diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/66887-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66887-0.txt | 31776 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 31776 deletions
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. |