Sheffield Daily Telegraph – Thursday 28 January 1904

The Great Strike

Action Against the Miners’ Association

Heavy Claim for Damages

Mr Chambers Gives Evidence

In the King’s Bench Division of the High Court yesterday, Mr. Justice Lawrance and a special jury commenced the hearing of an action brought by the Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries Limited against the Yorkshire Miners’ Association and others.

Mr. J. Eldon Bankes, K.C., Mr. Montagu Lush, K.C., and Mr. Cantley, M.P., represented the plaintiffs; Mr. Rufus Isaacs, K.C., Mr. Danckwerts, K.C., and Mr. H. W. Lushings appeared for the Yorkshire Miners’ Association, and Mr. Atherley Jones, K.C., M.P., Mr. S. T. Evans, K.C., Mr. and Mr. Compton for Mr. Pickard, M.P., and other defendants.

The plaintiffs claimed damages against all the defendants for conspiracy and for unlawful combination, and, secondly, for inducing plaintiffs’ workmen not to enter into contracts with them; and also for inducing them to break their contracts with the plaintiffs. The Yorkshire Miners’ Association denied that any unlawful acts were committed and said that if any unlawful acts were committed the association was not liable, and could not in law be made liable. The defendants, George Croggs, Joseph Smith, and Enoch Kaye, said they were trustees for the Yorkshire Miners’ Association, and they submitted to any order that the Court thought right to be made against them. The defendants, Mr. Pickard, M.P., Mr. Cowey, M.P., Mr. J. Wadsworth, Mr. Parrott, and Mr. John Fritz, who admitted they were officers of the association, but they denied that any unlawful acts were committed by them, or that the plaintiffs had suffered any damage from such acts. The other defendants, John Nolan and Henry Humphries, put in no defence.

The Case for the Company

The case for the plaintiffs was opened by Mr. Bankes, K.C. He said he was afraid the case would occupy some time, because it was an important one, not only because of the large amount of money involved, but also because the questions between the parties were related to the responsibility of a trades union, and the officers of a trades union, for very disastrous consequences of a strike which occurred at the plaintiffs’ collieries in 1902.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were liable in damages for the loss occasioned to them by the strike. Plaintiffs were colliery proprietors, and owned two large pits in South Yorkshire at Doncaster, and called the Denaby and Cadeby Collieries, about a mile from each other. The two collieries were large and important pits, worked by the gathering from the fact that the output from these pits amounted to about £1,200,000 of coal a year, and the number of men employed was between 4,000 and 5,000. Two names would be mentioned frequently in the case, one, Mr. Chambers, who had been many years the manager of the collieries, and the other, Mr. Buckingham Pope, the chairman of the plaintiff company for many years.

The men employed by the plaintiffs were required to enter into a contract with the plaintiffs, and a good deal would turn on the terms of that engagement. It was printed in a contract book, and said: “We, the undersigned, having each received a copy of the extracts of the Mines Regulations Acts generally, and the special rules, regulations, and bye-laws now established, and in force at these collieries, hereby undertake to fulfil, obey, and agree to them.” The owners of the collieries also agreed to perform the same on their part. Two of these terms became of importance in this case, namely, the first and second bye-laws of the colliery.

The first said: “Every person employed in and about this colliery shall be engaged subject to these rules, bye-laws, and conditions, and shall give fourteen days’ notice in writing to the company before leaving his employment; and shall receive the same notice from the manager before being discharged (except in certain cases of misconduct). The second bye-law said: “Every person employed by the company shall, upon his engagement, sign his name or mark in a book to be called the ‘Workmen’s Contract Book,’ and proof of signature shall be evidence that such persons agree to conform to the bye-laws.”

The wages at these collieries were fixed by a Joint Conciliation Board, which consisted of an equal number of representatives of masters and men. There was also an impartial president, who was elected by both sides, to give a casting vote in case of difference. In 1902 Lord James of Hereford was the president, and he had shortly before the strike made an award fixing the wages.

Counsel proceeded to call attention to the individual defendants, because the plaintiffs’ case was that they were all collectively and individually responsible for the damage which they caused the plaintiffs. But many of the men, though liable in damages, were not able to pay damages, whereas the Union were not only liable, but in a position to pay damages. The Yorkshire Miners’ Association had their headquarters at Barnsley, and was a trades union, registered under the Trades Union Act. It was not only for the acts of its central officers that the Union was responsible, but also the acts of its local officers, and it was largely with the acts of its local officers that the jury would be concerned in this case.

Counsel dealt next with the rules of the association, and emphasised the fact that the branches of the association were not districts of the association, and that the funds of the Union were not to be appropriated to any other use than was provided for in the rules. The supreme government of the association was vested in a council, to which there should be elected a person representing each branch, who was called a delegate. A branch was established at each of these collieries, and two of the defendants—Nolan and Humphries—were delegates for Denaby and Cadeby respectively. Each of these men was responsible for what he did, because they were local officers of the union, and members of the Central Council.

An extremely important rule said that if any branch, member, or members, had a grievance affecting their wages, mode or manner of working, or hours of labour, and if the employers refused to remedy those grievances, and after all proper and peaceful means had been tried to effect a settlement by deputation from the members, with the advice and assistance of counsel, and such member or members should be permitted to cease work, with the sanction of the association, such members should receive what counsel called strike pay. Strike pay was the lifeblood of a strike. This rule of the union were framed, so far as possible, to avoid needless strikes, and to take care that a strike was only to occur in a case of absolute necessity, and this was one illustration of the many illustrations which have occurred where the rules had been departed from.

If the rules had been followed, useless, senseless strikes, such as this had been, would have been avoided. It was laid down in the rules that any branch, or member, who objected or disagreed with any matter affecting wages, that they should try every possible means to effect a settlement, and if the Council permitted the men to cease work, strike pay should be paid. Therefore the rule provided that, first of all, the men must approach the masters if they have any disagreement, and they must exhaust all means of arriving at a peaceful settlement before they strike, and ultimately that they do not strike unless the rules are permitted to do so by the association.

In this case none—really none—of the safeguards which are provided for under that rule were adopted or followed or observed by the local officers of the Union, or, indeed, ultimately, by the officers of the central association. Then there was another rule (Rule 65), which provided that any branch or portion of a branch which had been locked out or otherwise thrown out of employment in consequence of any action which may be taken by the association either in that or any other colliery, the members of the branch must be supported in the same way. If they are locked out, the association may grant them strike pay, but it was strictly speaking that they should receive strike pay when it comes within Rule 65, and they have taken all proper means at arriving at a peaceful solution.

Rule 74 was the most salutary rule, for it was the one which provided that no strike should take place until there had been an appeal to the men and a vote taken. That vote should be taken by ballot, that is to say, that the men should have an opportunity of recording their votes either for or against the strike. The men were provided with blank and white ballots, and a black ball was dropped in the box in favour of the motion, and a white one was used to vote against it.

Before a strike could be decided upon three-fourths of the men would have to record their votes, and if that had only been done in this case the jury would have been abundantly satisfied that there would never have been a strike at all. Now it only remained for him to call attention to who the best of the defendants were. There was the Yorkshire Miners’ Association, and there were Mr. George Croggs, Mr. Joseph Smith, and Mr. Enoch Kaye. He need not refer to them, and need not go into the position, because they were only trustees of the society, and were only put in the case in case any order was recorded.

The others were members including Mr. Benjamin Pickard, who is a Member of Parliament, and who is the general secretary of the association. There was Mr. Cowey, who was, in June, 1902, the president, but that gentleman had since died. There was Mr. Wadsworth, who was vice-president of the association, and is now president, and his name was one to which attention would be directed more than once in this case, because he took a very active part in coming down from Barnsley to address these men during the strike. Then there was Mr. Parrott, who was one of the Central Council; Mr. Fritz, the financial secretary; and Mr. Hall, treasurer of the association; and Mr. John Nolan and Mr. Harry Humphries, who were delegates upon the central association.

This strike began in the early morning, or on the night of Sunday, 29th June, 1902, and it lasted with intermissions until into the following year, terminating on some date in March, 1903. It would be said that this stage to point out the consequences, the general consequences, of that strike, because he thought it was important they should know in order that they could see in what enormous injury which was done by such a strike as this, and the extreme importance of making those persons responsible for bringing about and maintaining such a disaster as this.

Now, it was a fact beyond all dispute that during the course of this strike, it cost the union £23,000 in strike pay. So far as the union was concerned, that was the effect upon them. So far as the men themselves were concerned they lost over £200,000 in wages, and so far as the colliery owners were concerned, he was in a position to prove to them it cost them £150,000 in damages.

If they adopted those figures together they would realise what the direct consequences of such an action as this were, and, in addition to that, they had got to add, if they wished to get at the real result of such a strike as this, the indirect loss which had been caused small tradesmen and others who had been depending for their livelihood upon the earnings of these men. They had, in addition, to consider the pain and suffering of all those people who for weeks and months were deprived of their living.

It had been declared beyond all doubt that a trade union was not, in these matters, in a different position to any other individual, and if it was proved that they had brought this about—this state of things—they were as responsible as any individual would be.

Of course, he did not mention these things to inflame their minds against the union, because it would not be right to do so, but it was right that in this case—and all like cases—those engaged should realise the enormous damage which was inflicted by such strikes as these, and, therefore, the importance of such a case was to make the union responsible for the loss which had been caused.

He now came to what the men had termed their grievances… [continues into subsequent columns]

Mr Chambers’ Evidence

Mr. W. H. Chambers, managing director of the Denaby and Cadeby Main Colliery Company, gave evidence in support of plaintiffs’ case. He said he had been managing director of the company for nine years. In their two pits they employed between 4,000 and 5,000 men.

He did not anticipate the men were going to strike, and when he first heard of it he was away on his holidays. Witness, continuing, said that a fortnight after the strike occurred ten men were employed at Denaby, and 60 or 70 at Cadeby keeping the airways and roadways clear, in order to prevent the accumulation of gas, and thus preserve the safety of the mines. Subsequently these dwindled off in consequence of disturbances, and then the pits were closed down.

The further hearing was adjourned.