Sheffield Daily Telegraph – Friday 05 February 1904

Denaby Colliery Strike

The Proceedings In The High Court

Case For The Miners

The Late Mr. Pickard

Mr. Justice Lawrance and a special jury, in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court yesterday, resumed the trial of the action brought by the Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries, Limited, against the Yorkshire Miners’ Association and others, for alleged conspiracy and unlawful combination to induce the plaintiffs’ workmen to break their contracts by a strike, in June, 1902.

At the outset of the proceedings, Mr. Atherley Jones, K.C., one of the counsel for the defendants, said it was with very great regret that he had to inform his Lordship that Mr. Pickard, M.P., one of the defendants in this case, died on Wednesday. He was sure that his loss in connection with the Miners’ Association would be deplored, not merely by the men whose interests he represented, but by the employers also.

His Lordship: I was very sorry to see the news in this morning’s papers.

Evidence for the defence was then resumed.

Mr. W. Parrott, Barnsley, agent of the Yorkshire Miners’ Association, and a member of the Barnsley Town Council, said he had been associated with the Yorkshire Miners’ Association since it was established in 1881.

Witness, proceeding, said he had been connected with the Denaby and Cadeby Mines.

Mr. Loehms: Have you been aware of this agitation with regard to the bag dirt?
Witness: Yes, sir.

You knew the men’s contention that it was getting harder and more difficult to get?—I did.

Now, with regard to the timbering question, did you know there was difficulty about that?—Yes.

You know that the men contended that the timbering rules threw work upon them for which they did not get remuneration?—Yes.

Was that confined to the Denaby and Cadeby collieries?—No, that was general.

Coming straight to the most material matter in the case, Mr. Parrott, were you present at the meeting of 30th June, 1902, when telegrams were received from the branch secretaries?—Yes, sir. Those telegrams each stated that the cause of the trouble was the bag dirt question?—Yes.

Up to that moment had you any anticipation that there was going to be a stoppage at these collieries?—No.

So far as you were concerned, had there been any sort of agreement and understanding between the men and any of the men employed at the two collieries that the collieries should be stopped?—No, not in the remotest.

Is there any truth, so far as you are concerned, about the suggestion that the stoppage was brought about in consequence of the 10 per cent. reduction?—No truth at all.

So far as it influenced the stoppage in any way, so far as you know?—No.

Mr. Bankes: He knows nothing about that.
Witness: I should like to give you an explanation as to why it had nothing to do with the stoppage.

Mr. Bankes again intimated that he objected.

Mr. Loehms: I will repeat the question. So far as you know, and so far as you are concerned, did the 10 per cent. have anything to do with the stoppage?
Witness: I most emphatically say no.

Continuing, witness said that he was an official of the union, though as such he would have no part in the proceedings of the Council. It was his duty, however, to attend the Council, and the Executive meetings, to advise the members. He visited the pits from time to time on the surface, but did not go below, except under special circumstances. He had never been in the Denaby pit since the Cadeby pits. He did not attend the Council in dispute until he was requested by the Council to do so, and except when he had been sent to Denaby he had never intervened in the Denaby and Cadeby dispute.

On June 30th, when the telegrams were received, it came as a surprise to the officials of the Association. They were received at a meeting of the Council. A resolution was passed instructing the men to resume work at once, as they were illegally out. Witness advised that a telegram should be sent to that effect, and in fact dictated the message, which was sent.

He had nothing to do with the statement until a special Council meeting on July 14th, 1902, when a resolution was passed requesting Mr. Wadsworth and Mr. Walsh to go down. On the 3rd November he was present at an ordinary Council meeting when he was instructed by resolution to write to Mr. Chambers asking him to arrange a deputation to see whether some amicable arrangement could not be arrived at.

Accordingly witness wrote to Mr. Chambers on November 5th, asking him if possible to arrange a settlement of the dispute at the two collieries. He received a reply on November 6th, from Mr. Chambers stating that it was impossible to appreciate what any good purpose would be attained. It was quite impossible for the company to give any advance, or to interfere with the price list, which had existed for many years.

The company desired that there should be no resumption on that point, but if the men wished to resume work they would be ready to resume.

Witness replied on the 8th November, saying that in his opinion a deputation was the best way to bring about a settlement. On November 17th a resolution was passed, asking witness to go with Mr. Walsh to attend a meeting at Mexborough.

Witness proceeded to quote from a speech which he delivered at that meeting, calling attention to the fact that people had been evicted from the Denaby cottages, and saying that it was “nothing but what they expected in a Christian age.” If they had turned them out “because they required them, it would be a different thing; but as it was a devilish thing.”

When he was asked whether the houses from which the men had been evicted were to stand empty, he answered that it was “impossible to know that.”

At the time had you any idea that it was intended to bring in workmen from other parts, and put them in those houses?—No, I did not know that.

He appeared from your speech that your object was to persuade the men to negotiate with the company in order that they might go back to resume work?—Yes.

I went down more as a conciliator than as an agitator.

Mr. Bankes: You knew Howden’s action had been commenced?—Yes.

The question of the illegality of the strike pay was then raised?—No, sir. He was aware of the determination of the men when they were asked to sign on. Up to that moment no suggestion had been given by him or any official with regard to signing on. So far as witness was concerned, he did not think that any new contract was necessary.

He did not think he had anything personally to do with the advice given as to the signing of the new contract. Mr. Pickard, on the signing of the new contract, sent a telegram not to sign any new contracts, and he approved of that telegram.

It was not true that he ever conspired with any members of the union, or any of the workmen to molest or injure the plaintiffs in the carrying on of their business, neither was it true that he ever took any part in an unlawful combination to carry on a strike, or that the plaintiffs’ workmen were induced to prevent men entering into any fresh contracts, or to deprive men of their contracts.

When he advised the men to return to work, and they had refused to accept the strike pay, and when he advised the men to resume work, he had not in his mind the interests of the employers, and had no desire to injure the employers, nor had any ill-feeling towards the colliery company, Mr. Chambers, or Mr. Buckingham.

Replying to his Lordship, Mr. Parrott explained that the Conciliation Board dealt with 10 per cent. questions, and not with local questions or bag dirt.

In addition, there was the South Yorkshire Coalowners’ Association and the Yorkshire Miners’ Association for the settling of local disputes, and either party might go to the Joint Board at any time they liked.

It happened to be the Monday morning (June 30th) when the telegrams were received. At the meeting the subject of the strike was raised, and a telegram was sent from the meeting of the Council to resume work, as they were out against the rules. He did not recollect the exact wording of that telegram, but the substance was that everything was done to put a stop to the dispute between the 30th of June and the meeting on the 14th of July.

When Croft came to Barnsley, he told Mr. Pickard what took place at the consultation, and Mr. Pickard knew what was being stated about him.

Mr. Walsh gave evidence and stated that Mr. Pickard knew everything before from his own opinion of the statement, and that he was quite satisfied that the matters were true, and that Mr. Pickard was in a weak condition and unable to answer.

Mr. Parrott continued that Mr. Pickard was in such a condition that he was unable to answer questions.

With reference to the speech, witness said he used the expression that to turn the people out of their houses and let them remain empty would be a most devilish thing.

He was asked why he did not find out the terms of the men’s tenancy of their houses before he made that speech. Witness replied that the company might have told him to mind his own business.

He did not know why he did not ask the men what the terms were.

His Lordship: They might have told you the same. (Laughter.)

Witness, continuing, said he understood that many of the men had not paid rent since the strike began, and he supposed the company were going to allow the men to go on without paying rent until the strike was settled.

He recognised that unless new men whom the company might wish to get to work in their pits had homes, they could not stay in the locality.

Reverting to the speech itself, witness said he thought the way that Mr. Atherley Jones had it on the previous day was very impressive.

His Lordship: More impressive than you were. (Laughter.)

Witness said he did not think he was capable of making a speech like that till he heard it read. (Laughter.) He did not think his speech would have had the effect of inflaming the men, but rather he thought it would have conciliated them.

If you thought it was a sad thing, why did you not use that language as a pleader? You know you cannot always find the word you would like. (Laughter.)

Mr. Fred Hall, general treasurer of the Yorkshire Miners’ Association since 1898, said he was one of the arbitrators when the Cadeby price list was settled. He was always under the impression that on the 1s. 4½d. per ton arranged did not include anything for the bag dirt, but that the employers were to do it.

It had been a sore point for a long time. Nothing was paid out of the funds of the association for the purpose of organising the strike or for picketing, or for defending persons charged with violence. He did not wish to do anything illegal.

His Lordship: You did slip into an illegality by paying strike pay.

Mr. Danckwerts, K.C.: The last word has not yet been heard on that.

His Lordship: I should very much like to hear the last word. (Great laughter.)

Cross-examined, witness said it would be an over-statement to say that the Union had over £300,000 in hand when the strike began.

In all the collieries where there was a strike in July, 1902, with the exception of Denaby and Cadeby, only the boys came out. In respect of those collieries, £26,000 was distributed in strike pay during July, August, and September. Including Denaby and Cadeby, the amount distributed was £37,550.

It was a mere accidental coincidence that the boys came out in those collieries at the time the award of Lord James came into operation. The dispute between the boys and the employers was over the 1½d. extra which the lads were entitled to every succeeding six months.

In the course of Mr. Hall’s evidence, it was stated that Mr. Frith, financial secretary to the association, and one of the defendants, was bedridden, and had been so some time past. It was not alleged that he took any part in the strike.

In further cross-examination, Mr. Frederick Hall said he knew nothing of the strike. He merely paid the strike money, which he did upon the resolution of the Council. The amount paid to Denaby was rather less than £1,000 per week. He only knew of disturbances through reading about them in the local papers. The witness received his expenses, and made certain payments to others who did work.

You merely acted as the conveyer of money according to orders that you got from the permanent officials of the central body?—Yes, from those who knew what these men had been doing.

Re-examined by Mr. Rufus Isaacs, K.C., witness said he was sent down to Denaby to make his statement why he had decided against the men at the arbitration.

As far as he was concerned, he never receded from the position he had taken in February, 1901. Having made his statement he did not stop at Denaby very long. The men thought he had given away a point.

In 1901, before Lord James’s award in July, 1902, as the agitation was going on for what is called the revised price list—Yes.

Witness suggested to you during all this agitation which was going on in June and July that there was an attempt to do away with Lord James’s award?—No.

Or at any time afterwards?—No.

What the men were doing after you made your report was to endeavour to get the price list with Mr. Chambers revised?—Yes.

And they set to work, if they could, to get rid of the contract?—Yes.

So as to have the alteration, which in part was suggested by the Judge at the County Court?—Yes.

Witness said he had attended the meeting of the Miners’ Association, and it had never been suggested that the 10 per cent. award should not be adhered to.

Witness said if the collieries affected wanted to strike on the question of the award, they might have done so. It would have been no use striking over the bag dirt question if it was an alteration of the award, which they suggested.

His Lordship: Now, supposing all the collieries had had a general strike upon Lord James’s award, what would have been the result?

Witness said that was rather a difficult question. If that had taken place, only the officials would be left—they had no votes.

Mr. Isaacs: It is a self-governing body.
His Lordship: Quite. Like a Cabinet without any votes.

Mr. Isaacs (to witness): I suppose that if the majority voted in favour of a general strike, all that the officials could do was to advise them against it?
Witness: Yes.
And you would have to pay?—Under the rules, yes.

The witness then left the box.

Mr. Isaacs said he had called all the defendants that he could, and he did not think it necessary to call the trustees. Counsel added that he was prepared to make a statement. A question had been raised on a previous day with regard to what Mr. Wadsworth had taken place with reference to a report that some of the men who were not taken back by Chambers could not get work at other collieries.

His learned friend (Mr. Bankes) asked that Mr. Chambers should be allowed to say that that was not accurate. He quite saw the force of what his learned friend was putting, but he did not think the matter was important, though they did not agree with Mr. Bankes’ statement, he was quite prepared to accept Mr. Chambers’ statement that it was not so.

He could quite see that the course which Mr. Bankes took was a perfectly fair and just one.

There were documents in the case, and about 70 speeches which he did not propose to read.

His Lordship: Leave them to Mr. Jones. (Laughter.)

Mr. Bankes: He reads them so as the authors do not recognise them.

Mr. Isaacs said so far as he knew the only speeches in which there was any reference to the 10 per cent. were two speeches which had been referred to out of 77.

Mr. Jones intimated that evidence on behalf of the defendants had been concluded.

Mr. Isaacs said he supposed they would have to get back to what the evidence had been, and what questions there were. At one time counsel would decide questions among themselves, but there was a decision of the House of Lords which put a difficulty in their way.

His Lordship: It means that if you don’t put the right questions you must suffer.

Mr. Isaacs said the first question was—Did the defendants Nolan and Humphreys, or either of them, unlawfully and maliciously procure the men to break their contracts by coming out without giving proper notice?

He submitted that this was not a trial of these two men. They had put in no plea, and with regard to them there was no issue before the Court.

The next question was—Did the defendants, by its agents, unlawfully and maliciously procure the men to break their contracts by coming out? The point he made with regard to that was that it depended entirely and solely upon law, and there was no question of fact.

The third question was—Did the defendant association ratify the acts of the committees at Denaby and Cadeby, or any of their members thereof, in so procuring the men to break their contracts? He submitted that there was no evidence that they did so.

In fact, all the evidence was the other way.

The next question was—Did the defendant association unlawfully and maliciously maintain the strike, and induce the men to continue on strike? This involved several points of law, for the question which his Lordship would have to decide would be who were the agents.

Regarding two questions about conspiracy, counsel went on to submit there was no evidence of this.

Mr. Bankes (interrupting) said they had already gone into that, and his Lordship had ruled that there was evidence to go to the jury.

Mr. Isaacs said he was entitled to make his submissions on points of law, and he proceeded to quote authorities in support of his contention that there had been no conspiracy, and he denied that the defendants had induced workmen not to enter into contracts with the plaintiffs by unlawful or illegal means.

He submitted that the charges against him had not been made out, and that there was no question of fact to be tried.

Mr. Atherley Jones briefly followed.

His Lordship said he had to ask himself whether there was evidence on what he might call the broad issues of the case. The first question was—did they conspire to induce the men to break their existing contracts; and, secondly, did they prevent men entering into contracts?

Mr. Bankes, proceeding to argue that there was evidence, said—

His Lordship said he would leave the matter for the jury, but the jury did not yet know how he would put it to them. He supposed counsel would occupy the whole of Friday with their speeches, and would then have Saturday to prepare his summing up.

The Court adjourned until this morning.