doubtful whether, in 1842, there were as many as 100,000 enrolled and contributing members. -A quarter of a century later George Howell and others could talk vaguely of a million members, but we doubt whether this -number was reached until the years of good trade that followed 1871. In 1878-80 there was a great falling off, and we doubt -whether the aggregate of a million was again reached until 1885. In 1892 we recorded a million and a half. Not until -the end of the century were two millions attained—a number doubled by 1915, and in the last four or five years again -increased by over fifty per cent.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_750">[Pg 750]</span></p> - -<p><i>Table showing the aggregate Trade Union Membership in groups of Industries at the end of each of the -years 1892-1917 inclusive.</i> -<a id="FNanchor_745" href="#Footnote_745" class="fnanchor">[745]</a></p> - -<table class="autotable" summary=""> -<tr> -<td class="tdc bb bt">Year.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Building.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Mining and Quarrying.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Metal, Engineering, and Shipbuilding.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Textile.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Clothing.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Transport.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt" colspan="3">Other Trades.</td> -<td class="tdc bl bb bt">Total, all Unions.</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1892</td> -<td class="tdr bl">157,971</td> -<td class="tdr bl">315,272</td> -<td class="tdr bl">279,534</td> -<td class="tdr bl">204,022</td> -<td class="tdr bl">83,299</td> -<td class="tdr bl">154,947</td> -<td class="tdc bl" colspan="3">307,313</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,502,358</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1893</td> -<td class="tdr bl">172,870</td> -<td class="tdr bl">318,112</td> -<td class="tdr bl">266,813</td> -<td class="tdr bl">205,546</td> -<td class="tdr bl">80,768</td> -<td class="tdr bl">142,084</td> -<td class="tdc bl" colspan="3">293,224</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,479,417</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1894</td> -<td class="tdr bl">178,721</td> -<td class="tdr bl">307,276</td> -<td class="tdr bl">263,572</td> -<td class="tdr bl">214,331</td> -<td class="tdr bl">81,786</td> -<td class="tdr bl">123,896</td> -<td class="tdc bl" colspan="3">266,718</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,436,300</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1895</td> -<td class="tdr bl">179,283</td> -<td class="tdr bl">280,065</td> -<td class="tdr bl">269,169</td> -<td class="tdr bl">218,805</td> -<td class="tdr bl">78,560</td> -<td class="tdr bl">120,475</td> -<td class="tdc bl" colspan="3">261,479</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,407,836</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1896</td> -<td class="tdr bl">193,341</td> -<td class="tdr bl">279,977</td> -<td class="tdr bl">303,518</td> -<td class="tdr bl">217,950</td> -<td class="tdr bl">76,997</td> -<td class="tdr bl">134,877</td> -<td class="tdc bl" colspan="3">287,805</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,494,465</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1897</td> -<td class="tdr bl">215,603</td> -<td class="tdr bl">283,054</td> -<td class="tdr bl">319,745</td> -<td class="tdr bl">218,619</td> -<td class="tdr bl">75,852</td> -<td class="tdr bl">183,994</td> -<td class="tdc bl" colspan="3">317,131</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,613,998</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr "></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl" colspan="3">⏞ ⏞ ⏞ ⏞ ⏞ ⏞ ⏞ ⏞ ⏞</td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr "></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -<td class="tdc bl">Printing, Paper, etc.</td> -<td class="tdc bl">Wood-working.</td> -<td class="tdc bl">Other Trades.</td> -<td class="tdr bl"></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1898</td> -<td class="tdr bl">232,040</td> -<td class="tdr bl">366,731</td> -<td class="tdr bl">312,444</td> -<td class="tdr bl">240,895</td> -<td class="tdr bl">69,954</td> -<td class="tdr bl">147,957</td> -<td class="tdr bl">54,436</td> -<td class="tdr bl">——</td> -<td class="tdr bl">264,074</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,688,531</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1899</td> -<td class="tdr bl">249,988</td> -<td class="tdr bl">445,706</td> -<td class="tdr bl">335,746</td> -<td class="tdr bl">245,301</td> -<td class="tdr bl">66,777</td> -<td class="tdr bl">163,685</td> -<td class="tdr bl">56,727</td> -<td class="tdr bl">——</td> -<td class="tdr bl">284,640</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,848,570</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1900</td> -<td class="tdr bl">253,412</td> -<td class="tdr bl">524,150</td> -<td class="tdr bl">342,079</td> -<td class="tdr bl">245,438</td> -<td class="tdr bl">67,183</td> -<td class="tdr bl">171,599</td> -<td class="tdr bl">57,228</td> -<td class="tdr bl">——</td> -<td class="tdr bl">294,615</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,955,704</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1901</td> -<td class="tdr bl">248,967</td> -<td class="tdr bl">530,953</td> -<td class="tdr bl">338,468</td> -<td class="tdr bl">243,474</td> -<td class="tdr bl">65,660</td> -<td class="tdr bl">169,199</td> -<td class="tdr bl">58,274</td> -<td class="tdr bl">——</td> -<td class="tdr bl">311,766</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,966,761</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1902</td> -<td class="tdr bl">245,141</td> -<td class="tdr bl">532,082</td> -<td class="tdr bl">337,064</td> -<td class="tdr bl">246,829</td> -<td class="tdr bl">64,094</td> -<td class="tdr bl">158,714</td> -<td class="tdr bl">59,062</td> -<td class="tdr bl">——</td> -<td class="tdr bl">310,321</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,953,307</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1903</td> -<td class="tdr bl">238,141</td> -<td class="tdr bl">529,028</td> -<td class="tdr bl">337,122</td> -<td class="tdr bl">244,081</td> -<td class="tdr bl">61,713</td> -<td class="tdr bl">159,051</td> -<td class="tdr bl">60,138</td> -<td class="tdr bl">——</td> -<td class="tdr bl">301,769</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,931,043</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1904</td> -<td class="tdr bl">225,149</td> -<td class="tdr bl">501,764</td> -<td class="tdr bl">334,822</td> -<td class="tdr bl">246,473</td> -<td class="tdr bl">58,598</td> -<td class="tdr bl">159,788</td> -<td class="tdr bl">62,428</td> -<td class="tdr bl">——</td> -<td class="tdr bl">306,087</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,895,109</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1905</td> -<td class="tdr bl">205,179</td> -<td class="tdr bl">496,828</td> -<td class="tdr bl">340,364</td> -<td class="tdr bl">266,416</td> -<td class="tdr bl">60,394</td> -<td class="tdr bl">167,017</td> -<td class="tdr bl">62,368</td> -<td class="tdr bl">——</td> -<td class="tdr bl">321,807</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,920,373</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1906</td> -<td class="tdr bl">196,492</td> -<td class="tdr bl">571,336</td> -<td class="tdr bl">361,453</td> -<td class="tdr bl">302,968</td> -<td class="tdr bl">59,806</td> -<td class="tdr bl">190,155</td> -<td class="tdr bl">64,451</td> -<td class="tdr bl">——</td> -<td class="tdr bl">367,145</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,113,806</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1907</td> -<td class="tdr bl">193,190</td> -<td class="tdr bl">703,344</td> -<td class="tdr bl">376,805</td> -<td class="tdr bl">354,427</td> -<td class="tdr bl">68,810</td> -<td class="tdr bl">238,813</td> -<td class="tdr bl">68,221</td> -<td class="tdr bl">——</td> -<td class="tdr bl">403,136</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,406,746</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1908</td> -<td class="tdr bl">177,718</td> -<td class="tdr bl">719,384</td> -<td class="tdr bl">365,134</td> -<td class="tdr bl">362,540</td> -<td class="tdr bl">65,637</td> -<td class="tdr bl">230,642</td> -<td class="tdr bl">72,970</td> -<td class="tdr bl">41,797</td> -<td class="tdr bl">353,505</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,388,727</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1909</td> -<td class="tdr bl">162,278</td> -<td class="tdr bl">722,639</td> -<td class="tdr bl">359,838</td> -<td class="tdr bl">366,445</td> -<td class="tdr bl">65,882</td> -<td class="tdr bl">224,037</td> -<td class="tdr bl">71,531</td> -<td class="tdr bl">39,240</td> -<td class="tdr bl">357,177</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,369,067</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1910</td> -<td class="tdr bl">156,985</td> -<td class="tdr bl">731,305</td> -<td class="tdr bl">370,055</td> -<td class="tdr bl">379,644</td> -<td class="tdr bl">67,158</td> -<td class="tdr bl">245,223</td> -<td class="tdr bl">74,275</td> -<td class="tdr bl">38,881</td> -<td class="tdr bl">382,816</td> -<td class="tdr bl">2,446,342</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1911</td> -<td class="tdr bl">173,182</td> -<td class="tdr bl">752,419</td> -<td class="tdr bl">415,176</td> -<td class="tdr bl">436,927</td> -<td class="tdr bl">74,423</td> -<td class="tdr bl">513,538</td> -<td class="tdr bl">77,252</td> -<td class="tdr bl">45,474</td> -<td class="tdr bl">530,512</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,018,903</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1912</td> -<td class="tdr bl">203,773</td> -<td class="tdr bl">757,147</td> -<td class="tdr bl">479,471</td> -<td class="tdr bl">478,097</td> -<td class="tdr bl">91,855</td> -<td class="tdr bl">514,724</td> -<td class="tdr bl">76,807</td> -<td class="tdr bl">50,853</td> -<td class="tdr bl">635,107</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,287,884</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1913</td> -<td class="tdr bl">248,647</td> -<td class="tdr bl">915,734</td> -<td class="tdr bl">538,541</td> -<td class="tdr bl">515,684</td> -<td class="tdr bl">105,929</td> -<td class="tdr bl">699,952</td> -<td class="tdr bl">84,414</td> -<td class="tdr bl">64,442</td> -<td class="tdr bl">813,772</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,987,115</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1914</td> -<td class="tdr bl">235,828</td> -<td class="tdr bl">870,198</td> -<td class="tdr bl">557,769</td> -<td class="tdr bl">497,494</td> -<td class="tdr bl">102,538</td> -<td class="tdr bl">705,501</td> -<td class="tdr bl">92,283</td> -<td class="tdr bl">64,296</td> -<td class="tdr bl">796,902</td> -<td class="tdr bl">3,918,809</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1915</td> -<td class="tdr bl">228,475</td> -<td class="tdr bl">857,183</td> -<td class="tdr bl">633,502</td> -<td class="tdr bl">507,731</td> -<td class="tdr bl">114,085</td> -<td class="tdr bl">737,004</td> -<td class="tdr bl">97,290</td> -<td class="tdr bl">65,210</td> -<td class="tdr bl">886,313</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,126,793</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr ">1916</td> -<td class="tdr bl">229,272</td> -<td class="tdr bl">877,694</td> -<td class="tdr bl">695,347</td> -<td class="tdr bl">530,411</td> -<td class="tdr bl">121,656</td> -<td class="tdr bl">803,872</td> -<td class="tdr bl">97,669</td> -<td class="tdr bl">69,403</td> -<td class="tdr bl">1,012,623</td> -<td class="tdr bl">4,437,947</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdr bb">1917</td> -<td class="tdr bl bb">257,286</td> -<td class="tdr bl bb">941,120</td> -<td class="tdr bl bb">847,202</td> -<td class="tdr bl bb">627,919</td> -<td class="tdr bl bb">149,756</td> -<td class="tdr bl bb">903,109</td> -<td class="tdr bl bb">109,586</td> -<td class="tdr bl bb">83,369</td> -<td class="tdr bl bb">1,360,165</td> -<td class="tdr bl bb">5,287,522</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_740" href="#FNanchor_740" class="label">[740]</a>Established January 10, 1851. The membership given for 1850 is that with which the amalgamation started.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_741" href="#FNanchor_741" class="label">[741]</a>Merged in the National Union of Bookbinders and Machine Rulers, 1911.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_742" href="#FNanchor_742" class="label">[742]</a>In 1902 joined with the Operative Cabinet and Chair Makers of Scotland to form the National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades -Association.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_743" href="#FNanchor_743" class="label">[743]</a>Amalgamated in 1913 with the United Pointsmen and Signalmen and the General Railway Workers’ Union to form the National Union of -Railwaymen.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_744" href="#FNanchor_744" class="label">[744]</a>In 1917 the members of the British Steel Smelters were merged in the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_745" href="#FNanchor_745" class="label">[745]</a>[From Labour Department’s Reports on Trade Unions for 1900, 1905-7 and 1912, Cmd. 773, 4651 and 6109, and <i>Labour Gazette</i>.]</p> - -</div> -</div> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_751">[Pg 751]</span></p> -<h3 id="APPENDIX_VII">APPENDIX VII</h3> -</div> - -<p class="h3sub">PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO TRADE UNIONS</p> - -<p>In the first edition of this book we gave a list, 45 pages long, of -books, pamphlets, reports, and other documents bearing on the -workmen’s combinations. In <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, 1897, we -gave a supplementary list, 23 pages long. We do not reproduce -these lists, to which the student can always refer; nor have -we attempted to bring them down to date. The really useful -material for Trade Union study is to be found in the publications -of the Trade Unions themselves—the innumerable editions of -rules, the thousands of annual and monthly reports, the -voluminous lists of piecework prices, the intricate working -agreements, the verbatim reports of conferences, delegate -meetings and proceedings before Conciliation and Arbitration -Boards—which are ignored by the British Museum, and are -practically never preserved in local public libraries. We made -an extensive collection in 1891-97, which we have deposited in -the British Library of Political Science, attached to the London -School of Economics and Political Science, where it has been, -to some extent, kept up to date, and where it is accessible to -any serious student. Some old pamphlets and reports of interest -are in the Goldsmiths’ Library at the University of London. -Of Trade Union publications since 1913 the most extensive -collection is that of the Labour Research Department, attached -to the Labour Party, 34 Eccleston Square, London.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_752">[Pg 752]</span></p> -<h3 id="APPENDIX_VIII">APPENDIX VIII</h3> -</div> - -<p class="h3sub">THE RELATIONSHIP OF TRADE UNIONISM TO THE GOVERNMENT -OF INDUSTRY</p> - -<p>In our work on <i>Industrial Democracy</i>, published in 1897, we -formulated the following tentative conclusions with regard to -the participation of the workmen’s organisations in industrial -management, and the relation of Trade Unionism to political -Democracy:</p> - -<p>“This survey of the changes required in Trade Union policy -leads us straight to a conclusion as to the part which Trade -Unionism will be expected to play in the management of the -industry of a democratic state. The interminable series of -decisions, which together make up industrial administration, -fall into three main classes. There is, first, the decision as to -what shall be produced—that is to say, the exact commodity -or service to be supplied to the consumers. There is, secondly, -the judgement as to the manner in which the production shall -take place, the adoption of material, the choice of processes, -and the selection of human agents. Finally, there is the -altogether different question of the conditions under which -these human agents shall be employed—the temperature, -atmosphere, and sanitary arrangements amid which they shall -work, the intensity and duration of their toil, and the wages -given as its reward.</p> - -<p>“To obtain for the community the maximum satisfaction it -is essential that the needs and desires of the consumers should -be the main factor in determining the commodities and services -to be produced. Whether these needs and desires can best be -ascertained and satisfied by the private enterprise of capitalist -profit-makers, keenly interested in securing custom, or by the -public service of salaried officials, intent on pleasing associations -of consumers (as in the British Co-operative Movement), or -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_753">[Pg 753]</span> -associations of citizens (the Municipality or the State), is at -present the crucial problem of Democracy. But whichever way -this issue may be decided, one thing is certain, namely, that -the several sections of manual workers, enrolled in their Trade -Unions, will have, under private enterprise or Collectivism, no -more to do with the determination of what is to be produced -than any other citizens or consumers. As manual workers and -wage-earners, they bring to the problem no specialised knowledge; -and as persons fitted for the performance of particular services, -they are even biassed against the inevitable changes in demand -which characterise progressive community. This is even more -the case with regard to the second department of industrial -administration—the adoption of material, the choice of processes, -and the selection of human agents. Here, the Trade -Unions concerned are specially disqualified, not only by their -ignorance of the possible alternatives, but also by their overwhelming -bias in favour of a particular material, a particular -process, or a particular grade of workers, irrespective of whether -these are or are not the best adapted for the gratification of -the consumers’ desires. On the other hand, the directors of -industry, whether thrown up by the competitive struggle or -deliberately appointed by the consumers or citizens, have been -specially picked out and trained to discover the best means of -satisfying the consumers’ desires. Moreover, the bias of their -self-interest coincides with the object of their customers or -employers—that is to say, the best and cheapest production. -Thus, if we leave out of account the disturbing influence of -monopoly in private enterprise, and corruption in public -administration, it would at first sight seem as if we might -safely leave the organisation of production and distribution -under the one system as under the other to the expert knowledge -of the directors of industry. But this is subject to one -all-important qualification. The permanent bias of the profitmaker, -and even of the salaried official of the Co-operative -Society, the Municipality, or the Government Department, is -to lower the expense of production. So far as immediate results -are concerned, it seems equally advantageous whether this -reduction of cost is secured by a better choice of materials, -processes, or men, or by some lowering of wages or other worsening -of the conditions upon which the human agents are employed. -But the democratic state is, as we have seen, vitally interested -in upholding the highest possible Standard of Life of all its -citizens, and especially of the manual workers who form four-fifths -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_754">[Pg 754]</span> -of the whole. Hence the bias of the directors of industry -in favor of cheapness has, in the interests of the community, to -be perpetually controlled and guided by a determination to -maintain, and progressively to raise, the conditions of employment.</p> - -<p>“This leads us to the third branch of industrial administration—the -settlement of the conditions under which the human -beings are to be employed. The adoption of one material rather -than another, the choice between alternative processes or -alternative ways of organising the factory, the selection of -particular grades of workers, or even of a particular foreman, -may affect, for the worse, the Standard of Life of the operatives -concerned. This indirect influence on the conditions of employment -passes imperceptibly into the direct determination of the -wages, hours, and other terms of the wage contract. On all -these matters the consumers, on the one hand, and the directors -of industry on the other, are permanently disqualified from -acting as arbiters. In our chapter on ‘The Higgling of the -Market’ we described how, in the elaborate division of labour -which characterises the modern industrial system, thousands -of workers co-operate in the bringing to market of a single -commodity; and no consumer, even if he desired it, could -possibly ascertain or judge of the conditions of employment in -all these varied trades. Thus, the consumers of all classes are -not only biassed in favour of low prices; they are compelled -to accept this apparent or genuine cheapness as the only practicable -test of efficiency of production. And though the immediate -employer of each section of workpeople knows the hours that -they work and the wages that they receive, he is precluded by -the stream of competitive pressure, transmitted through the -retail shopkeeper and the wholesale trader, from effectively -resisting the promptings of his own self-interest towards a -constant cheapening of labour. Moreover, though he may be -statistically aware of the conditions of employment his lack of -personal experience of those conditions deprives him of any -real knowledge of their effects. To the brain-working captain -of industry, maintaining himself and his family on thousands -a year, the manual-working wage-earner seems to belong to -another species, having mental faculties and bodily needs -altogether different from his own. Men and women of the -upper or middle classes are totally unable to realise what state -of body and mind, what level of character and conduct, result -from a life spent, from childhood to old age, amid the dirt, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_755">[Pg 755]</span> -the smell, the noise, the ugliness, and the vitiated atmosphere -of the workshop; under constant subjection to the peremptory, -or it may be brutal, orders of the foreman; kept continuously -at the laborious manual toil for sixty or seventy hours in every -week of the year; and maintained by the food, clothing, house-accommodation, -recreation, and family life which are implied -by a precarious income of between ten shillings and two pounds -a week. If the democratic state is to attain its fullest and finest -development, it is essential that the actual needs and desires of -the human agents concerned should be the main considerations -in determining the conditions of employment. Here then we -find the special function of the Trade Union in the administration -of industry. The simplest member of the working-class organisation -knows at any rate where the shoe pinches. The Trade -Union official is specially selected by his fellow-workmen for -his capacity to express the grievances from which they suffer, -and is trained by his calling in devising remedies for them. -But in expressing the desires of their members, and in insisting -on the necessary reforms, the Trade Unions act within the -constant friction-brake supplied by the need of securing employment. -It is always the consumers and the consumers alone, -whether they act through profit-making <i>entrepreneurs</i> or through -their own salaried officials, who determine how many of each -particular grade of workers they care to employ on the conditions -demanded.... Thus we find no neat formula for defining the -rights and duties of the individual in society. In the democratic -state every individual is both master and servant. In the work -that he does for the community in return for his subsistence he -is, and must remain, a servant, subject to the instructions and -directions of those whose desires he is helping to satisfy. As a -Citizen-Elector jointly with his fellows, and as a Consumer to -the extent of his demand, he is a master, determining, free from -any superior, what shall be done. Hence, it is the supreme -paradox of democracy that every man is a servant in respect -of the matters of which he possesses the most expert proficiency, -namely, the professional craft to which he devotes his working -hours; and he is a master over that on which he knows no more -than anybody else, namely, the general interests of the community -as a whole. In this paradox, we suggest, lies at once -the justification and the strength of democracy. It is not, as -is commonly asserted by the superficial, that Ignorance rules -over Knowledge, and Mediocrity over Capacity: In the -administration of society Knowledge and Capacity can make -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_756">[Pg 756]</span> -no real and durable progress except by acting on and through -the minds of the common human material which it is desired -to improve. It is only by carrying along with him the ‘average -sensual man,’ that even the wisest and most philanthropic -reformer, however autocratic his power, can genuinely change -the face of things. Moreover, not even the wisest of men can -be trusted with that supreme authority which comes from the -union of knowledge, capacity, and opportunity with the power -of untrammelled and ultimate decision. Democracy is an -expedient—perhaps the only practicable expedient—for preventing -the concentration in any single individual or in any -single class of what inevitably becomes, when so concentrated, -a terrible engine of oppression. The autocratic emperor, served -by a trained bureaucracy, seems to the Anglo-Saxon a perilously -near approach to such a concentration. If democracy meant, -as early observers imagined, a similar concentration of Knowledge -and Power in the hands of the numerical majority for -the time being, it might easily become as injurious a tyranny -as any autocracy. An actual study of the spontaneous democracies -of Anglo-Saxon workmen, or, as we suggest, of any other -democratic institutions, reveals the splitting up of this dangerous -authority into two parts. Whether in political or in industrial -democracy, though it is the Citizen who, as Elector or Consumer, -ultimately gives the order, it is the Professional Expert who -advises what the order shall be.</p> - -<p>“It is another aspect of this paradox that, in the democratic -state, no man minds his own business. In the economic sphere -this is a necessary consequence of division of labour; Robinson -Crusoe, producing solely for his own consumption, being the last -man who minded nothing but his own business. The extreme -complication brought about by universal production for exchange -in itself implies that every one works with a view to fulfilling -the desires of other people. The crowding together of dense -populations, and especially the co-operative enterprises which -then arise, extend in every direction this spontaneous delegation -to professional experts of what the isolated individual once -deemed ‘his own business.’ Thus, the citizen in a modern -municipality no longer produces his own food or makes his own -clothes; no longer protects his own life or property; no longer -fetches his own water; no longer makes his own thoroughfares, -or cleans or lights them when made; no longer removes his -own refuse or even disinfects his own dwelling. He no longer -educates his own children, or doctors and nurses his own -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_757">[Pg 757]</span> -invalids. Trade Unionism adds to the long list of functions thus -delegated to professional experts the settlement of the conditions -on which the citizen will agree to co-operate in the national -service. In the fully-developed democratic state the Citizen -will be always minding other people’s business. In his professional -occupation he will, whether as brain-worker or manual -labourer, be continually striving to fulfil the desires of those -whom he serves; whilst as an Elector, in his parish or his -co-operative society, his Trade Union or his political association, -he will be perpetually passing judgment on issues in -which his personal interest is no greater than that of his -fellows.</p> - -<p>“If, then, we are asked whether democracy, as shown by -an analysis of Trade Unionism, is consistent with Individual -Liberty, we are compelled to answer by asking, What is Liberty? -If Liberty means every man being his own master, and following -his own impulses, then it is clearly inconsistent, not so much -with democracy or any other particular form of government, as -with the crowding together of population in dense masses, -division of labour, and, as we think, civilisation itself. What -particular individuals, sections, or classes usually mean by -‘freedom of contract,’ ‘freedom of association,’ or ‘freedom -of enterprise’ is freedom of opportunity to use the power that -they happen to possess—that is to say, to compel other less -powerful people to accept their terms. This sort of personal -freedom in a community composed of unequal units is not -distinguishable from compulsion. It is, therefore, necessary to -define Liberty before talking about it; a definition which every -man will frame according to his own view of what is socially -desirable. We ourselves understand by the words ‘Liberty’ -or ‘Freedom,’ not any quantum of natural or inalienable -rights, but such conditions of existence in the community as -do, in practice, result in the utmost possible development of -faculty in the individual human being. Now, in this sense -democracy is not only consistent with Liberty, but is, as it -seems to us, the only way of securing the largest amount of it. -It is open to argument whether other forms of government -may not achieve a fuller development of the faculties of particular -individuals or classes. To an autocrat, untrammelled rule over -a whole kingdom may mean an exercise of his individual -faculties, and a development of his individual personality, such -as no other situation in life would afford. An aristocracy or -government by one class in the interests of one class, may -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_758">[Pg 758]</span> -conceivably enable that class to develop a perfection in physical -grace or intellectual charm attainable by no other system of -society. Similarly, it might be argued that, where the ownership -of the means of production and the administration of industry -are unreservedly left to the capitalist class, this ‘freedom of -enterprise’ would result in a development of faculty among -the captains of industry which could not otherwise be reached. -We dissent from all these propositions, if only on the ground -that the fullest development of personal character requires the -pressure of discipline as well as the stimulus of opportunity. -But however untrammelled power may affect the character of -those who possess it, autocracy, aristocracy, and plutocracy -have all, from the point of view of the lover of liberty, one -fatal defect—they necessarily involve a restriction in the -opportunity for development of faculty among the great mass -of the population. It is only when the resources of the nation -are deliberately organised and dealt with for the benefit, not of -particular individuals or classes, but of the entire community; -when the administration of industry, as of every other -branch of human affairs, becomes the function of specialised -experts, working through deliberately adjusted Common -Rules; and when the ultimate decision on policy rests in -no other hands than those of the citizens themselves, that -the maximum aggregate development of individual intellect -and individual character in the community as a whole can be -attained.</p> - -<p>“For our analysis helps us to disentangle from the complex -influences on individual development those caused by democracy -itself. The universal specialisation and delegation which, as we -suggest, democratic institutions involve, necessarily imply a -great increase in capacity and efficiency, if only because specialisation -in service means expertness, and delegation compels selection. -This deepening and narrowing of professional skill may be -expected, in the fully-developed democratic state, to be accompanied -by a growth in culture of which our present imperfect -organisation gives us no adequate idea. So long as life is one -long scramble for personal gain—still more, when it is one long -struggle against destitution—there is no free time or strength -for much development of the sympathetic, intellectual, artistic, -or religious faculties. When the conditions of employment are -deliberately regulated so as to secure adequate food, education, -and leisure to every capable citizen, the great mass of the -population will, for the first time, have any real chance of -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_759">[Pg 759]</span> -expanding in friendship and family affection, and of satisfying -the instinct for knowledge or beauty. It is an even more unique -attribute of democracy that it is always taking the mind of the -individual off his own narrow interests and immediate concerns, -and forcing him to give his thoughts and leisure, not to satisfying -his own desires, but to considering the needs and desires of his -fellows. As an Elector—still more as a chosen Representative—in -his parish, in his professional association, in his co-operative -society, or in the wider political institutions of his state, the -‘average sensual man’ is perpetually impelled to appreciate -and to decide issues of public policy. The working of democratic -institutions means, therefore, one long training in enlightened -altruism, one continual weighing, not of the advantage of the -particular act to the particular individual, at the particular -moment, but of those ‘larger expediencies’ on which all -successful conduct of social life depends.</p> - -<p>“If now, at the end of this long analysis, we try to formulate -our dominant impression, it is a sense of the vastness and -complexity of democracy itself. Modern civilised states are -driven to this complication by the dense massing of their -populations, and the course of industrial development. The -very desire to secure mobility in the crowd compels the adoption -of one regulation after another, which limit the right of every -man to use the air, the water, the land, and even the artificially -produced instruments of production, in the way that he may -think best. The very discovery of improved industrial methods, -by leading to specialisation, makes manual labourer and brainworker -alike dependent on the rest of the community for the -means of subsistence, and subordinates them, even in their own -crafts, to the action of others. In the world of civilisation and -progress, no man can be his own master. But the very fact -that, in modern society, the individual thus necessarily loses -control over his own life, makes him desire to regain collectively -what has become individually impossible. Hence the irresistible -tendency to popular government, in spite of all its difficulties -and dangers. But democracy is still the Great Unknown. Of -its full scope and import we can yet catch only glimpses. As -one department of social life after another becomes the subject -of careful examination we shall gradually attain to a more -complete vision. Our own tentative conclusions, derived from -the study of one manifestation of the democratic spirit, may, -we hope, not only suggest hypotheses for future verification, -but also stimulate other students to carry out original investigations -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_760">[Pg 760]</span> -into the larger and perhaps more significant types of -democratic organisation.”</p> - -<p>In 1920, after nearly a quarter of a century of further experience -and consideration, we should, in some respects, put this -differently. The growth, among all classes, and especially -among the manual workers and the technicians, of what we -may call corporate self-consciousness and public spirit, and the -diffusion of education—coupled with further discoveries in -the technique of democratic institutions—would lead us to-day -to include, and even to put in the forefront, certain -additional suggestions, which we can here only summarise -briefly.</p> - -<p>There is, in the first place, a genuine need for, and a real -social advantage in giving recognition to, the contemporary -transformation in the status of the manual working wage-earners, -on the one hand, and of the technicians on the other, as compared -with that of the manager or mere “captain of industry.” -This change of status, which is, perhaps, the most important -feature of the industrial history of the past quarter of a century, -will be most easily accorded its legitimate recognition in those -industries and services in which the profit-making capitalist -proprietor is dispensed with in favour of public ownership, -whether national, municipal, or co-operative. This is, incidentally, -an important reason for what is called “nationalisation.” -It is a real social gain that the General Secretary of the Swiss -Railwaymen’s Trade Union should sit as one of the five members -of the supreme governing board of the Swiss railway administration. -We ourselves look for the admission of nominees of the -manual workers, as well as of the technicians, upon the executive -boards and committees, on terms of complete equality with the -other members, in all publicly owned industries and services; -not merely, or even mainly, for the sake of the advantages -of the counsel and criticism that the newcomers may bring -from new standpoints, but principally for the sake of both -inspiring and satisfying the increasing sense of corporate self-consciousness -and public spirit among all those employed in -these enterprises.</p> - -<p>In the second place we should lay stress on the change that -is taking place in the nature (and in the conception) of authority -itself. In our analysis of 1897 we confined ourselves unduly to -a separation of spheres of authority. Whilst still regarding that -analytic separation of “management” into three classes of -judgements or decisions as fundamentally valid, we should -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_761">[Pg 761]</span> -nowadays attach even more importance to the ways in which -authority itself, in industry as well as in the rest of government, -is being rapidly transformed, alike in substance and in methods -of expression. The need for final decisions will remain, not -merely in emergencies, but also as to policy; and it is of high -importance to vest the responsibility for decision, according to -the nature of the case, in the right hands. But we suggest that -a great deed of the old autocracy in industry and services, once -deemed to be indispensable, is ceasing to be necessary to efficiency, -and will accordingly, as Democracy becomes more -genuinely accepted, gradually be dispensed with. A steadily -increasing sphere will, except in matters of emergency, be found -for consultation among all grades and sections concerned, out -of which will emerge judgements and decisions arrived at, very -largely, by common consent. This will, we believe, produce -actually a higher standard of industrial efficiency than mere -autocracy could ever hope for. Where knowledge is a common -possession the facts themselves will often decide; and though -decisions may be short, sharp, and necessarily formulated by -the appropriate person, they will not inevitably bear the impress -of (or be resented as) the dictates of irresponsible autocracy. -We may instance two large classes of considerations which -will, we think, with great social advantage, come to be matters -for mutual consultation in those committees and councils which -already characterise the administration of all industry on a -large scale, whether under private or public ownership, and which -will, in the future, be increasingly representative of all grades of -workers by hand or by brain. To such committees and councils -there will come, as a matter of course, a stream of reports from -the disinterested outside costing experts, which will carry with -them no coercive authority, but which will graphically reveal -the efficiency results, so far as regards cost and output, of each -part of the enterprise, in comparison both with its own past, and -with the corresponding results of other analogous enterprises. -Similarly, there will come a stream of financial and merely -statistical reports from equally disinterested outside auditors -and statisticians, making graphic revelations as to the progress -of the enterprise, in comparison with its own previous experience -and with the progress of like enterprises elsewhere. Further, -there will be a stream of what we may call scientific reports, -also from disinterested outside experts, not only describing new -inventions and discoveries in the technique of the particular -enterprise, but suggesting, in the light of recent surveys of the -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_762">[Pg 762]</span> -work, how they could be practically applied to its peculiar -circumstances. These three classes of reports, all of them by -disinterested experts, engaged in keeping under review all -analogous enterprises at home or abroad, and having neither -interest in, nor authority over, any of them, will, we suggest, -be discussed by the members of the committees and councils on -terms of equality; the decisions being taken, according to the -nature of the case, by those in whom the responsibility for -decision may be vested.</p> - -<p>But there will be a second extensive class of reports of a -different character, conveying not statements of fact but views -of policy. There will, we must assume, be reports from those -responsible, not merely or mainly for satisfying the existing -generation of consumers, producers, or citizens, but for safeguarding -the interests of the community as a whole, in the -future as well as in the present. There will be the reports from -the organs of the consumers or users of the particular commodity -or service (such as the District Committees representing telephone -users set up by the Postmaster-General as organs of, -criticism and suggestion for his telephone administration). -Finally there will be reports conveying criticisms and suggestions -from committees or councils representing other enterprises, or -other sections of producers (whether technicians or manual -workers), which may have something to communicate that they -deem important. These reports will, none of them, come with -coercive authority, but merely as conveying information, to be -considered in the consultations out of which the necessary -decisions will emerge.</p> - -<p>Opinions may differ as to the competence to take part in -such consultations of the selected representatives of the manual -workers and the technicians respectively. We are ourselves of -opinion that, taking the business as a whole, such representatives -will be found to compare, in competence, quite favourably with -the average member of a Board of Directors. But whether or -not the counsels and decisions of great industrial enterprises -are likely to be much improved by such consultations—and we -confidently expect that they will be—we suggest that it is -predominantly in this form that the principles of Democracy -may, in practice, be applied to industrial administration; and -that it will be for the Professional Associations of the technicians -and the Trade Unions of the manual workers to prove themselves -equal to the transformation in their status that this or -any other application of Democracy involves.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_763">[Pg 763]</span></p> - -<p>But here we must pause. In a future work on the achievements, -policy, and immediate controversies of the British Labour -and Socialist Movement we shall give the historical and the -psychological analysis, in the light of the experience of the past -few decades, upon which we base our present conclusions.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_764">[Pg 764]</span></p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_765">[Pg 765]</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="INDEX">INDEX</h2> -</div> - -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Aberdare, <a href="#Page_514">514</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Aberdare, Lord, <a href="#Page_276">276-7</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Aberdeen,</li> -<li class="isub1">cotton-weavers of, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">tailors of, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Abnormal place, <a href="#Page_513">513-16</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Abraham, William, <a href="#Page_596">596</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Acetylene Welders, <a href="#Page_495">495</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Acland, Sir A. H. Dyke, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Actions for damages, <a href="#Page_597">597-634</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Actors’ Association, <a href="#Page_507">507</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Actuarial position of T.U., <a href="#Page_267">267-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Adamson, W., <a href="#Page_699">699</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Admiralty Constructive Engineers, <a href="#Page_507">507</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Agricultural Labourers, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144-6</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328-34</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439-40</a>, <a href="#Page_488">488-9</a>, <a href="#Page_624">624</a>, <a href="#Page_648">648</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Agriculture, Royal Commission on, <a href="#Page_648">648</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Albert Hall, <a href="#Page_666">666</a>, <a href="#Page_669">669</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Alison, Sir Archibald, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“All Grades Movement,” <a href="#Page_525">525-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Allan, Wm., <a href="#Page_210">210-14</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>(life), <a href="#Page_233">233-40</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Alliance Cabinet Makers’ Association.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Cabinet Makers</li> - -<li class="indx">Almshouses, provided by the Liverpool Shipwrights, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Althorpe, Lord, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Amalgamated Association of Boot and Shoe Makers, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Amalgamated Association of Miners, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Amalgamated Engineering Union, <a href="#Page_488">488</a>, <a href="#Page_551">551</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Amalgamated Metal Wire and Tube Makers’ Society, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_766">[Pg 766]</span> -Amalgamated Society of.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Carpenters, Engineers, Cotton-spinners, Cotton-weavers, Boot and Shoemakers, Builders’ Labourers, Card and Blowing Room Operatives, Metal Planers, Railway Servants, Tailors, Watermen and Lightermen</li> - -<li class="indx">Amalgamated Tramway and Vehicle Workers, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Amalgamations and Federations, <a href="#Page_546">546-554</a></li> - -<li class="indx">American Federation of Labour, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_556">556</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Amicable and Brotherly Society of Machine Printers (Cotton and Calico), <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Amicable Society of Woolstaplers, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anderson, W. C., <a href="#Page_699">699</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Anti-corn Law League, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Applegarth, Robert, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233-40</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236-7</a></li> -<li class="isub1">(life), <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Appleton, W. A., <a href="#Page_556">556</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Apprentices, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Apprentices, Statute of, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250-51</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Arbitration, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226-7</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>, <a href="#Page_643">643</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Arch, Joseph, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a>, <a href="#Page_682">682</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Armstrong, Lord, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Arnot, R. Page, <a href="#Page_489">489</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511</a>, <a href="#Page_524">524</a>, <a href="#Page_532">532</a>, <a href="#Page_633">633</a>, <a href="#Page_662">662</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ashley, Sir W. J., <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511</a>, <a href="#Page_735">735-7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ashton, murder of, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ashton, Thomas, <a href="#Page_311">311</a>, <a href="#Page_356">356</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_767">[Pg 767]</span> -Ashton-under-Lyne, strikes at, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ashworth, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Asquith, H. H., <a href="#Page_528">528-9</a>, <a href="#Page_636">636</a>, <a href="#Page_645">645</a>, <a href="#Page_692">692</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Assinder, G. F., <a href="#Page_599">599</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Associated.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Blacksmiths, Carpenters, Engineers, Iron-forgers, Railwaymen, and Shipwrights</li> - -<li class="indx">Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>, <a href="#Page_505">505</a>, <a href="#Page_527">527</a>, <a href="#Page_530">530</a>, <a href="#Page_535">535</a>, <a href="#Page_539">539</a>, <a href="#Page_545">545</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Railwaymen</li> - -<li class="indx">Associations of Consumers, <a href="#Page_706">706-18</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Associations of Producers, <a href="#Page_653">653-63</a>, <a href="#Page_704">704-18</a>, <a href="#Page_752">752-62</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Atchison’s Haven, <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Austin, Michael, <a href="#Page_596">596</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ayrshire Miners, <a href="#Page_681">681</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Bachelor Companies, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Baernreither, Dr., <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_300">300</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Baker, C., <a href="#Page_634">634</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bakers, <a href="#Page_369">369</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438</a>, <a href="#Page_559">559</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bamford, Samuel, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bank Officers’ Guild, <a href="#Page_505">505</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Barker, Ernest, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Barnes, Geo. N., <a href="#Page_490">490</a>, <a href="#Page_692">692-3</a>, <a href="#Page_695">695</a>, <a href="#Page_698">698</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Barnsley, first working-man Town Councillor elected in, <a href="#Page_305">305</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Basketmakers, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438</a>, <a href="#Page_552">552</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bass, Michael, <a href="#Page_523">523</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bass-dressers, <a href="#Page_336">336</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Beale, C. G., <a href="#Page_530">530</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Beamers, <a href="#Page_477">477</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Beehive</i>, the, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254-5</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Beer, M., <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Beesly, Professor E. S., <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_231">231-2</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263-4</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_288">288</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_510">510</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Positivists</li> - -<li class="indx">Belfast, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_523">523</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Belfast and Dublin Locomotive Engine-drivers’ and Firemen’s Trade Union, <a href="#Page_523">523</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bell, Sir Hugh, xiv</li> - -<li class="indx">Bell Inn, Old Bailey, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bell, Richard, <a href="#Page_526">526-7</a>, <a href="#Page_601">601</a>, <a href="#Page_684">684</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bell, Robert, <a href="#Page_58">58</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Benbow, William, <a href="#Page_163">163-4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bennett, T. R., <a href="#Page_246">246</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bentham, Jeremy, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bernstein, Eduard, <a href="#Page_652">652</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Besant, Mrs. Annie, <a href="#Page_396">396</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_768">[Pg 768]</span> -Bevan, G. Phillips, <a href="#Page_347">347</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bibliography, <a href="#Page_751">751</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Birmingham, building trades of, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“Builders’ Parliament” at, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">tailors of, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Trade Unionism in, <a href="#Page_358">358-9</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Trades Council of, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329-30</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">trades procession at, <a href="#Page_177">177</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Birtwistle, Thomas, <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bit and Spur Makers, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Blackburn, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_697">697</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">riots at, <a href="#Page_344">344</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Blackburn List, the, <a href="#Page_226">226</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Black-coated proletariat,” <a href="#Page_503">503-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Blacklisting, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_598">598</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Blacksmiths, Associated Society of. Scotland.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Smiths</li> - -<li class="indx">Blastfurnacemen.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Ironworkers</li> - -<li class="indx">Bleachers, <a href="#Page_478">478</a>, <a href="#Page_480">480</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Block Printers, Glasgow, <a href="#Page_552">552</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Blok, P. J., <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Boa, Andrew, <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Board of Green Cloth” at Dublin, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Boilermakers, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_261">261-2</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_321">321-2</a>, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>, <a href="#Page_378">378</a>, <a href="#Page_428">428-31</a>, <a href="#Page_490">490-91</a>, <a href="#Page_559">559</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bolton, calico-printers at, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cotton operatives of, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">engineers of, <a href="#Page_207">207-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bondfield, Miss Margaret, <a href="#Page_496">496</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bookbinders, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196-7</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244-5</a>, <a href="#Page_437">437-8</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Boot and Shoe Operatives, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79-80</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>, <a href="#Page_436">436-7</a>, <a href="#Page_493">493-4</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Shoemakers</li> - -<li class="indx">Booth, Charles, <a href="#Page_375">375</a>, <a href="#Page_380">380-81</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bowerman, C. W., <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Box Club,” <a href="#Page_36">36-7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Boy labour, <a href="#Page_202">202</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brace, W., <a href="#Page_692">692</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bradford, woollen strike of 1825, <a href="#Page_111">111</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bradlaugh, Charles, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370-71</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bradninch, woolcombers in, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brainworkers,</li> -<li class="isub1">inclusion of, <a href="#Page_697">697</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">organisations of, <a href="#Page_503">503-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bramwell, Lord, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_363">363</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Branch meeting, description of, <a href="#Page_446">446-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brassey, Lord, <a href="#Page_269">269</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brassfounders.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Brassworkers</li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_769">[Pg 769]</span> -Brassworkers, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358-9</a>, <a href="#Page_430">430-31</a>, <a href="#Page_486">486-8</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Braziers, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Breeches Makers’ Benefit Society, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brentano, Dr. Luigi, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_339">339</a>, <a href="#Page_677">677</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brett, Lord Justice, <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bricklayers, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226-32</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354</a>, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>, <a href="#Page_428">428-9</a>, <a href="#Page_431">431-3</a>, <a href="#Page_559">559</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bricklayers’ and Plasterers’ Company, Dublin, <a href="#Page_721">721-4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brickmakers, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267-9</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Hebrew in Egypt, <a href="#Page_2">2</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brief Institution, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bright, John, <a href="#Page_35">35-6</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brighton Trades Council, <a href="#Page_558">558</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bristol, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_350">350</a></li> - -<li class="indx">British and Foreign Consolidated Association of Industry, Humanity, and Knowledge, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> - -<li class="indx">British Association of Steel Smelters.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Steel Smelters</li> - -<li class="indx">Broadhead, W., <a href="#Page_268">268-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Broadhurst, Henry, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_311">311-12</a>, <a href="#Page_325">325</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362-3</a>, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370</a>, <a href="#Page_372">372</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_635">635</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brontë, Charlotte, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brooklands Agreement, <a href="#Page_476">476</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brooks, J. G., <a href="#Page_655">655</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brougham, Lord, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Brushmakers, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Buchez, <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Builders’ Labourers, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_483">483</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Builders’ Parliament” of 1833, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of 1918-19, <a href="#Page_483">483</a>, <a href="#Page_649">649</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Building Trades, early combinations, <a href="#Page_8">8-11</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">lock-out in 1833, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in 1860, <a href="#Page_228">228-32</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in 1912, <a href="#Page_690">690</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">nine hours movement in, <a href="#Page_312">312-17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">statistics of, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>, <a href="#Page_428">428-9</a>, <a href="#Page_431">431-3</a>, <a href="#Page_481">481-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bull & Co., <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bullinger, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Burdett, Sir Francis, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Burgess, Joseph, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Burnett, John, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314-15</a></li> -<li class="isub1">(life), <a href="#Page_316">316</a>, <a href="#Page_325">325</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_368">368</a>, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_530">530</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Burns, John, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_375">375</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></li> -<li class="isub1"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_770">[Pg 770]</span>(life), <a href="#Page_387">387-8</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402-3</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407-13</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a>, <a href="#Page_490">490</a>, <a href="#Page_636">636</a>, <a href="#Page_682">682</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Burrows, Herbert, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Burt, Thomas, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289-90</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_340">340</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_510">510-11</a>, <a href="#Page_625">625</a>, <a href="#Page_635">635</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Burton, hatters of, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bussy, J. F. Moir, <a href="#Page_524">524</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Buxton, Lord, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Buxton, Sir T. Fowell, <a href="#Page_264">264</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Byron, Lord, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Cab-fare regulations, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cabinetmakers, <a href="#Page_76">76-8</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83-4</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_432">432-3</a>, <a href="#Page_481">481</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744-5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cabmen, <a href="#Page_369">369</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Ca’ Canny,” <a href="#Page_487">487</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cairns, Earl, <a href="#Page_275">275</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Calender-men, Glasgow, <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Calhoun, J. C., <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Calico Engravers of Manchester, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Calico-printers, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56-7</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Callender, W. R., <a href="#Page_272">272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cambridge, tailors of, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Campbell, Alexander, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249-53</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Campbell, G. L., <a href="#Page_366">366</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Henry, <a href="#Page_635">635</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Candidatures, independent, <a href="#Page_287">287-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Canning, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Capitalist, elimination of, <a href="#Page_673">673-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Card and Blowing Room Operatives, Amalgamated Association of, <a href="#Page_435">435</a>, <a href="#Page_475">475-80</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also </i> Cotton Operatives and Textiles</li> - -<li class="indx">Carlisle, cotton-weavers of, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Carmarthenshire, coal-miners of, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Carmen, <a href="#Page_439">439-40</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Carpenters, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228-32</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265-7</a>, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>, <a href="#Page_319">319</a>, <a href="#Page_323">323-4</a>, <a href="#Page_343">343</a>, <a href="#Page_346">346</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354-5</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_432">432-3</a>, <a href="#Page_481">481</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Company of London, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Dublin, <a href="#Page_721">721-4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Carpet-weavers, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_435">435-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cartwright, <a href="#Page_36">36</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Census of Trade Unionists, <a href="#Page_741">741-750</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Central Institute, <a href="#Page_593">593</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chalmers, G., <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chamberlain, Joseph, <a href="#Page_370">370</a>, <a href="#Page_373">373</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_771">[Pg 771]</span> -Champertors, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Champion, H. H., <a href="#Page_387">387</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chandler, F., <a href="#Page_354">354</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Channel Isles, etc., T.U. in, <a href="#Page_743">743</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chapel, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_489">489</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Character Note, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chartism, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174-8</a>, <a href="#Page_649">649</a>, <a href="#Page_653">653</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Checkweigher, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304-6</a>, <a href="#Page_466">466</a>, <a href="#Page_489">489</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chester, hatters of, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chimney-sweeps, <a href="#Page_136">136</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chinese Labour, <a href="#Page_691">691</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chippers and Drillers, <a href="#Page_548">548</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Chipping Norton case, <a href="#Page_332">332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Christian Socialists, the, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263-4</a>, <a href="#Page_707">707</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also </i> Hughes, Ludlow and Neale</li> - -<li class="indx">Churchill, Winston, <a href="#Page_494">494</a>, <a href="#Page_501">501</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cigarmakers, T.U. among, <a href="#Page_438">438</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Citizen Guard,” <a href="#Page_544">544</a></li> - -<li class="indx">City of Glasgow Bank failure, <a href="#Page_345">345</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Civil Service, <a href="#Page_507">507-8</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Arbitration Tribunal, <a href="#Page_508">508-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clark, W. S., <a href="#Page_601">601</a>, <a href="#Page_607">607</a>, <a href="#Page_634">634</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clayden, A. W., <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clerical Workers’ Union of Ireland, <a href="#Page_473">473</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clerks, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>, <a href="#Page_473">473</a>, <a href="#Page_504">504-5</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clode, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clothiers, <a href="#Page_33">33-6</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67-8</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clothiers’ Community, the, <a href="#Page_40">40</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clothing Trades, statistics of, <a href="#Page_428">428-429</a>, <a href="#Page_436">436-7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clothworkers’ Company, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33-4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clyde, depression on, <a href="#Page_346">346</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">engineers on, <a href="#Page_690">690</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ferment on, <a href="#Page_656">656</a>, <a href="#Page_659">659</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">shipyard workers of, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">shorter day on, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">strike on, in 1877, <a href="#Page_343">343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“Weekly Pays” on the, <a href="#Page_552">552</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clyde Workers’ Committee, <a href="#Page_488">488</a>, <a href="#Page_640">640</a>, <a href="#Page_659">659</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Clynes, J. R., <a href="#Page_497">497</a>, <a href="#Page_692">692</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Coachmakers, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Coal Industry Commission, <a href="#Page_511">511</a>, <a href="#Page_518">518-22</a>, <a href="#Page_648">648</a>, <a href="#Page_662">662-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Coal-miners.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Miners</li> - -<li class="indx">Coal-porters, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>, <a href="#Page_500">500-501</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cobbett, Wm., <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154-5</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the younger, <a href="#Page_253">253</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cobden, Richard, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cohen, H., <a href="#Page_599">599</a>, <a href="#Page_601">601</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_772">[Pg 772]</span> -Cokemen, <a href="#Page_434">434</a>, <a href="#Page_512">512</a>, <a href="#Page_549">549</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cole, G. D. H., <a href="#Page_485">485</a>, <a href="#Page_524">524</a>, <a href="#Page_532">532</a>, <a href="#Page_553">553</a>, <a href="#Page_633">633</a>, <a href="#Page_637">637</a>, <a href="#Page_660">660</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cole, Percy, <a href="#Page_491">491</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Colliery Clerks, <a href="#Page_513">513</a>, <a href="#Page_549">549</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Enginemen, <a href="#Page_434">434</a>, <a href="#Page_512">512</a>, <a href="#Page_549">549</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Mechanics, <a href="#Page_434">434</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Combe, Delafield & Co., <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Combination Acts, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Committee Liquor,” <a href="#Page_203">203</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Common employment, <a href="#Page_364">364-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Common Rules, <a href="#Page_758">758</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Composite Branches, <a href="#Page_483">483</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Compositors, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57-8</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77-8</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198-9</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398-9</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_437">437-8</a>, <a href="#Page_492">492-3</a>, <a href="#Page_606">606</a>, <a href="#Page_666">666</a>, <a href="#Page_671">671</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>,</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Typographical</li> - -<li class="indx">Conditions of Employment, <a href="#Page_754">754</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Confédération Générale de Travail, <a href="#Page_655">655</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Conference of Amalgamated Trades, <a href="#Page_263">263-83</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Confiscation of funds proposed, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Congress, Trades Union, origin of, <a href="#Page_280">280-81</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">description of, <a href="#Page_561">561-6</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">summons to, <a href="#Page_738">738-740</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Congreve, Richard, <a href="#Page_269">269</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Connolly, T., <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">James, <a href="#Page_472">472-3</a>, <a href="#Page_655">655-7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Conscription, <a href="#Page_639">639-40</a>, <a href="#Page_666">666-7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Consolidated Society of Bookbinders, London.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Bookbinders</li> - -<li class="indx">Conspiracy, law of, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a>, <a href="#Page_598">598</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">to injure, <a href="#Page_598">598</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Constitution of Labour Party, <a href="#Page_697">697</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Trade Unions, <a href="#Page_716">716</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Consumers, organisation of, <a href="#Page_762">762</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Contagious Diseases Acts, <a href="#Page_237">237</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Contracting Out, <a href="#Page_366">366</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cook, A. G., <a href="#Page_399">399</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Co-operative Employees, <a href="#Page_504">504</a>, <a href="#Page_559">559</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Movement, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_647">647</a>, <a href="#Page_675">675</a>, <a href="#Page_752">752-62</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">production, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225-6</a>, <a href="#Page_335">335-6</a>, <a href="#Page_650">650-51</a>, <a href="#Page_659">659</a>, <a href="#Page_707">707-8</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Society of Smiths.</li> -<li class="isub2"><i>See</i> Smiths;</li> -<li class="isub1">Union, the, <a href="#Page_545">545</a>, <a href="#Page_691">691</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Wholesale Society, <a href="#Page_541">541</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">workshops, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Coopers, <a href="#Page_74">74-5</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438</a>, <a href="#Page_548">548</a>, <a href="#Page_685">685</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Co-partnership, <a href="#Page_653">653</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Copper-miners, absence of T.U. among, <a href="#Page_434">434</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_773">[Pg 773]</span> -Cordwainers.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Boot and Shoe Operatives</li> - -<li class="indx">Corn Production Act, <a href="#Page_475">475</a>, <a href="#Page_498">498</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Costing experts, <a href="#Page_761">761</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cotton-spinners, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116-24</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151-2</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170-71</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307-13</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415-16</a>, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_435">435</a>, <a href="#Page_475">475-80</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cotton-weavers, <a href="#Page_56">56-9</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81-2</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307-13</a>, <a href="#Page_344">344</a>, <a href="#Page_435">435</a>, <a href="#Page_475">475-80</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Coulson, Edward, <a href="#Page_233">233-40</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Coventry, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cowen, Joseph, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cox, Harold, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Craft Gilds, <a href="#Page_4">4-21</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">labourers excluded from, <a href="#Page_43">43</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cranmer, Archbishop, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Crawford, William, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="#Page_303">303-4</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Crayford, calico-printers of, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cremer, Sir W. R., <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_682">682</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871, <a href="#Page_282">282-3</a>, <a href="#Page_290">290-91</a>, <a href="#Page_364">364</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Crompton, Henry, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_374">374</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Positivists</li> - -<li class="indx">Cromwell, combinations reported to, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Crooks, W., <a href="#Page_685">685</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cross, Viscount, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>, <a href="#Page_618">618</a>, <a href="#Page_624">624</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cruikshank, James, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cubitt’s, Messrs., strike at, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cunningham, Dr. William, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Curriers, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Customs officers, <a href="#Page_507">507</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cutlers, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cutlers’ Company, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst"><i>Daily Citizen</i>, <a href="#Page_689">689</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Daily Herald</i>, <a href="#Page_502">502</a>, <a href="#Page_542">542</a>, <a href="#Page_689">689</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dale, David, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_339">339</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Danter, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dartmouth, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Davenport, W., <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Davis, J. E., <a href="#Page_251">251</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Davis, R. J., <a href="#Page_503">503</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Davis, W. J., <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358-9</a></li> -<li class="isub1">(life), <a href="#Page_368">368</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_554">554</a>, <a href="#Page_601">601</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_774">[Pg 774]</span> -Davitt, Michael, <a href="#Page_473">473</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Defoe, Daniel, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Delahaye, Victor, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></li> - -<li class="indx">De Leon, Daniel, <a href="#Page_656">656</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Demarcation disputes, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Democracy, nature of, <a href="#Page_704">704-18</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">analysis of, <a href="#Page_752">752-62</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Deportation of Clyde workers, <a href="#Page_640">640</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Deputies, <a href="#Page_513">513</a>, <a href="#Page_549">549</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Derby, hatters of, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">potters of, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“turn-outs” of, <a href="#Page_137">137-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Devon, clothiers of, <a href="#Page_33">33-5</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Devonport, Lord, <a href="#Page_501">501-2</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dilke, Sir Charles, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_494">494</a>, <a href="#Page_617">617</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dilution, <a href="#Page_637">637-43</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Direct action, <a href="#Page_663">663-73</a>, <a href="#Page_712">712</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Directory of Trade Unions, <a href="#Page_244">244-5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">District Committee, <a href="#Page_221">221-2</a>, <a href="#Page_449">449</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Councils, <a href="#Page_547">547</a></li> - -<li class="indx">District Delegate, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_462">462-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dock Foremen and Clerks, London Society of, <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dockers, <a href="#Page_401">401-5</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>, <a href="#Page_420">420</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>, <a href="#Page_497">497-502</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Document, the, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150-51</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215-16</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Doherty, John, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117-18</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dolléans, E., <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dorchester labourers, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dowlais iron workers, <a href="#Page_224">224</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Drake, Barbara, <a href="#Page_637">637</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dronfield, William, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Druitt, <a href="#Page_278">278-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Drummond, C. J., <a href="#Page_398">398</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Drummond, Henry, <a href="#Page_277">277</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Drury, John, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dublin, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_551">551</a>, <a href="#Page_721">721-4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dugdale, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Duncombe, Thomas Slingsby, <a href="#Page_185">185-7</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193-5</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dundee, <a href="#Page_136">136</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dunning, T. J., <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_321">321</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dunsford, Martin, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Durham, coal-miners of, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181-2</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391-2</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511-12</a>, <a href="#Page_517">517</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dyer, Colonel, <a href="#Page_xiv">xiv</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dyers, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_436">436</a>, <a href="#Page_478">478</a>, <a href="#Page_480">480</a>, <a href="#Page_552">552</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_775">[Pg 775]</span> -Eastern Counties Labour Federation, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Agricultural Labourers</li> - -<li class="indx">Edinburgh, compositors of, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">trade clubs of, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Trades Council of, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Upholsterers’ Sewers’ Union at, <a href="#Page_336">336</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Educational Institute of Scotland, <a href="#Page_473">473</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Eight Hours Bill, textile agitation for, in 1867-75, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">general, <a href="#Page_387">387</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390-92</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_648">648</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Eight hours day, <a href="#Page_402">402-3</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">demanded in 1834, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">on the railways, <a href="#Page_535">535</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Elcho, Lord.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Wemyss, Earl of</li> - -<li class="indx">Eldon, Lord, <a href="#Page_105">105</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Election expenses, <a href="#Page_368">368</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Electioneering by Trade Unions, <a href="#Page_274">274-5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Electrical Trades Union, <a href="#Page_488">488</a>, <a href="#Page_551">551</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Elizabeth, Act of, <a href="#Page_47">47-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ellenborough, Lord, <a href="#Page_59">59-60</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ellicott, Dr., Bishop of Gloucester, <a href="#Page_332">332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ellis, Sir T. Ratcliffe, <a href="#Page_530">530</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ely, Bishop of, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Emblem, <a href="#Page_450">450</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Emigration, <a href="#Page_201">201-2</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Employer and Workman Act, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_625">625</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Employers’ Associations, service of, <a href="#Page_479">479</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">as combinations, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Employers’ liability, <a href="#Page_364">364-6</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370</a>, <a href="#Page_373">373</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Employers of Labour, National Federation of Associated, <a href="#Page_326">326-7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Employment Exchanges, <a href="#Page_646">646</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Engels, Friedrich, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Engineering and Shipbuilding Federation, <a href="#Page_552">552-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Engineers, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196-7</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204-24</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232-4</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="#Page_313">313-17</a>, <a href="#Page_346">346</a>, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_384">384-5</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415-16</a>, <a href="#Page_420">420-21</a>, <a href="#Page_551">551</a>, <a href="#Page_555">555</a>, <a href="#Page_559">559</a>, <a href="#Page_636">636</a>, <a href="#Page_643">643</a>, <a href="#Page_692">692</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">statistics of, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>, <a href="#Page_428">428-31</a>, <a href="#Page_484">484-490</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">strike of 1836, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">strike of 1852, <a href="#Page_214">214-16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">strike of 1897, <a href="#Page_484">484-5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Enginemen, <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Equalisation of funds, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Erle, Sir William, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_776">[Pg 776]</span> -Evans, D., <a href="#Page_511">511</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Evans, Frederick, <a href="#Page_523">523</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Eversley, Lord, <a href="#Page_228">228</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Excess Profits Duty, <a href="#Page_641">641</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Excise officers, <a href="#Page_507">507-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Exeter, <a href="#Page_34">34-5</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Fabian Research Department.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Labour Research Department</li> - -<li class="indx">Fabian Society, <a href="#Page_375">375</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>, <a href="#Page_561">561</a>, <a href="#Page_642">642</a>, <a href="#Page_662">662</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680-82</a>, <a href="#Page_684">684</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Factory Acts, <a href="#Page_679">679</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Factory Acts Reform Association, <a href="#Page_310">310-13</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Factory inspectors, <a href="#Page_371">371-2</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fagniez, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fairbairn, Sir W., <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fair Trade League, <a href="#Page_394">394-5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Fair Wages” agitation, <a href="#Page_398">398-9</a>, <a href="#Page_558">558</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Farr, Dr. William, <a href="#Page_228">228</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Farriers, <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Farringdon, prosecution of labourers at, <a href="#Page_332">332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Farwell, Lord Justice, <a href="#Page_627">627</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Faulkner, H. V., <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fawcett Association, <a href="#Page_508">508</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fawcett, Henry, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Federal Council of Secondary School Associations, <a href="#Page_506">506</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Federation of British Industries, <a href="#Page_545">545</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Federation of the Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_421">421</a>, <a href="#Page_552">552-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Federation of Organised Trade Societies, <a href="#Page_356">356</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Felkin, W., <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Feltmakers’ Company, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Female Umbrella Makers, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fenwick, Charles, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fernehough, Thomas, <a href="#Page_260">260</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ferrand, M.P., <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fielden, J., <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fielding, Sir John, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Figgis, J. N., <a href="#Page_611">611</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Filesmiths of Sheffield, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Findlay, Sir George, <a href="#Page_525">525</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Finlaison, <a href="#Page_268">268</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Flannel-weavers of Rochdale, <a href="#Page_127">127</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Flax Roughers, <a href="#Page_473">473</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">workers, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_435">435-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_777">[Pg 777]</span> -Flint Glass Makers, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183-4</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199-202</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_379">379-80</a>, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Forbes, Archibald, <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Foreign policy of Labour Party, <a href="#Page_695">695-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Foremen, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>, <a href="#Page_506">506</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Forest of Dean Miners’ Association, <a href="#Page_434">434</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Miners</li> - -<li class="indx">Forster, W. E., <a href="#Page_228">228</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Foster, Thomas, <a href="#Page_118">118-20</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">(another) 648</li> - -<li class="indx">Foxwell, Professor H. S., <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Framework-knitters, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38-9</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51-2</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88-9</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Franchise, <a href="#Page_368">368</a>, <a href="#Page_372">372</a>, <a href="#Page_624">624</a>, <a href="#Page_672">672</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Franklin, Benjamin, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Free Colliers of Scotland, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Freemasons, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li> - -<li class="indx">French Polishers, <a href="#Page_432">432-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Friendly Benefits, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_445">445</a>, <a href="#Page_620">620-21</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Friendly Societies, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Act for, <a href="#Page_261">261</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Friendly Society of Oddfellows, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Friendly Society of Operative Stonemasons.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Stonemasons</li> - -<li class="indx">Friendly Union of Mechanics, <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Friendly United Smiths of Great Britain and Ireland, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Smiths</li> - -<li class="indx">Friziers, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Frost, Williams, and Jones, Newport Chartists, <a href="#Page_177">177</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Froude, J. A., <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Furnishing Trades, <a href="#Page_481">481</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fynes, Richard, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Gaevernitz, von Schulze, <a href="#Page_339">339</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Galloway, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Galton, F. W., <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gammage, R. G., <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Garibaldi, <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Garment Workers.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Tailors</li> - -<li class="indx">Garton Foundation, <a href="#Page_648">648</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gascoyne, Colonel, <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gas-stokers, London (1872), <a href="#Page_284">284-5</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">strike of (1834), <a href="#Page_138">138</a>,</li> -<li class="isub1">(1888) 395.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Gas-workers</li> - -<li class="indx">Gast, John, <a href="#Page_84">84-5</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gas-workers, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_420">420</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>, <a href="#Page_497">497</a>, <a href="#Page_499">499</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_778">[Pg 778]</span> -Gateshead Trades Council, <a href="#Page_561">561</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Geddes, Sir Auckland, <a href="#Page_536">536-7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Geddes, Sir Eric, <a href="#Page_536">536-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Geldart, W. M., <a href="#Page_609">609</a>, <a href="#Page_634">634</a></li> - -<li class="indx">General Federation of Trade Unions 554-7, <a href="#Page_603">603-4</a>, <a href="#Page_700">700</a></li> - -<li class="indx">General Labourers’ National Council, <a href="#Page_499">499</a></li> - -<li class="indx">General Railway Workers’ Union, <a href="#Page_405">405-6</a>, <a href="#Page_524">524</a>, <a href="#Page_530">530</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Railwaymen</li> - -<li class="indx">General staff, need for, <a href="#Page_546">546</a></li> - -<li class="indx">General Union of Carpenters.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Carpenters</li> - -<li class="indx">General Union of Sheet Metal Workers.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Sheet Metal Workers</li> - -<li class="indx">General Union of Textile Workers, <a href="#Page_480">480</a></li> - -<li class="indx">General Workers, <a href="#Page_497">497-502</a></li> - -<li class="indx">George, D. Lloyd, <a href="#Page_509">509</a>, <a href="#Page_518">518</a>, <a href="#Page_522">522</a>, <a href="#Page_527">527</a>, <a href="#Page_537">537-9</a>, <a href="#Page_541">541</a>, <a href="#Page_543">543-4</a>, <a href="#Page_645">645</a>, <a href="#Page_692">692</a>, <a href="#Page_694">694-5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">George, Henry, <a href="#Page_375">375-6</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gierke, O., <a href="#Page_611">611-12</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Giffen, Sir Robert, <a href="#Page_424">424</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gig-mill, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gild of St. George, Coventry, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Girdlestone, Canon, <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gladstone, W. E., <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284-6</a>, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>, <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Glasgow, calico-printers of, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cotton operatives of, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58-9</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170-71</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">gilds of, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">labourers’ society in, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">stonemasons of, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Trades Council of, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242-3</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252-3</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">violent Trade Unionism of, <a href="#Page_165">165</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Glass-bottle Makers, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_441">441</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Glass-workers.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Flint Glass Makers and Glass-bottle Makers</li> - -<li class="indx">Glaziers of London, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gloucestershire, clothiers of, <a href="#Page_33">33-5</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">weavers of, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">woollen-workers of, <a href="#Page_33">33-4</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Glovers, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_437">437</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Goderich, Lord.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Ripon, Marquis of</li> - -<li class="indx">Gold, Silver, and Kindred Trades Society, <a href="#Page_551">551</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Goldasti, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_779">[Pg 779]</span> -Goldbeaters, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gompers, Samuel, <a href="#Page_556">556</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Gorgon</i>, the, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Government of Industry, <a href="#Page_752">752-62</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Government officials, <a href="#Page_507">507-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Graham, Sir James, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Graham, R. B. Cunninghame, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_682">682</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Grain-porters, <a href="#Page_501">501</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Grand National Consolidated Trades Union, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rules of, <a href="#Page_725">725-733</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Grey, Sir George, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Grinders, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_260">260</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gross, Dr., <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Grote, George, <a href="#Page_178">178</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Guild Socialism, <a href="#Page_548">548</a>, <a href="#Page_660">660-1</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Guilds.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Craft Gilds</li> - -<li class="indx">Guile, Daniel, <a href="#Page_233">233-40</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a></li> -<li class="isub1">(life of), <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gurney, J, and W. B., <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gurney, Russell, <a href="#Page_275">275</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Haddleton, <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Halévy, Élie, <a href="#Page_648">648</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Halifax, woollen-workers of, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hall, Rev. Robert, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Halliday, Sir Leonard, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Halliday, Thomas, <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hallsworth, Joseph, <a href="#Page_503">503</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Halsbury, Lord, <a href="#Page_610">610</a>, <a href="#Page_614">614</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hamilton, A. H. A., <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hammond, J. L. and B., <a href="#Page_70">70-71</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hanley Trades Council, <a href="#Page_558">558</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hansom, <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hardie, J. Keir, <a href="#Page_396">396</a>, <a href="#Page_681">681-4</a>, <a href="#Page_688">688</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Harford, E., <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Harrel, Sir David, <a href="#Page_530">530</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Harrison, Frederic, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270-71</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273-4</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295-7</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_374">374</a>, <a href="#Page_610">610</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Positivists</li> - -<li class="indx">Harvey, George, <a href="#Page_511">511</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hasbach, Dr. W., <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hatters, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52-3</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_437">437</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Feltmakers’ Company</li> - -<li class="indx">Headlam, Rev. S. D., <a href="#Page_399">399</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Heath, F. G., <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Henderson, Arthur, <a href="#Page_490">490</a>, <a href="#Page_529">529-30</a>, <a href="#Page_666">666</a>, <a href="#Page_669">669</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a>, <a href="#Page_685">685</a>, <a href="#Page_692">692</a>, <a href="#Page_694">694-5</a>, <a href="#Page_699">699</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_780">[Pg 780]</span> -Henson, Gravener, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hepburn, Tommy, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Herald of the Rights of Industry, The</i>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Herbert, Hon. Auberon, <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hewins, W. A. S., <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hexham, hatters of, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hibbert and Platt, <a href="#Page_214">214</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hill, Frank, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hill, Frederic, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hilles, Richard, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hobhouse, Benjamin, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hobhouse, John Cam, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hobson, S. G., <a href="#Page_660">660</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hodge, John, <a href="#Page_491">491</a>, <a href="#Page_692">692</a>, <a href="#Page_695">695</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hodges, Frank, <a href="#Page_517">517</a>, <a href="#Page_673">673-5</a>, <a href="#Page_715">715</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hodgskin, T., <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Holders-up.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Boilermakers.</li> - -<li class="indx">Holland, John, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Holland, Lord, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Holyoake, G. J., <a href="#Page_302">302</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Holy town, miners of, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hornby <i>v.</i> Close, <a href="#Page_262">262</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hosiery-workers, <a href="#Page_435">435-6</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Framework-knitters</li> - -<li class="indx">Hour, payment by the, <a href="#Page_245">245-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">House of Call, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_445">445</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hovell, Mark, vi, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Howell, George, <a href="#Page_12">12-13</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40-41</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285-6</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291-2</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_325">325</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329-30</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370</a>, <a href="#Page_372">372</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>, <a href="#Page_599">599</a>, <a href="#Page_601">601</a>, <a href="#Page_616">616-17</a>, <a href="#Page_623">623</a>, <a href="#Page_665">665</a>, <a href="#Page_682">682</a>, <a href="#Page_746">748</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Howick, Lord, <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hoxie, R. F., <a href="#Page_717">717</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hozier, J. H. C., <a href="#Page_393">393</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Huddersfield, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hughes, Judge Thomas, Q.C., <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_274">274-5</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263-4</a>, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Christian Socialists</li> - -<li class="indx">Hughson, David, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hull, ropemakers of, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Trade Unionism at, <a href="#Page_136">136</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hume, James Deacon, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hume, Joseph, M.P., <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99-168</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_781">[Pg 781]</span> -Humphrey, A. W., <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_604">604</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Humphries, E., <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hunt, D. R. C., <a href="#Page_599">599</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hunt, Henry, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hunter, Thomas, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Huskisson, W., M.P., <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hutchinson, Alexander, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hutton, R. H., <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hutton, W., <a href="#Page_177">177</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Huysmans, Camille, <a href="#Page_666">666</a>, <a href="#Page_669">669</a>, <a href="#Page_670">670</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hyde, spinners’ strike at, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hyett, W. H., <a href="#Page_111">111</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hyndman, H. M., <a href="#Page_376">376-7</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409-11</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">“Illegal men,” <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Incorporation of Trade Unions, <a href="#Page_596">596</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Independent Labour Party, <a href="#Page_384">384</a>, <a href="#Page_652">652</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680-84</a>, <a href="#Page_692">692</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Independent Order of Engineers and Machinists.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Engineers</li> - -<li class="indx">Index numbers, <a href="#Page_339">339</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Industrial Conscription, <a href="#Page_639">639-40</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Industrial Courts Act, 1919, <a href="#Page_643">643</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Industrial Remuneration Conference, <a href="#Page_380">380</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Industrial Unionism, <a href="#Page_656">656-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Industrial Unions, <a href="#Page_548">548-50</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Industrial Workers of the World, <a href="#Page_655">655</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Industries, difficulty of delimiting, <a href="#Page_714">714</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ingram, Dr. J. K., <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Initiation Parts, <a href="#Page_149">149</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Injunctions, <a href="#Page_599">599</a>, <a href="#Page_600">600</a>, <a href="#Page_688">688</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Inspectors, <a href="#Page_504">504-5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Insurance Agents, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>, <a href="#Page_507">507</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Inter-Allied Conferences, <a href="#Page_693">693-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Interlocutor, <a href="#Page_581">581</a></li> - -<li class="indx">International Association of Working-men, <a href="#Page_235">235-6</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>, <a href="#Page_379">379</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396-7</a>, <a href="#Page_421">421</a>, <a href="#Page_666">666</a>, <a href="#Page_693">693-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">International Federations of Trade Unions, <a href="#Page_555">555-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Intimidation, <a href="#Page_597">597</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ireland, laws in, <a href="#Page_68">68-9</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Trade Unionism in, <a href="#Page_472">472-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Irish Bank Officials’ Association, <a href="#Page_505">505</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Irish Clerical Workers’ Union, <a href="#Page_505">505</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Irish Labour Party, <a href="#Page_473">473</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Irish Railway Workers’ Trade Union, <a href="#Page_524">524</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_782">[Pg 782]</span> -Irish Teachers’ Society, <a href="#Page_473">473</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Irish Textile Workers’ Federation, <a href="#Page_473">473</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Irish Trades Union Congress, <a href="#Page_473">473</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, <a href="#Page_492">492</a>, <a href="#Page_552">552</a>, <a href="#Page_746">749</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Iron and Steelworkers, Associated Society of.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Ironworkers</li> - -<li class="indx">Iron Forgers, Associated Fraternity of, or Old Smiths, <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ironfounders, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198-9</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200-203</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="#Page_319">319-20</a>, <a href="#Page_348">348-9</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_429">429-30</a>, <a href="#Page_488">488</a>, <a href="#Page_685">685</a>, <a href="#Page_692">692</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Irongrinders, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ironmoulders.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Ironfounders</li> - -<li class="indx">Iron shipbuilders.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Boiler makers</li> - -<li class="indx">Iron Trade—Midland Wages Board, <a href="#Page_734">734-5</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">North of England Wages Board, <a href="#Page_734">734-5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ironworkers, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>, <a href="#Page_339">339</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="#Page_430">430-31</a>, <a href="#Page_491">491-2</a>, <a href="#Page_734">734-5</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Dowlais, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Staffordshire, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">sliding scales of, <a href="#Page_734">734-5</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Jackson and Graham, <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jackson, Col. Raynsford, <a href="#Page_344">344</a></li> - -<li class="indx">James, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li> - -<li class="indx">James of Hereford, Lord, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_493">493</a>, <a href="#Page_610">610</a>, <a href="#Page_615">615-16</a>, <a href="#Page_618">618</a>, <a href="#Page_626">626</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jeffrey, Lord, <a href="#Page_72">72</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jevons, H. Stanley (the younger), <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511</a>, <a href="#Page_516">516</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jewish Unions, <a href="#Page_478">478</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Joiners.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Carpenters</li> - -<li class="indx">Joint Board, <a href="#Page_700">700</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Joint Committees.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Arbitration, Whitley Councils</li> - -<li class="indx">Jones, Benjamin, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_708">708</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jones, Daniel, <a href="#Page_734">734</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jones, Lloyd, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_340">340-41</a></li> -<li class="isub1">(life), <a href="#Page_510">510</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jones, W. C., <a href="#Page_341">341</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Journalists, <a href="#Page_493">493</a>, <a href="#Page_507">507</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Journeyman Fraternities, <a href="#Page_4">4-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Journeymen Steam Engine and Machine Makers and Millwrights Friendly Society, <a href="#Page_204">204-20</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Engineers</li> - -<li class="indx">Jude, Martin, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_299">299</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Junta, the, <a href="#Page_233">233-98</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_783">[Pg 783]</span> -Jupp, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Jury service, <a href="#Page_367">367-8</a>, <a href="#Page_372">372</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Justices of the Peace, <a href="#Page_372">372</a>, <a href="#Page_594">594</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Kane, John, <a href="#Page_240">240</a></li> -<li class="isub1">(life of), <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>, <a href="#Page_339">339</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Karslake, Sir John, <a href="#Page_275">275</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Kay-Shuttleworth, Sir James, <a href="#Page_228">228</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Keeling, F., <a href="#Page_500">500</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Keelmen, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Kenney, Rowland, <a href="#Page_524">524</a>, <a href="#Page_527">527</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Kettel, F. E., <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Kettle, Sir Rupert, <a href="#Page_338">338-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Kidderminster, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">carpet-weavers of, <a href="#Page_224">224</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Kitchen-range, etc., Fitters’ Union, <a href="#Page_323">323</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Knight, Charles, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Knight, Robert, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>, <a href="#Page_351">351</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_378">378</a>, <a href="#Page_421">421</a>, <a href="#Page_554">554</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Knights of Labour, <a href="#Page_135">135</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Laboratory workers, <a href="#Page_506">506</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Labour and the New Social Order, <a href="#Page_679">679</a>, <a href="#Page_697">697</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Labour Commission, <a href="#Page_595">595-6</a>, <a href="#Page_602">602</a>, <a href="#Page_650">650</a>, <a href="#Page_735">735</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Labour Department, <a href="#Page_596">596</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Labour Elector, The</i>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Labour Electoral Committee, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Labour League, London and Counties, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Labour members, characteristics of, <a href="#Page_701">701-2</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Labour Party, <a href="#Page_604">604</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Labour Representation League, <a href="#Page_287">287-9</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Labour Research Department, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_542">542</a>, <a href="#Page_561">561</a>, <a href="#Page_751">751</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Labour Standard, The</i>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Labour Time, <a href="#Page_162">162-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Labourers,</li> -<li class="isub1">no early organisation among, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">statistics of, <a href="#Page_428">428-9</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438-40</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">increase of, <a href="#Page_497">497-502</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lacemakers, <a href="#Page_435">435-6</a>, <a href="#Page_441">441</a>, <a href="#Page_559">559</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ladies’ Shoemakers’ Society, <a href="#Page_238">238</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Laisser-faire</i>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lanarkshire, cotton-weavers of, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lancashire Federation of Protection Societies, <a href="#Page_478">478</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_784">[Pg 784]</span> -Lancashire Miners, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Land Nationalisation, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Langford, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lansbury, George, <a href="#Page_689">689</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Larkin, James, <a href="#Page_472">472-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lathom, R. M., <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Laundresses, T.U., <a href="#Page_336">336</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Law, Bonar, <a href="#Page_668">668</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Law reforms, <a href="#Page_367">367-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lawrence, F. Pethick, <a href="#Page_681">681</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lawrence, Miss Susan, <a href="#Page_494">494</a>, <a href="#Page_496">496</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Laws, Mr., <a href="#Page_287">287</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Layton, W. T., <a href="#Page_527">527</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lead miners, absence of T.U. among, <a href="#Page_434">434</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Leathergrounders, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Leatherworkers, <a href="#Page_437">437</a>, <a href="#Page_552">552</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lee, H. W., <a href="#Page_501">501</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Leech, H. J., <a href="#Page_293">293</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Leeds, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">clothing trade of, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Clothiers’ Union, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Leeds, Huddersfield, and Bradford District Union, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Legal assaults, <a href="#Page_597">597-634</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Legal Minimum Wage, under Trade Boards Act, <a href="#Page_494">494-5</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">under Corn Production Act, <a href="#Page_498">498</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">under Mines Act, <a href="#Page_514">514-16</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Leicester, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">hosiery workers of, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Trades Council, <a href="#Page_558">558</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">woolcombers of, <a href="#Page_36">36</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Levi, Leone, <a href="#Page_424">424</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Levine, Louis, <a href="#Page_655">655</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lewis, Sir G. C., <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Liberty, analysis of, <a href="#Page_757">757</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lichfield, Earl of, <a href="#Page_254">254</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Life Assurance Agents.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Insurance Agents</li> - -<li class="indx">Linen Weavers, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Link, The</i>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Liquor, <a href="#Page_448">448</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">allowance, <a href="#Page_203">203-4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Litchfield, R. B., <a href="#Page_246">246</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Liverpool,</li> -<li class="isub1">building trades of, <a href="#Page_128">128-130</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">dockers of, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">hatters of, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ropemakers of, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">shipwrights of, <a href="#Page_551">551</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Trades Council, <a href="#Page_242">242-3</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354-5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Liverpool, Lord, <a href="#Page_105">105</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Liverpool Sailmakers’ Friendly Association of Shipwrights,</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Shipwrights</li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_785">[Pg 785]</span> -Liverpool, Trades Guardian Association of, <a href="#Page_243">243</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lloyd, C. M., <a href="#Page_160">160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Local Government elections, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">employees, <a href="#Page_508">508</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">successes, <a href="#Page_703">703-4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Local <i>versus</i> Central Administration, <a href="#Page_714">714</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lock-out, the, <a href="#Page_255">255-6</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of agricultural labourers, <a href="#Page_332">332</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a></li> - -<li class="indx">London and Counties Labour League, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> - -<li class="indx">London Carpenters’ Company, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">city companies of, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">coal-porters of, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">early combinations in the City of, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">framework knitters of, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51-2</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">joiners’ company of, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">shipwrights’ company of, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Trades Council, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_333">333</a>, <a href="#Page_558">558-60</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">woodsawyers of, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li> - -<li class="indx">London Consolidated Society of Bookbinders, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li> - -<li class="indx">London Society of Compositors, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_437">437-8</a>, <a href="#Page_492">492</a></li> - -<li class="indx">London Working Men’s Association, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Londonderry, Lord, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Longe, F. D., <a href="#Page_228">228</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Looms, renting of, forbidden, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Loveless, George, John, and James, <a href="#Page_144">144-6</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lovett, Samuel, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lovett, William, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lowe, Robert.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Sherbrooke, Lord, <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lucraft, Benjamin, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Luddites, the, <a href="#Page_87">87-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ludlow, J. M., <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Christian Socialists</li> - -<li class="indx">Lushington, Sir Godfrey, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lushington, Vernon, <a href="#Page_264">264</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Macarthur, Miss Mary, <a href="#Page_494">494</a>, <a href="#Page_496">496</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Macclesfield, hatters of, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> - -<li class="indx">McConnel and Co., <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - -<li class="indx">McCulloch, J. R., <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Macdonald, Alexander, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>, <a href="#Page_300">300</a></li> -<li class="isub1"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_786">[Pg 786]</span> -(life of), <a href="#Page_301">301-7</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>,<a href="#Page_510">510</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">MacDonald, J. Ramsay, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>,<a href="#Page_529">529</a>, <a href="#Page_666">666</a>, <a href="#Page_669">669</a>, <a href="#Page_684">684-5</a>, <a href="#Page_688">688</a>, <a href="#Page_699">699</a></li> - -<li class="indx">McGowan, Patrick, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Machine, Engine, and Iron Grinders’ Society, <a href="#Page_744">744-7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Machine Printers, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Compositors</li> - -<li class="indx">Machine Workers.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Engineers</li> - -<li class="indx">Machinery, export of, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li> - -<li class="indx">M’Hugh, Edward, <a href="#Page_582">582</a></li> - -<li class="indx">MacManus, A., <a href="#Page_619">619</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Madox, T., <a href="#Page_612">612</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Maitland, F. W., <a href="#Page_611">611-12</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Maitland, General, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Man, The</i>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Management, analysis of, <a href="#Page_752">752</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Manchester—Association of T.U. Officials,</li> -<li class="isub1">Manchester and District, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">brickmakers of, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">building trades of, <a href="#Page_130">130-31</a>,</li> -<li class="isub1">(strike of 1846)<a href="#Page_193">193</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">carpenters of, <a href="#Page_343">343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cotton-spinners of, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">lengthening of hours at, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">painters of, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Trades Council, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_558">558-60</a>, <a href="#Page_738">738-40</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mandamus, <a href="#Page_600">600</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Manley, Thomas, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mann, Tom, <a href="#Page_383">383-4</a></li> -<li class="isub1">(life), <a href="#Page_396">396</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406-7</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412-14</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a>, <a href="#Page_490">490</a>, <a href="#Page_595">595-6</a>, <a href="#Page_651">651-2</a>, <a href="#Page_657">657-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Manners, Lord John, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Manning, Cardinal, <a href="#Page_332">332</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Marcroft family, the, <a href="#Page_152">152</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Marine Engineers’ Union.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Engineers</li> - -<li class="indx">Marlborough, Duke of, <a href="#Page_332">332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Marshall, James, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Martineau, Harriet, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Marx, Karl, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a>, <a href="#Page_376">376</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Masons.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Stonemasons</li> - -<li class="indx">Master and Servant, law in 1844, <a href="#Page_185">185-6</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Act of 1867, <a href="#Page_249">249-53</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Match girls, London strike of, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Maudsley, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Maurice, Rev. F. D., <a href="#Page_228">228</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mavor, James, <a href="#Page_524">524</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mawdsley, James, <a href="#Page_379">379</a>, <a href="#Page_479">479</a>, <a href="#Page_596">596</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mawdsley, Thomas, <a href="#Page_311">311</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Maxwell, William, <a href="#Page_598">598</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_787">[Pg 787]</span> -May, John, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mayhew, <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mechanics’ Friendly Union Institution, <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Mechanics’ Magazine</i>, the, <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Medico-Political Union, <a href="#Page_506">506-7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Melbourne, Lord, <a href="#Page_138">138-48</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Memorandum on War Aims</i>, <a href="#Page_695">695</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Memorial of Freedom and Peace, <a href="#Page_593">593</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Menger, Anton, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mercantile Marine Offices, Superintendents of, <a href="#Page_507">507</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Merchant Shipping Acts, <a href="#Page_607">607</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Merchant Taylors’ Company, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mersey Quay and Railway Carters’ Union.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Carmen</li> - -<li class="indx">Merton College buildings, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mess, H. A., <a href="#Page_500">500</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Middleton, J. S., <a href="#Page_691">691</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Midland Iron Trade Board, <a href="#Page_734">734</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Miles, Wm., <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Military Service Acts, <a href="#Page_639">639-40</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mill, James, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mill, John Stuart, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>, <a href="#Page_617">617</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Millers, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Kent, <a href="#Page_59">59-60</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Millmen.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Ironworkers</li> - -<li class="indx">Millwrights, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83-4</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Miners, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_510">510-22</a>, <a href="#Page_624">624</a>, <a href="#Page_690">690</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Amalgamated Association of, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Co-operative Production and, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Association of, G. B. and I., <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>, <a href="#Page_517">517-18</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Eight Hours Act, <a href="#Page_686">686</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Federation, <a href="#Page_393">393-4</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433-4</a>, <a href="#Page_510">510-22</a>, <a href="#Page_538">538</a>, <a href="#Page_549">549-50</a>, <a href="#Page_553">553</a>, <a href="#Page_555">555</a>, <a href="#Page_648">648</a>, <a href="#Page_661">661</a>, <a href="#Page_662">662-3</a>, <a href="#Page_665">665</a>, <a href="#Page_668">668</a>, <a href="#Page_673">673-5</a>, <a href="#Page_685">685</a>, <a href="#Page_715">715</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Minimum Wage Act, <a href="#Page_687">687</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Ayrshire, <a href="#Page_681">681</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Carmarthenshire, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Durham, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182-3</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_434">434</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511-12</a>, <a href="#Page_517">517</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Holytown, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Lancashire, <a href="#Page_111">111-12</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182-183</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392-3</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Lothian, <a href="#Page_434">434</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Midlands, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Monmouthshire, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Northumberland, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>, <a href="#Page_340">340</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391-2</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511-12</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Nottingham, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Scotland, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_434">434</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_788">[Pg 788]</span> -of Somerset, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Staffordshire, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of South Wales, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_343">343</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="#Page_434">434</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511</a>, <a href="#Page_640">640</a>, <a href="#Page_690">690</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Yorkshire, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301-2</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304-5</a>, <a href="#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392-3</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433</a>, <a href="#Page_510">510-11</a>, <a href="#Page_522">522</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">reorganisation of, in 1858, <a href="#Page_300">300-7</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">statistics of, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>, <a href="#Page_428">428-9</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433-4</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">strike of 1810, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Iron-miners, Lead-miners, Copper-miners.</li> - -<li class="indx">Miners’ Attorney-General, the, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Miners’ Next Step</i>, the, <a href="#Page_657">657</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Minimum to Sliding Scale, <a href="#Page_340">340-42</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Minimum Wage Commission, <a href="#Page_648">648</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mining Association of Great Britain, <a href="#Page_553">553</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ministry of Reconstruction, <a href="#Page_647">647-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mogul Case, <a href="#Page_598">598</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Molestation, <a href="#Page_597">597</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Moncrieff, Lord, <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Moore, Peter, <a href="#Page_251">251</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Morley, Samuel, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_332">332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Morris, William, <a href="#Page_377">377</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Morrison, James, <a href="#Page_131">131</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mottershead, <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mulineaux, Thomas, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mundella, A. J., <a href="#Page_264">264-5</a>, <a href="#Page_274">274-5</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="#Page_288">288</a>, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338-9</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Municipal Employees’ Association, <a href="#Page_508">508</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Munitions, Levy, <a href="#Page_641">641</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Ministry of, <a href="#Page_637">637-43</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Munitions of War Acts, <a href="#Page_637">637</a>, <a href="#Page_643">643</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Tribunals, <a href="#Page_639">639</a>, <a href="#Page_643">643</a>, <a href="#Page_646">646</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Munro, Prof. J. E. Crawford, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, <a href="#Page_734">734-7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Murphy, J. T., <a href="#Page_490">490</a>, <a href="#Page_659">659</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Musical Instrument Makers, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Musicians, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mutual Association of Coopers.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Coopers</li> - -<li class="indx">Mutuality, <a href="#Page_487">487</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Nash, Vaughan, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></li> - -<li class="indx">National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association, <a href="#Page_551">551</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Furnishing, French Polishers, Cabinetmakers, Upholsterers</li> - -<li class="indx">National Amalgamated Sailors’ and Firemen’s Union.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Sailors.</li> - -<li class="indx">National Association for the Protection of Labour, <a href="#Page_120">120-24</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_789">[Pg 789]</span> -National Association of Miners, <a href="#Page_299">299-300</a></li> - -<li class="indx">National Association of Operative Plasterers.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Plasterers</li> - -<li class="indx">National Association of United Trades for the Protection of Labour, <a href="#Page_186">186-95</a></li> - -<li class="indx">National Association of United Trades, <a href="#Page_277">277</a></li> - -<li class="indx">National Companies, <a href="#Page_160">160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">National Cordwainers’ Society, <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li> - -<li class="indx">National Council of Colliery Workers, <a href="#Page_550">550</a></li> - -<li class="indx">National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, <a href="#Page_482">482-3</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Colliery Enginemen, <a href="#Page_550">550</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Colliery Mechanics, <a href="#Page_550">550</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Deputies, <a href="#Page_550">550</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of General Workers, <a href="#Page_499">499-500</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Mine Managers, <a href="#Page_550">550</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Professional Workers, <a href="#Page_506">506-7</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Women Workers, <a href="#Page_495">495</a></li> - -<li class="indx">National Guilds, <a href="#Page_660">660-61</a></li> - -<li class="indx">National Industrial Conference, <a href="#Page_648">648</a></li> - -<li class="indx">National Insurance Act, <a href="#Page_475">475</a>, <a href="#Page_495">495</a>, <a href="#Page_498">498</a>, <a href="#Page_503">503</a>, <a href="#Page_555">555</a>, <a href="#Page_636">636</a>, <a href="#Page_689">689</a></li> - -<li class="indx">National Society of Amalgamated Brassworkers.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Brassworkers</li> - -<li class="indx">National Transport Workers’ Federation, <a href="#Page_500">500-502</a>, <a href="#Page_538">538</a>, <a href="#Page_543">543</a></li> - -<li class="indx">National Typographical Association, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a></li> - -<li class="indx">National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Boot and Shoe Operatives</li> - -<li class="indx">National Union of Clerks, <a href="#Page_505">505</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Dock Labourers.</li> -<li class="isub2"><i>See</i> Dockers;</li> -<li class="isub1">of General Workers, <a href="#Page_692">692</a>.</li> -<li class="isub2"><i>See also</i> Gas-workers;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Miners, <a href="#Page_300">300-307</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511-12</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Railway Clerks, <a href="#Page_524">524</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Railwaymen, <a href="#Page_530">530-46</a>.</li> -<li class="isub2"><i>See also</i> Railwaymen;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Teachers, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>, <a href="#Page_473">473</a>, <a href="#Page_506">506</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of the Working Classes, <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> - -<li class="indx">National United Trades’ Association for the Employment of Labour, <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nationalisation, <a href="#Page_651">651</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of the coal supply, <a href="#Page_517">517-22</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Mines Bill, <a href="#Page_662">662-3</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of railways, <a href="#Page_534">534</a>.</li> - -<li class="indx">Navvies, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Labourers</li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_790">[Pg 790]</span> -Neale, E. Vansittart, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Christian Socialists</li> - -<li class="indx">Neale, Professor, <a href="#Page_264">264</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>New Age</i>, the, <a href="#Page_660">660</a></li> - -<li class="indx">New Sarum, Cordwainers at, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“New Unionism,” the,</li> -<li class="isub1">of 1833-34, <a href="#Page_153">153-67</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of 1845-52, <a href="#Page_195">195-204</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of 1889-90, <a href="#Page_414">414-21</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Newcastle,</li> -<li class="isub1">potters of, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ropemakers of, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Trades Council, <a href="#Page_252">252</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Newcastle-on-Tyne—engineers’ strike at, <a href="#Page_315">315-16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">gilds of, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">shoemakers at, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Newton, George, <a href="#Page_258">258</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Newton, William, <a href="#Page_206">206-24</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Newton-le-Willows, trial of engineers of, <a href="#Page_209">209-10</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nine Hours’ Bill, <a href="#Page_311">311-12</a>, <a href="#Page_625">625</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nine Hours’ Day, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">attack on, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in building trades, <a href="#Page_228">228-32</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">movement in engineering and building, <a href="#Page_313">313-17</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nixon, J., <a href="#Page_340">340</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Non-Unionists, <a href="#Page_441">441</a>, <a href="#Page_443">443</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">refusal to work with, <a href="#Page_295">295-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Normal Day, the, <a href="#Page_246">246</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Normansell, John, <a href="#Page_305">305</a></li> - -<li class="indx">North of England Manufactured Iron Board, <a href="#Page_734">734-5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Northern Counties’ Amalgamated Association of Weavers, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_478">478</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Northern Star, The</i>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174-7</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181-2</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Northumberland Miners, <a href="#Page_181">181-2</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_340">340</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391-2</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511-12</a>, <a href="#Page_625">625</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Notes and Queries</i>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Nottingham, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">framework knitters of, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Hosiery Board, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">stockingers of, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Trades Council, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_558">558</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">O’Brien, J. Bronterre, <a href="#Page_178">178</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Obstruction, <a href="#Page_597">597</a></li> - -<li class="indx">O’Connell, Daniel, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> - -<li class="indx">O’Connor, Fergus, M.P., <a href="#Page_174">174-5</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177-8</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1">See <i>Northern Star</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Odger, George, <a href="#Page_233">233-98</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a></li> -<li class="isub1">(life), <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247-8</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361-2</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_791">[Pg 791]</span> -O’Grady, J., <a href="#Page_683">683</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Oldham, cotton operatives of, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">strike of, in 1834, <a href="#Page_151">151-2</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cotton spinners of, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_559">559</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">strike of, in 1871, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">engineers of, <a href="#Page_214">214</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“One Big Union,” <a href="#Page_114">114</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Onslow, Serjeant, <a href="#Page_61">61-2</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Operative Society of Bricklayers.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Bricklayers</li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Operative, The</i>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Orage, A. R., <a href="#Page_660">660</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Osborne Judgement, <a href="#Page_608">608-34</a>, <a href="#Page_686">686</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Osborne, W. V., <a href="#Page_608">608-9</a>, <a href="#Page_628">628</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ouseburn Engine works, <a href="#Page_335">335</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Outrages, Glasgow, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170-71</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Manchester, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Sheffield, <a href="#Page_259">259-260</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Overlap.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Demarcation</li> - -<li class="indx">Overlookers, <a href="#Page_477">477</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Overmen, <a href="#Page_434">434</a>, <a href="#Page_513">513</a>, <a href="#Page_549">549</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Over-steaming, <a href="#Page_679">679</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Overtime, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in Government Departments, <a href="#Page_390">390-91</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">prevalence of, <a href="#Page_348">348</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Owen, Robert, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134-5</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154-64</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167-8</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409-10</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418-19</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Owenism, <a href="#Page_653">653</a>, <a href="#Page_707">707</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Oxford, Cordwainers at, <a href="#Page_5">5</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Pacifists, the, <a href="#Page_691">691-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Packing-case Makers, <a href="#Page_432">432</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Painters, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_432">432-3</a>, <a href="#Page_481">481</a>, <a href="#Page_548">548</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Dublin, <a href="#Page_721">721-4</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Liverpool, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of London, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Paisley, operatives at, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">weavers of, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Papermakers, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438</a>, <a href="#Page_493">493</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Paris, Comte de, <a href="#Page_272">272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Parker, James, <a href="#Page_692">692</a>, <a href="#Page_698">698</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Parliamentary Committee of Trades Union Congress, <a href="#Page_361">361</a>, <a href="#Page_554">554-6</a>, <a href="#Page_700">700</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cotton officials demur to alliance with, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">origin of, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Parnell, Sir Henry, <a href="#Page_172">172-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Particulars Clause, <a href="#Page_679">679</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Patent laws, <a href="#Page_368">368-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Paterson, Mrs., <a href="#Page_336">336-7</a>(life)</li> - -<li class="indx">Patrimony in apprenticeship, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Patternmakers, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_430">430</a>, <a href="#Page_488">488</a>, <a href="#Page_551">551</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">society formed, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">statistics of, <a href="#Page_745">745</a>, <a href="#Page_746">749</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_792">[Pg 792]</span> -Payment by Results, <a href="#Page_643">643</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in engineering, <a href="#Page_485">485-7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Payment of members, <a href="#Page_368">368</a>, <a href="#Page_374">374</a>, <a href="#Page_631">631</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Peasant proprietorship, <a href="#Page_368">368</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389-390</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pease, E. R., <a href="#Page_414">414</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Peel, Sir Robert</li> -<li class="isub1">(the elder), <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">(the younger), <a href="#Page_139">139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pemberton, Benjamin, <a href="#Page_721">721-2</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pension Committee, <a href="#Page_594">594</a>, <a href="#Page_646">646</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Penty, A. J., <a href="#Page_660">660</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Percy, M., <a href="#Page_511">511</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Perthshire, <a href="#Page_136">136</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Philanthropic Hercules,” <a href="#Page_114">114</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pianoforte Makers, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Picketing, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_598">598</a>, <a href="#Page_607">607</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">legalisation of, <a href="#Page_291">291</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Picton, Sir J. A., <a href="#Page_40">40</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Piecers, <a href="#Page_435">435</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">associations of, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Piecework Lists in cotton industry, <a href="#Page_307">307-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pilots, <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pinmakers, Corporation of, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Pioneer</i>, or <i>Trades Union Magazine, The</i>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pipemakers, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pit Committee, <a href="#Page_521">521</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pitt, William, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Place, Francis, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84-5</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96-110</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Plasterers, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354</a>, <a href="#Page_432">432-3</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Dublin, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_721">721-4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Platers’ Helpers, <a href="#Page_353">353-4</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Plimsoll, S., <a href="#Page_354">354</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ploughmen’s Union, Perthshire, <a href="#Page_136">136</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Plumbers, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>, <a href="#Page_429">429</a>, <a href="#Page_432">432-3</a>, <a href="#Page_481">481</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Podmore, Frank, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Police Union, <a href="#Page_509">509</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Political expenditure, <a href="#Page_632">632</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pollock, Sir F., <a href="#Page_597">597</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Poor Man’s Advocate, The</i>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Poor Man’s Guardian, The</i>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142-3</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Porters, <a href="#Page_442">442</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Positivists, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262-4</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Beesly, Crompton, and Harrison</li> - -<li class="indx">Post Office annuities, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296-7</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">employees, <a href="#Page_507">507-8</a>, <a href="#Page_539">539</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Savings Bank, <a href="#Page_262">262</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_793">[Pg 793]</span> -Post Office workers, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">union of, <a href="#Page_508">508</a>, <a href="#Page_661">661</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Postal and Telegraph Clerks’ Association, <a href="#Page_507">507-8</a>, <a href="#Page_662">662</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Postmen’s Federation, <a href="#Page_507">507-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Potter, Edmund, <a href="#Page_274">274</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Potter, George, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Potter, George, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254-5</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272-3</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Potters, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168-9</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438</a>, <a href="#Page_552">552</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and co-operative production, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Staffordshire, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Wolverhampton, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Union, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Potters’ Examiner, The</i>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Precious metals, workers in, <a href="#Page_431">431</a>, <a href="#Page_551">551</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Premium Bonus System, <a href="#Page_643">643</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pressmen, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">prosecution of, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Compositors</li> - -<li class="indx">Preston, carpenters of, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cotton-spinners’ strike of 1836, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">gilds of, <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Price, Rev. H., <a href="#Page_112">112</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Price, L. L., <a href="#Page_338">338</a>, <a href="#Page_736">736</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Printers.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Compositors, Pressmen, and Typographical</li> - -<li class="indx">Printing Trades, statistics of, <a href="#Page_428">428</a>, <a href="#Page_437">437-8</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Prior, J. D., <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362-3</a>, <a href="#Page_372">372</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Prison Officers’ Federation, <a href="#Page_507">507</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Production for use, <a href="#Page_709">709</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Professional Association, <a href="#Page_711">711-12</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Profiteering Act, <a href="#Page_675">675</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Profit-sharing, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Publicity, use of, <a href="#Page_222">222-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Puddlers.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Ironworkers</li> - -<li class="indx">Pugh, Arthur, <a href="#Page_491">491</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Purcell, A., <a href="#Page_560">560</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Quarrymen, <a href="#Page_433">433-4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Quittance Paper, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>.</li> - -<li class="ifrst">Radstock Miners’ Association.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Miners, Somersetshire</li> - -<li class="indx">Rae, Sir William, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Railway Clerks’ Association, <a href="#Page_504">504-5</a>, <a href="#Page_523">523</a>, <a href="#Page_534">534</a>, <a href="#Page_539">539</a>, <a href="#Page_545">545</a>, <a href="#Page_661">661</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Railway Telegraph Clerks’ Association, <a href="#Page_523">523</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Railway Working Men’s Benefit Society, <a href="#Page_523">523</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_794">[Pg 794]</span></li> - -<li class="indx"> -Railwaymen, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>, <a href="#Page_442">442</a>, <a href="#Page_504">504-5</a>, <a href="#Page_522">522-46</a>, <a href="#Page_550">550</a>, <a href="#Page_559">559</a>, <a href="#Page_600">600-634</a>, <a href="#Page_661">661</a>, <a href="#Page_666">666</a>, <a href="#Page_684">684</a>, <a href="#Page_687">687</a>, <a href="#Page_690">690</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">statistics of, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Railway Women’s Guild, <a href="#Page_497">497</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ramsey, conference at, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rattening, <a href="#Page_260">260</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Raynes, Francis, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Razor-grinders, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reade, Charles, <a href="#Page_257">257</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Red Van” Campaign, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reform Act of 1832, <a href="#Page_155">155-6</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of 1867, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of 1918, <a href="#Page_698">698</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Registrar of Friendly Societies, Chief, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_619">619</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Renals, E., <a href="#Page_339">339</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rennie, <a href="#Page_84">84</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Representative actions, <a href="#Page_602">602</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Restoration of Trade Union conditions, <a href="#Page_642">642-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Restraint of trade, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_617">617</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Revolution in Thought, <a href="#Page_649">649-76</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rhondda, <a href="#Page_514">514</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ribbon-weavers, Coventry, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ricardo, David, <a href="#Page_178">178</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Richmond the spy, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rick-burning, <a href="#Page_144">144</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Riley’s <i>Memorials</i>, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ripon, Marquis of, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rites of admission, <a href="#Page_127">127</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Roberts, G. H., <a href="#Page_666">666</a>, <a href="#Page_692">692</a>, <a href="#Page_698">698</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Roberts, W. P., <a href="#Page_182">182-5</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_510">510</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rochdale, </li> -<li class="isub1">flannel-weavers of, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Pioneers, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Roebuck, J. A., <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rogers, J. E. Thorold, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rollit, Sir Albert, <a href="#Page_501">501</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Roman Catholic Unions, <a href="#Page_478">478</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ropemakers, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rose, George, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rosebery, Lord, <a href="#Page_374">374</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rosenblatt, F. F., <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rosslyn, Lord, <a href="#Page_108">108</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rotherhithe Watermen, <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rowlands, J., <a href="#Page_682">682</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rowlinson, John, <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ruegg, A. H., <a href="#Page_599">599</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rules, Trade Union, <a href="#Page_651">651</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rutland, Duke of, <a href="#Page_332">332</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ryan, W. P., <a href="#Page_473">473</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Saddlers, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of London, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sadler, Michael, <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_795">[Pg 795]</span> -Sailmakers, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_430">430</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sailors, <a href="#Page_405">405-6</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438</a>, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>, <a href="#Page_500">500-501</a>, <a href="#Page_607">607</a>, <a href="#Page_665">665</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">on North-East Coast, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a></li> - -<li class="indx">St. Leonards, Lord, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Salisbury, bootmakers of, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Samuel, Herbert, <a href="#Page_508">508</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sankey, Mr. Justice, <a href="#Page_518">518-22</a>, <a href="#Page_668">668</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Saturday half-holiday, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Oldham Spinners’ strike for, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Saw-grinders, <a href="#Page_260">260</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sawyers, <a href="#Page_433">433</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scale Beam-makers, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scalemakers, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Schoenlank, Dr. Bruno, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scissorsmiths, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scott, W., <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scottish Farm Servants’ Union, <a href="#Page_498">498-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scottish National Operative Tailors’ Society.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Tailors</li> - -<li class="indx">Scottish Society of Railway Servants, <a href="#Page_524">524-5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scottish Typographical Association, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_437">437</a>, <a href="#Page_482">482</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Compositors</li> - -<li class="indx">Scottish United Operative Masons, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Seagoing Engineers’ Union.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Engineers</li> - -<li class="indx">Seaham, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Secondary School Teachers, <a href="#Page_506">506</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Secular Education, <a href="#Page_628">628</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Self-governing Workshops, <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Selley, Ernest, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Selsby, <a href="#Page_209">209-10</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Senior, Nassau, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139-41</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Serfdom of miners, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sewing-machine, introduction of, <a href="#Page_228">228</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shackleton, Sir D., <a href="#Page_685">685</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shaen, Roscoe & Co., <a href="#Page_275">275</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shaftesbury, Lord, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>, <a href="#Page_434">434</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shale Oil-Workers, <a href="#Page_434">434</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shaw, Lord, <a href="#Page_626">626</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shearmen of Dundee, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Wiltshire, <a href="#Page_144">144</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sheet Metal Workers, <a href="#Page_431">431</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sheffield, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">carpenters of, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">conference at, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">cutlery made, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">gilds of, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_796">[Pg 796]</span> -Mercantile and Manufacturing Union, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">outrages at, <a href="#Page_259">259-61</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268-9</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">prosecution at, <a href="#Page_184">184-5</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Trades Council, <a href="#Page_242">242-3</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">United Trades of, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shepton Mallet, woollen-workers of, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sherbrooke, Lord, <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sheridan, R. B., <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ship Constructors’ and Shipwrights’ Association, <a href="#Page_551">551</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Shipwrights</li> - -<li class="indx">Shipton, George, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_325">325</a>, <a href="#Page_331">331</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shipwrights, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_429">429-30</a>, <a href="#Page_490">490-91</a>, <a href="#Page_551">551</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Deptford, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Liverpool, <a href="#Page_39">39-40</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of London, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Newcastle, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of the Clyde, <a href="#Page_256">256</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shirland Colliery, <a href="#Page_335">335</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shirt and Collar-makers, Women’s Society of, <a href="#Page_336">336</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shoemakers’ wages in London in 1669, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Wisbech, early combination of, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sholl, S., <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shop Assistants, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>, <a href="#Page_503">503-4</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Sheffield, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">organisation among, <a href="#Page_136">136-7</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">statistics of, <a href="#Page_745">745-749</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shop Stewards, <a href="#Page_488">488-90</a>, <a href="#Page_659">659</a>, <a href="#Page_690">690</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shopmen, Railway, <a href="#Page_531">531</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shorrocks, Peter, <a href="#Page_278">278-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Short Time Committees, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Show Stewards, <a href="#Page_716">716</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sidgwick, Henry, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sigismund, the Emperor, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Silk-weavers, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54-5</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_435">435-6</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">at Coventry, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">at Spitalfields, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">at Dublin, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Silversmiths, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_551">551</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Simpson, Mrs., <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Six Acts, the, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Six Hours’ Day, <a href="#Page_517">517-22</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Skelton, O. D., <a href="#Page_414">414</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Slaters, <a href="#Page_432">432</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Slesser, H. H., <a href="#Page_601">601</a>, <a href="#Page_607">607</a>, <a href="#Page_634">634</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sliding Scales, <a href="#Page_338">338-42</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_510">510</a>, <a href="#Page_734">734-7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Slosson, P. W., <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Smart, W., <a href="#Page_511">511</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_797">[Pg 797]</span> -Smillie, R., <a href="#Page_513">513</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Smith, Adam, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Smith, Adolphe, <a href="#Page_379">379</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Smith, Frank, <a href="#Page_681">681</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Smith, Sidney, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Smith, Sir H. Llewellyn, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Smith, Toulmin, <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Smiths, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207-8</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>, <a href="#Page_430">430-431</a>, <a href="#Page_487">487-8</a>, <a href="#Page_491">491</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">early clubs of, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Blacksmiths and Engineers</li> - -<li class="indx">Snowden, Philip, <a href="#Page_688">688</a>, <a href="#Page_699">699</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Social Contract, <a href="#Page_674">674</a>, <a href="#Page_715">715</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Social Democratic Federation, <a href="#Page_376">376-377</a>, <a href="#Page_384">384-5</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387-9</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409-14</a>, <a href="#Page_652">652</a>, <a href="#Page_685">685</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Social Science Association Report, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Socialism, revival of, <a href="#Page_374">374-414</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Socialist Labour Party, <a href="#Page_659">659</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Socialist League, <a href="#Page_388">388</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Society for National Regeneration, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Society for obtaining Parliamentary Relief, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Somers, Robert, <a href="#Page_272">272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Somerset,</li> -<li class="isub1">clothiers of, <a href="#Page_33">33-5</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">coal-miners of, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">weavers of, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">woollen-workers of, <a href="#Page_33">33-4</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li> - -<li class="indx">South Metropolitan Gas Company, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></li> - -<li class="indx">South Wales, depression in, <a href="#Page_343">343</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">miners of, <a href="#Page_511">511</a>, <a href="#Page_514">514</a>, <a href="#Page_640">640</a>, <a href="#Page_690">690</a>, <a href="#Page_692">692</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">ferment among, <a href="#Page_657">657</a>, <a href="#Page_659">659</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sparkes, Malcolm, <a href="#Page_483">483</a>, <a href="#Page_648">648</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spitalfields, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54-5</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spyers, T. G., <a href="#Page_596">596</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stabilisation of Wages, <a href="#Page_643">643</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Staffordshire, ironworkers of, <a href="#Page_256">256</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stalybridge, cotton-spinners of, <a href="#Page_2">2</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Standard of Life, the, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, <a href="#Page_369">369</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Standardisation” on the railways, <a href="#Page_535">535-46</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stationers’ Company, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stationmasters, <a href="#Page_504">504-5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Statistics, <a href="#Page_422">422-44</a>, <a href="#Page_741">741-50</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Status, rise in, <a href="#Page_634">634-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Statute of Apprentices, <a href="#Page_47">47-9</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">repeal of, <a href="#Page_57">57-61</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Apprentices</li> - -<li class="indx">Statute of Labourers, <a href="#Page_250">250</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_798">[Pg 798]</span> -Steadman, W. C., <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_684">684</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Steam-engine makers, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Engineers</li> - -<li class="indx">Steel-smelters, <a href="#Page_430">430</a>, <a href="#Page_491">491-2</a>, <a href="#Page_552">552</a>, <a href="#Page_559">559</a>, <a href="#Page_692">692</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Steffen, Gustav, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stephen, J. Fitzjames, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stephens, Rev. J. R., <a href="#Page_302">302</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stevedores, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stockholm, <a href="#Page_694">694</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stocking Makers’ Association, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stockingers.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Framework-knitters</li> - -<li class="indx">Stockport, cotton-spinners of, <a href="#Page_41">41</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stone, Gilbert, <a href="#Page_511">511</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stonemasons, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226-32</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>, <a href="#Page_319">319-20</a>, <a href="#Page_343">343</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_348">348-9</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354</a>, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_429">429</a>, <a href="#Page_432">432-3</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">early combinations among, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Friendly Society of Operative, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Scotland, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Sheffield, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Stonemasons’ Fortnightly Circular, The</i>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Strike,</li> -<li class="isub1">first use of the word, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“in Detail,” <a href="#Page_199">199-200</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">origin of the term, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the General, <a href="#Page_163">163-4</a>, <a href="#Page_658">658</a>, <a href="#Page_671">671-3</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the right to, <a href="#Page_664">664</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Strikes</li> -<li class="isub1">of 1876-89, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in 1891-99, <a href="#Page_603">603</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in 1900-1910, <a href="#Page_603">603-4</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of miners (1912), <a href="#Page_513">513</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of police, <a href="#Page_509">509</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of railwaymen,</li> -<li class="isub2">(1912) <a href="#Page_508">508-530</a>,</li> -<li class="isub2">(1919) <a href="#Page_535">535-46</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Stroud, woollen-workers of, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sturgeon, Charles, <a href="#Page_277">277</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Summons to the first T.U. Congress, <a href="#Page_738">738-40</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Supply and Demand, <a href="#Page_201">201</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Surface workers, <a href="#Page_513">513</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sutherland, Sir William, <a href="#Page_541">541</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sweating, <a href="#Page_371">371</a>, <a href="#Page_380">380-81</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Swinton, Archibald, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Swinton, potters of, <a href="#Page_133">133</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Swiss Railway Management, <a href="#Page_760">760</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Symes, Inspector, <a href="#Page_509">509</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Symons, J. G., <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Syndicalism, <a href="#Page_654">654-9</a>, <a href="#Page_690">690</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Taff Vale Strike and Case, <a href="#Page_526">526</a>, <a href="#Page_600">600-608</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_799">[Pg 799]</span> -Tailoresses, <a href="#Page_136">136</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tailors, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_319">319</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a>, <a href="#Page_369">369</a>, <a href="#Page_371">371</a>, <a href="#Page_478">478</a>, <a href="#Page_551">551</a>, <a href="#Page_555">555</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">early combination of, in London, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">First Grand Lodge of Operative, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Cambridge, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of London, <a href="#Page_67">67-8</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Nottingham, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Sheffield, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">statistics of, <a href="#Page_436">436-7</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">strike of, in London, 1833, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">strike of, in 1867, <a href="#Page_278">278</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tankard-bearers, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tanners, Bermondsey, prosecution of, <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tape Sizers, <a href="#Page_477">477</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tarleton, General, <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Taunton, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Taylor, Henry, <a href="#Page_331">331</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Taylor, Sir Herbert, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Taylor, W. C., <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Taylor, William, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Teachers, <a href="#Page_505">505-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Teachers, National Union of, <a href="#Page_691">691</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tea-workers’ and General Labourers’ Union, <a href="#Page_403">403-4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Technical Engineers, Society of, <a href="#Page_506">506</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Telegraph clerks, <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Terra-cotta, <a href="#Page_354">354</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tester, John, <a href="#Page_127">127</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Textile Factory Workers, United Association of, <a href="#Page_435">435</a>, <a href="#Page_478">478</a>, <a href="#Page_623">623</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Textile Operatives.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Cotton-spinners, Cotton-weavers, Woollen-workers, etc.</li> - -<li class="indx">Textile Trades, statistics of, <a href="#Page_428">428-9</a>, <a href="#Page_434">434-6</a>, <a href="#Page_475">475-80</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thomas, J. H., <a href="#Page_524">524</a>, <a href="#Page_526">526</a>, <a href="#Page_543">543-4</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thompson, James, <a href="#Page_36">36</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thompson, J. B., <a href="#Page_181">181</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thompson, Colonel Perronet, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thompson, William, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thorne, Will, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_497">497</a>, <a href="#Page_684">684</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thorneycroft, G. B., <a href="#Page_734">734</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Thornton, W. T., <a href="#Page_272">272</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ticket-collectors, <a href="#Page_504">504</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tildsley, John, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tillett, B., <a href="#Page_402">402-3</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>, <a href="#Page_501">501</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Times</i>, prosecution by the, <a href="#Page_78">78-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tinplate Workers, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_431">431</a>, <a href="#Page_492">492</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Co-operative Production and, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Wolverhampton, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">strike of, <a href="#Page_194">194-5</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_800">[Pg 800]</span> -Tiverton, <a href="#Page_33">33-5</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">woollen-workers of, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tolpuddle, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tomlinson, <a href="#Page_139">139</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Tommy Shops,” <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trade Boards, <a href="#Page_647">647</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Acts, <a href="#Page_475">475</a>, <a href="#Page_494">494-495</a>, <a href="#Page_686">686</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trade Disputes Act, <a href="#Page_606">606-8</a>, <a href="#Page_686">686</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trade Disputes Commission, <a href="#Page_605">605-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trade Union Act of 1913, <a href="#Page_631">631-4</a>, <a href="#Page_687">687</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trade Union conditions, <a href="#Page_637">637-43</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trade Union, definition of, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and the wage-system, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">legal definition of, <a href="#Page_617">617</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">life, <a href="#Page_444">444-71</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">origin of term, <a href="#Page_113">113</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Trades Advocate and Herald of Progress, The</i>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trades Councils, <a href="#Page_242">242-9</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354-5</a>, <a href="#Page_453">453-7</a>, <a href="#Page_557">557-61</a>, <a href="#Page_685">685</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">exclusion from Congress, <a href="#Page_557">557</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">federations of, <a href="#Page_557">557</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in Labour Party, <a href="#Page_557">557</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">meetings in Municipal Buildings, <a href="#Page_558">558</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Trades Journal, The</i>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Trades’ Newspaper and Mechanics’ Weekly Journal, The</i>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trades Union Congress, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358-375</a>, <a href="#Page_700">700</a>, <a href="#Page_738">738-40</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trafalgar Square, <a href="#Page_386">386-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tramping, <a href="#Page_451">451-2</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Transport and General Workers’ Union, <a href="#Page_472">472-3</a>, <a href="#Page_499">499</a>, <a href="#Page_656">656</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Transport workers, <a href="#Page_438">438-40</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">in Ireland, <a href="#Page_472">472-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trant, William, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Treasury Agreement, <a href="#Page_637">637-8</a>, <a href="#Page_642">642</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Triple Alliance,” the, <a href="#Page_516">516</a>, <a href="#Page_517">517</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trollope & Sons, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trow, Edward, <a href="#Page_735">735</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Truck, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_371">371</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Trusts, <a href="#Page_675">675</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tucker, <a href="#Page_268">268</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tuckwell, Miss Gertrude, <a href="#Page_494">494</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tufnell, E. Carlton, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Turner, Ben, <a href="#Page_480">480</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Turner, William H., <a href="#Page_5">5</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tyneside and National Labour Union, <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Typographical Association, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_437">437</a>, <a href="#Page_482">482</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Compositors</li> - -<li class="indx">Typographical Society, <a href="#Page_692">692</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Compositors</li> - -<li class="ifrst"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_801">[Pg 801]</span> -Unemployed agitation, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387-8</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Unemployment benefit, <a href="#Page_644">644</a>, <a href="#Page_646">646</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Unemployment, failure to prevent, <a href="#Page_644">644</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">prevention of, <a href="#Page_696">696</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Union Pilot and Co-operative Intelligencer, The</i>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Union of Post Office Workers, <a href="#Page_508">508</a>, <a href="#Page_551">551</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Post Office Employees</li> - -<li class="indx">United Garment Workers’ Trade Union, <a href="#Page_551">551</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Tailors</li> - -<li class="indx">United Kingdom Alliance of Organised Trades, <a href="#Page_258">258-9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">United Signalmen and Pointsmen, <a href="#Page_524">524</a>, <a href="#Page_531">531</a></li> - -<li class="indx">United Textile Factory Operatives’ Association, <a href="#Page_478">478</a></li> - -<li class="indx">United Textile Factory Workers’ Association, <a href="#Page_435">435</a>, <a href="#Page_478">478</a>, <a href="#Page_623">623</a></li> - -<li class="indx">United Trades Association, <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>United Trades’ Co-operative Journal, The</i>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li> - -<li class="indx">United.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> Boilermakers, Brassworkers, Bricklayers, Coachmakers, Curriers, Machine-workers, Patternmakers, Pilots, Plumbers, Stonemasons, etc.</li> - -<li class="indx">Unskilled Labourers.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See</i> General Workers</li> - -<li class="indx">Unwin, George, <a href="#Page_vi">vi</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Upholsterers, <a href="#Page_432">432-433</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Sewers’ Society (first women’s union), <a href="#Page_336">336</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Vehicular workers, <a href="#Page_442">442</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Verinder, F., <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Villiers, Rt. Hon. C. P., <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vincent, Charles Bassett, <a href="#Page_523">523</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vincent, J. E. Matthew, <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Vogel, P., <a href="#Page_684">684</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Voice of the People, The</i>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122-4</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Wade, Rev. A. S., <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wage, a legal minimum in Gloucestershire, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wage-System, relation of Trade Unions to the, <a href="#Page_1">1</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wages in London in 1669, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Waiters’ Union, <a href="#Page_684">684</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wakefield, cloth trade of, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wakefield, E. G., <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wakley, Thomas, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_802">[Pg 802]</span> -Wallace, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wallas, Professor Graham, <a href="#Page_vi">vi</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Walton, A. A., <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wapping Society of Watermen, <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li> - -<li class="indx">War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry, <a href="#Page_642">642</a></li> - -<li class="indx">War Emergency Workers’ National Committee, <a href="#Page_691">691</a></li> - -<li class="indx">War Office and strike-breaking, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_332">332-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">War, Trade Unions during the, <a href="#Page_636">636-649</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Warde, Mark, <a href="#Page_128">128</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wardle, G. T., <a href="#Page_689">689</a>, <a href="#Page_695">695</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Warehousemen, <a href="#Page_442">442</a>, <a href="#Page_503">503-4</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Warpdressers, <a href="#Page_477">477</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Waterguard Federation, <a href="#Page_507">507</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Watermen, London, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Watermen’s Protective Society, <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Watson, Aaron, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="#Page_511">511</a>, <a href="#Page_625">625</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Watson, R. Spence, <a href="#Page_339">339</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Watts, Dr. John, <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Weavers, an Act touching, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Paisley, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>.</li> -<li class="isub1"><i>See also</i> Cotton-weavers</li> - -<li class="indx">Webb, J. J., <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Weeks, Joseph D., <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Weiler, Adam, <a href="#Page_389">389-90</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wellington, Duke of, <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wemyss, Earl of, <a href="#Page_253">253</a></li> - -<li class="indx">West Bromwich Miners, <a href="#Page_434">434</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Whewell, <a href="#Page_617">617</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Whitbread, W., <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li> - -<li class="indx">White, George, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Whitley Councils, <a href="#Page_490">490</a>, <a href="#Page_646">646-8</a>, <a href="#Page_718">718</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Widnes election, <a href="#Page_699">699</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wilkinson, Rev. J. Frome, <a href="#Page_128">128</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Williams, John, <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Williams, J., <a href="#Page_387">387</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Williams, J. E., <a href="#Page_526">526</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Williams, R., <a href="#Page_497">497</a>, <a href="#Page_500">500</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Williamson, S., <a href="#Page_393">393</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wilson, J., <a href="#Page_511">511</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wilson, J. Havelock, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_665">665-6</a>, <a href="#Page_669">669-70</a>, <a href="#Page_682">682</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wilson, John, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wiltshire, shearmen of, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">weavers of, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">woollen-weavers of, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">woollen-workers of, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Winters, Thomas, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li> - -<li class="indx"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_803">[Pg 803]</span> -Wisbech, shoemakers of, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Witanagemot, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wolverhampton, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Building Trades Joint Committee, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">tinplate workers of, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">(strike), <a href="#Page_194">194-5</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Trades Council, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Women Clerks and Secretaries, Association of, <a href="#Page_505">505</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Women in Engineering, <a href="#Page_638">638</a>, <a href="#Page_642">642-3</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Women in Trade Unionism, <a href="#Page_335">335-6</a>, <a href="#Page_424">424</a>, <a href="#Page_426">426-7</a>, <a href="#Page_474">474</a>, <a href="#Page_494">494-7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Women’s Co-operative Guild, <a href="#Page_497">497</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Women’s Labour League, <a href="#Page_497">497</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Women’s Protective and Provident League, <a href="#Page_336">336</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Women’s Wages, <a href="#Page_424">424</a>, <a href="#Page_642">642</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wood, G. H., <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Woods, Samuel, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_684">684</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Woodsawyers, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Woolcombers, <a href="#Page_36">36-7</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44-5</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_436">436</a>, <a href="#Page_480">480</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Woollen Cloth Weavers, Act of 1756, <a href="#Page_50">50-51</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Woollen Cloth Weavers, Fraternity of, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Woollen Workers, <a href="#Page_40">40-41</a>, <a href="#Page_435">435-6</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1"> -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_804">[Pg 804]</span> -of Yorkshire, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">statistics of, <a href="#Page_480">480</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Woolstaplers, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">London Society of, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Old Amicable Society of, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Woolwich, <a href="#Page_697">697</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Worcester, Gild Ordinances of, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Trades Council, <a href="#Page_558">558</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Workers’ Union, <a href="#Page_498">498-9</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Working Men’s Association, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Working Rules, <a href="#Page_228">228</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Workmen’s Compensation Act, <a href="#Page_364">364-6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Works Committee, <a href="#Page_490">490</a>, <a href="#Page_647">647</a>, <a href="#Page_707">707</a>, <a href="#Page_716">716</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Worsted manufacture, <a href="#Page_36">36-7</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wright, Justice R. S., <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Yearly bond; 44, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Yeomen, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Yorkshire,</li> -<li class="isub1">clothiers of, <a href="#Page_35">35-6</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">miners, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304-5</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433</a>, <a href="#Page_510">510-11</a>, <a href="#Page_522">522</a>, <a href="#Page_744">744</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Young, Ralph, <a href="#Page_340">340</a>, <a href="#Page_342">342</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Young, Robert, <a href="#Page_490">490</a></li> -</ul> - -<h2>THE END</h2> - -<p><i>Printed in Great Britain by</i> <span class="smcap">R. & R. Clark, Limited</span>, <i>Edinburgh</i>.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_c_1">[Pg 1]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="OTHER_WORKS">OTHER WORKS BY<br /> -SIDNEY AND BEATRICE WEBB.</h2> -</div> - -<p>Those who read the <i>History of Trade Unionism</i> will want -to know how far the Trade Union, as an industrial device, is -an economic success—how its operations affect the National -Being—whether it is a cause of loss to the employers—what -effect it has on prices.</p> - -<p>These questions, and many more, are explicitly answered -in</p> - -<h3>INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY</h3> - -<p class="center"><b>12s. net</b></p> - -<p>which <i>The Times</i> described as</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“A permanent and invaluable contribution to the sum of human -knowledge.... We commend to the public a book which is a -monument of research and full of candour.... Indispensable to -every publicist and politician.”</p> -</div> - -<p>See also</p> - -<h3>PROBLEMS OF MODERN INDUSTRY.</h3> - -<p class="center"><b>7s. 6d. net.</b></p> - -<p>Eleven short studies by the same Authors.</p> - -<h3>THE WORKS MANAGER TO-DAY.</h3> - -<p class="center"><b>5s. net.</b></p> - -<p>A series of Addresses to Works Managers by <span class="smcap">Sidney -Webb</span> on such problems as Reducing Costs, Systems of -Payment by Results, How to Prevent “Ca’ Canny,” Fatigue -and Accidents, the Changing Status of Employers and -Wage-Earners, etc.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_c_2">[Pg 2]</span></p> - -<h3>THE PUBLIC ORGANISATION OF THE -LABOUR MARKET.</h3> - -<p class="center">By <span class="smcap">SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB</span>.</p> - -<p class="center"><b>5s. net.</b></p> - -<p>A description and an attempted solution of the Problem -of Unemployment and the Unemployed.</p> - -<h3>THE BREAK-UP OF THE POOR LAW.</h3> - -<p class="center">By <span class="smcap">SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB</span>.</p> - -<p class="center"><b>7s. 6d. net.</b></p> - -<p>The Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission. A -description of the policy now adopted by the Government -in the Bill being prepared by the Minister of Health for the -Abolition of the Poor Law, and the Supersession of the -Boards of Guardians by the Local Health, Education, -Lunacy, Pension, and Unemployment Authorities.</p> - -<h3>THE PREVENTION OF DESTITUTION.</h3> - -<p class="center">By <span class="smcap">SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB</span>.</p> - -<p class="center"><b>10s. net.</b></p> - -<p>A comprehensive and practical programme of how it can -be done.</p> - -<h3>ENGLISH POOR LAW POLICY.</h3> - -<p class="center">By <span class="smcap">SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB</span>.</p> - -<p class="center"><b>7s. 6d. net.</b></p> - -<p>The “Missing Link” in histories of the Poor Law—an -analysis of the successive transformations of the policy of the -Government and the Guardians since the “Principles of -1834.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_c_3">[Pg 3]</span></p> - -<h3>GRANTS IN AID: A CRITICISM AND -A PROPOSAL.</h3> - -<p class="center">By SIDNEY WEBB.</p> - -<p class="center"><b>6s. net.</b></p> - -<p>The only book on this important subject, affecting every -Local Government Official and Councillor, and every Ratepayer.</p> - -<h3>THE PARISH AND THE COUNTY.</h3> - -<p class="center">By <span class="smcap">SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB</span>.</p> - -<p class="center"><b>16s. net.</b></p> - -<p>A new picture of English Country Life since 1689, drawn -from original records.</p> - -<h3>THE MANOR AND THE BOROUGH.</h3> - -<p class="center">By <span class="smcap">SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB</span>.</p> - -<p class="center">2 vols. <b>25s. net.</b></p> - -<p>How the Municipal Boroughs and London Government -grew into their present forms.</p> - -<h3>THE STORY OF THE KING’S HIGHWAY.</h3> - -<p class="center">By <span class="smcap">SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB</span>.</p> - -<p class="center"><b>6s. net.</b></p> - -<p>How the English Roads became as they are—from the -chariot of Boadicea to the motor omnibus.</p> - -<h3>THE HISTORY OF LIQUOR LICENSING -IN ENGLAND.</h3> - -<p class="center">By <span class="smcap">SIDNEY and BEATRICE WEBB</span>.</p> - -<p class="center"><b>2s. 6d. net.</b></p> - -<p>A record of experiments in policy with regard to the -public-house, from Henry VIII.</p> - -<p class="center">LONGMANS, GREEN & CO.</p> - -<hr class="r65" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_c_4">[Pg 4]</span></p> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Published by</span> -GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN, LIMITED.</p> - -<h3>THE CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT IN -GREAT BRITAIN.</h3> - -<p class="center"><b>2s. 6d. net.</b></p> - -<p class="center">By BEATRICE POTTER (Mrs. <span class="smcap">Sidney Webb</span>).</p> - -<p>“Without doubt the ablest and most philosophical analysis of -the Co-operative Movement.”—<i>The Speaker.</i></p> - -<h3>SOCIALISM IN ENGLAND.</h3> - -<p class="center">By SIDNEY WEBB.</p> - -<p class="center"><b>2s. 6d. net.</b></p> - -<p>“The best general view, of the subject from the moderate -Socialist side.”—<i>The Athenæum.</i></p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p class="hanging2"><span class="smcap">Published by THE FABIAN BOOKSHOP (25 Tothill -Street, Westminster), and GEORGE ALLEN -& UNWIN, LIMITED.</span></p> - -<h3>HOW TO PAY FOR THE WAR.</h3> - -<p class="center">Edited by SIDNEY WEBB.</p> - -<p class="center"><b>6s. net.</b></p> - -<p>Containing The Development of the Post Office, A Public -Service of Railway and Canal Transport, The Nationalisation -of the Coal Supply, A State Insurance Department, -and a Revolution in the Income Tax.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_c_5">[Pg 5]</span></p> - -<h3>FABIAN ESSAYS IN SOCIALISM.</h3> - -<p class="center"><b>2s. net</b></p> - -<p class="center">The New Edition (50th thousand), with Introduction<br /> -by <span class="smcap">Sidney Webb</span>.</p> - -<h3>TOWARD SOCIAL DEMOCRACY?</h3> - -<p class="center">By SIDNEY WEBB.</p> - -<p class="center"><b>1s. net.</b></p> - -<p>A survey of Modern Social and Industrial History since -1840, with a description of tendencies.</p> - -<h3>MEN’S AND WOMEN’S WAGES: SHOULD -THEY BE EQUAL?</h3> - -<p class="center">By Mrs. SIDNEY WEBB.</p> - -<p class="center">With Portrait. <b>1s. net.</b></p> - -<p class="center">A suggested solution of a difficult problem.</p> - -<h3>GREAT BRITAIN AFTER THE WAR.</h3> - -<p class="center">By <span class="smcap">SIDNEY WEBB and ARNOLD FREEMAN</span>.</p> - -<p class="center"><b>1s. net.</b></p> - -<p class="center">A guide to study of “After-War Problems.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_c_6">[Pg 6]</span></p> - -<hr class="r65" /> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Published by NISBET & CO., LIMITED.</span></p> - -<h3>THE RESTORATION OF TRADE UNION -CONDITIONS.</h3> - -<p class="center">By SIDNEY WEBB.</p> - -<p class="center"><b>1s. net.</b></p> - -<p>A description of the problem and a suggestion for its -lasting solution.</p> - -<hr class="r65" /> - -<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Published at THE FABIAN BOOKSHOP<br /> -(25 Tothill Street, Westminster).</span></p> - -<h3>REPORT ON THE WORKING OF THE -NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.</h3> - -<p class="center"><b>1s. net.</b></p> - -<h3>REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF STATE -AND MUNICIPAL ENTERPRISE ALL OVER -THE WORLD.</h3> - -<p class="center"><b>1s. net.</b></p> - -<h3>SOCIALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM.</h3> - -<p class="center"><b>1s. net.</b></p> - -<h3>THE BASIS AND POLICY OF SOCIALISM.</h3> - -<p class="center"><b>1s. net.</b></p> - -<h3>SOCIALISM AND NATIONAL MINIMUM.</h3> - -<p class="center"><b>1s. net.</b></p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> -<div class="chapter transnote"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="Transcribers_Notes"> -Transcriber's Notes -</h2> - -<p>A number of typographical errors were corrected silently.</p> - -<p>Cover image is in the public domain.</p> - -<p>Table of Contents augmented with “Other Works”.</p> - -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF TRADE UNIONISM ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. -</div> - -<div style='margin:0.83em 0; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE<br /> -<span style='font-size:smaller'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br /> -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</span> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person -or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most - other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions - whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms - of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online - at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this eBook. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread -public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state -visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. -</div> - -</div> diff --git a/old/66887-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/66887-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 00d2a9e..0000000 --- a/old/66887-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null |
