Denaby Strike Sequel

The Action In The High Court

Evidence Of Union Officials

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 for £150,000 as damages for alleged conspiracy and unlawful combination to induce plaintiffs’ workmen to break their contracts by a strike, in June, 1902.

Mr. Rufus Isaacs, K.C., continued his opening speech for the Yorkshire Miners’ Association. He said plaintiffs’ counsel were asking the jury to find against the defendant association that there had been what they called a malicious conspiracy to molest and injure the plaintiffs in carrying on their business. That was something which stood altogether apart from the legal rights that they had been discussing, and the question of the responsibility of the union for the acts of the men, even though they had told the men not to commit acts of violence, or had incited them to acts of violence.

This question of conspiracy stood apart, and it had been put in the nature of a conspiracy very skilfully and cunningly — he did not mean to cast the slightest reflection on those who conducted plaintiffs’ case; the object being to get rid of some possible legal difficulties that might be in their way in applying the ordinary law to this set of events.

They said, “We will call this a conspiracy to injure, and we will get the jury to find that this is a malicious conspiracy to injure, and if we get the jury to find that, that may assist us very much in other matters, and possibly with all respect to his Lordship, in other courts.”

To that matter he asked the jury’s serious consideration. Where was there in this case the slightest evidence of any malicious conspiracy to injure the plaintiffs in their business? That meant that the association, and those whom Mr. Atherley Jones represented, had combined, not to protect their own interests, but to injure the employers.

He (Mr. Isaacs) supposed that what was suggested was that they wished to wreak some vengeance or spite on the employers, and to hurt them because they were obnoxious to the association. Did the jury think there was the slightest foundation for that statement?

Defendants might have been imprudent or impudent in this matter, that was wholly immaterial for the purpose of this aspect of the case. If plaintiffs’ counsel were right in this contention, then the conspiracy was a conspiracy for which each of these men might be indicted under criminal law, but in the dock, and sentenced to imprisonment. If the conspiracy existed it was an indictable conspiracy.

In plain language what his learned friends said was that this was a criminal conspiracy on the part of the Executive Council to pay the men strike pay for the purpose of injuring the employers. It was upon that aspect of the case, apart from all other considerations, that he asked the jury to vindicate these men from a charge that is apparently unsupported by any evidence.

Neither malice nor intent to injure had been shown. The only conclusion the jury could come to on the evidence was that the Executive were acting in the best interests to protect the men, and to get their grievances redressed, and that the plaintiffs had never in their minds a “malicious intention” until the lawyers suggested it.

Counsel then said he had hoped to put before the jury the evidence of a gentleman who had done so much in the interests of employers and employed to keep the peace between them; he referred to Mr. Pickard, M.P., the General Secretary of the Association. Unfortunately they had known during the last few days that he was ill, and he had had a telegram that morning that it had become an impossibility owing to Mr. Pickard’s state of health to call him.

They must make up their minds, therefore, to conduct their case without his assistance, and he knew that under the circumstances Mr. Bankes would place no difficulty in his way in dealing with the correspondence between Mr. Pickard and Mr. Chambers, which had been put in and referred to.

With regard to that action, he trusted — in fact, he thought he might say he was quite sure — that nothing that would fall or had fallen from his learned friend and himself would in the slightest degree tend to impair the good relations which had existed between masters and men. They would hear some evidence, and they would hear in mind that under the circumstances, he was unable to put Mr. Pickard into the witness box.

Mr. Atherley Jones, K.C., said it now became his duty to ask their indulgence while he addressed them on behalf of the officials of the union who were defendants in the action. It was not his intention to trespass upon their time at any great length for two reasons—firstly, because his learned friend had really covered all the principal points of the defence; secondly, because at a later stage he would have an opportunity of addressing to them a few further observations.

He did not think he could well begin the few observations he had to make without saying how cordially he concurred with the view which was entertained by his Lordship downwards, and probably entertained by everybody in that court, how lamentable, how deplorable it was that so small a matter should have brought about that great controversy.

It was one of those matters, indeed, which if some guiding voice, such as his Lordship’s, had been heard at even the last critical stage of the dispute, the trouble, the suffering, and destitution, deprivation, and loss of money which had been incurred not merely by the plaintiffs in the action, but in a higher degree perhaps by the workmen, might have been avoided.

One knew that almost all the great controversies with which they were concerned had arisen from many small beginnings, and that case only an illustration of how the weakness of human beings seemed incapable of dealing, at the stage when dealing and negotiation were possible, with matters of that kind.

He was there on behalf of Mr. Parrott, Mr. Pickard — whose absence they all deplored — Mr. Hall, Mr. Frith, and Mr. Wadsworth. In one sense he thought he might say he appeared on behalf of the union itself, because these men had the control of the union. What they did and what they advised should be done by that association was, as a rule, loyally followed.

Of course, the responsibility and liability of the union in that case were somewhat different in a legal aspect to what liability attached to the union gentlemen personally. It might be the union, as a body, as an entity, as it was called, was responsible, and at the same time these gentlemen might be responsible or vice-versa, some of them liable, and the union not liable.

But before he examined what the conduct of these gentlemen might have been during that dispute, let him point out to them the very grievous — he might almost say, very heavy — responsibilities which devolved upon the union officials, and therefore upon the union, in relation to trade disputes.

In former times, they were well aware that unions in their earlier stages very often contributed to discord and dispute. That state of things was now changed, and he thought he might appeal to them to regard a union as a body which was not a source of discord between men and employers, but a body of conciliators, who prevented many disputes by their timely interference.

In no small degree, too, he thought that tribute applicable to the gentlemen he now represented. He thought they had now disposed of the complaint that the bag dirt dispute was not the cause of the strike. If the union of which this branch formed a part had decided to oppose Lord James’s award, there would have been a general strike, conducted by the central body.

Counsel proceeded to contend that each branch was a separate body, a tributary to the great body. It would be too heavy a burden for every trade union to bear all the responsibility for a branch, and it would be impossible for the organisations which were legalised by successive statutes to continue their existence if it were said that the association was responsible for the acts of the various branches and officials of the various branches.

It was enough to satisfy law and justice to say that the association shall be responsible for the acts of its duly authorised officials. One of the charges against his clients was having abetted, and having countenanced acts of violence. He thought he might say that never in the course of his experience of labour organisation had he ever known a strike carried on with a greater absence — he was marked absence — of violence and disorder.

It is true there were regrettable incidents, but what would they expect? A body of some four thousand men, with their wives and their children out of work through a mistake — a very foolish mistake — suffering deprivation of their weekly wage, living upon a pittance which was meted out to them by the organisation — young men, uneducated men, men without any restraining influence; was it to be wondered that there was an occasional lapse into some act of violence, that some foolish man or woman would do things which would probably bring them within the administration of the law?

His learned friend could not impute to Mr. Wadsworth or Mr. Parrott or Mr. Pickard, or any of the officials, that they were responsible for or permitted those acts of violence or intimidation.

His learned friend had relied upon the suggestion that there were seen in the street at the time acts of violence were committed members of the council; and it was upon evidence of that description that he (his learned friend) asked them to hold Mr. Parrott and his other clients responsible for those few trumpery acts of violence.

There was not the slightest toleration in the speeches of the defendants of acts of violence or turbulence. The association discharged to the full its duty of encouraging the good relations between employers and men, and it was due to the efforts of associations like this that disastrous strikes had been made almost impossible.

Counsel characterised as a most cruel and foolish suggestion that the association conspired to prevent workmen from yielding up their houses to the coalowners.

Mr. S. T. Evans, K.C., in proceeding to lead evidence for the defendants, stated that a telegram had just been received that Mr. Pickard’s condition was extremely grave, and added counsel, it was very doubtful whether he was living at that moment.

Mr. Wadsworth, president of Yorkshire Miners’ Association, in reply to Mr. Evans, said the association covered the whole of the Yorkshire coalfields. There were about 150 branches, and the membership of the association was roughly 65,000.

Witness was then taken through the history of the bag dirt question in the Denaby and Cadeby Collieries, beginning with the agitation of 1895. Proceedings were taken in the County Court in respect of the alleged illegal deduction for bag dirt. Just before those proceedings, he went down the Denaby pit, and saw the bag dirt in four or half-a-dozen stalls. It was about 30 inches thick.

Mr. Bankes said if they were to go into this question they might be occupied for months.

Mr. Isaacs said he would withdraw the question if Mr. Bankes would withdraw the suggestion that this was a sham dispute.

His Lordship said they had better get on.

Witness said the bag dirt was very hard, and a pick and a hammer were used to bring it down. He heard the observations of the County Court Judge when giving his decision in the case. The men held that they were entitled to 1s. 4½d. per ton, and 11d. in addition, for getting down the bag dirt. That was one of the reasons why the men desired a new price list.

There was no truth in the suggestion that he in any way took part in or encouraged the strike until the meeting of the Council of the 14th July; they did everything to avoid it.

He had been trying for years to prevent these collieries from being set down. There was not the least pretence for saying that he encouraged the strike in order to protest against the award of Lord James, and not one knew that better than Mr. Chambers and the Coalowners’ Association.

He did not till Howden’s action hear any suggestion by Mr. Chambers or others that the strike was due to Lord James’s award of 10 per cent. reduction. Witness said that about 58,000 or 59,000 persons, who were members of the association, were affected by Lord James’ award. A resolution was passed on July 15 that he and Mr. Walsh should go down to Denaby. They were anxious to meet Mr. Chambers, as they were anxious to get some settlement, if possible, and they saw Mr. Chambers.

Mr. Evans: Did you have any idea — either your own friend or you — or have any instructions from your Council, otherwise than to do your best to get the men to resume work?

Witness: Certainly not. We went on purpose to get the men to resume work.

Did you advise the men that they had struck illegally?—Yes.

And did you do your best to induce the men to resume their work, and in an ordinary way to take a ballot, and put an end to their employment by giving proper notice?—Yes.

Is there any truth that your advice to the men was a sham and a pretence?—No truth at all. I went down there to try and get the men to work. For years I have had to fight the two delegates from those particular branches, to prevent them going on strike, even legally.

We thought that if we could only get the men to resume work, we could get the dispute settled, either with Mr. Chambers, or with the central body at Sheffield. We thought it a foolish thing for these men to be on strike over.

Answering further questions, witness explained that they always took the ballot by paper, if it was an important ballot. In spite of the Howden decision, he still hoped and believed that the payment of strike money in this case was legal.

Mr. Evans: You hope that the House of Lords will disagree with the House of Lords, as they sometimes do?

Witness: Yes. (Laughter.)

Replying to further questions, witness said a considerable sum of money was subscribed by neighbouring collieries towards the men who suffered from the strike. The men who came out had not got back to work yet. It was untrue that he or others had conspired to induce men illegally to leave their work, or break their contracts. After the notice was given, he believed the strike was legal.

He never knew anything of the colliery fire. He had not conspired for any purpose. If there had been a conspiracy it was on the part of the Colliery Company, who had agreed with other colliery proprietors in the district not to employ in future any of the men engaged in that strike. They had practically boycotted these men.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bankes, K.C., witness repeated it was a fact that he had never conspired, and he had only acted with his colleagues when they had an executive and Council meeting. Of course, so far as the strike was concerned, he realised that it would be very disastrous to the colliery company.

In disputes of this kind he always tried to realise that. He was president of the association, but he did not devote himself entirely to it. He was not a paid official, though he had his expenses when he went down to address a meeting.

The association consisted of about 150 branches, and had one general fund, and that consisted of contributions from members, which were collected by the branch members. After the branches had paid their own expenses out of the subscriptions, they sent the balance on to the central body.

At the time of the strike the association had about £220,000 in hand. Each branch sent a delegate to the central body, and they formed the Council. He himself was a delegate. He had always been fighting the delegates from the two branches, but they had not always been Nolan and Humphreys.

Mr. Bankes: Would it be correct to describe them as firebrands?

Witness: Oh, I don’t know, Mr. Bankes. (Laughter.)

Witness preferred to describe them as “dissatisfied persons.” (Laughter)—because they always wanted a strike. Witness did not believe in a strike when they could do without it. It was true that he had never had any feeling against the company, and before this he had never known Mr. Chambers to refuse a deputation.

The trouble was over the bag dirt, but witness did not think this was a matter to strike about.

After the County Court decision in 1897 the men claimed to have the matter brought before the Joint Board, who sent it to the arbitrators, who consisted of two masters and two men. In their award they fixed the price for shifting the bag dirt at 4d. per ton, and thus decided against the men.

The branch afterwards passed a resolution condemning the action of the two men in this matter. Witness said the members ought to have been consulted before this decision was come to.

Answering his Lordship, witness said the price list had already been re-arranged, and it was understood that ½d. per ton had to be taken for the bag dirt, but there was a subsequent agreement under which it was understood that the ½d. was not paid for the purpose.

Witness, continuing, said that in December, 1901, the men balloted as to whether they should strike over this question, and it was then decided there should be no strike. At the time of the strike in 1902 there were a number of other pits on strike. When he heard that the men were coming out it did not occur to him that Nolan and Humphreys had had anything to do with it.

Did you realise that the men had gone out illegally, and that it was an illegal strike?—Yes.

Did your Council make any attempt to stop it?—Yes.

What did they do?—They objected to pay them the strike money.

Witness said a telegram was sent, telling the men they were not entitled to strike pay from the Executive Committee.

Did they write them any letter?—I could not tell you that. I may explain that I am not always there.

Mr. Bankes: That may be the explanation, because, so far as the documents are concerned, though that telegram was sent, no letter was written, and there was no communication of any sort from the Council of the Executive Committee to the men until the 14th July—I could not tell you that.

Mr. Bankes proceeded to read extracts from a speech made by Croft on July 14th.

Mr. Jones: Go on. (Loud laughter.)

His Lordship (severely): We are not now at a meeting of delegates.

Mr. Bankes read an extract showing that at the meeting Croft said he could tell them that Pickard would be only too pleased if he could allow them strike pay.

Witness said he did not know who had told Croft that. Probably he saw Pickard himself.

You were trying to get the men to go back to work?—Yes.

But to get them out afterwards?—Yes, but the idea was that the matter should be settled in the meantime.

At that meeting Walsh said to the men, “You have the fullest sympathy of the officials, and the whole of the members of the society.” That was his opinion, I suppose?

Do you think that was true?—They had the sympathy of the union officials, but not sympathy for a strike.

His Lordship: Sympathy is a doubtful commodity. (Laughter.)

Mr. Bankes read that at the meeting Walsh, one of the delegates, said, “Let us fight this to a finish.”

Is not that the language of a man who was asking them to go back in order that they might come out, and fight it to a finish?—Yes, in order that we might arrive at a settlement.

Counsel said Walsh referred to some men who were at work as “rats.” Was not that an equivalent term for a “blackleg”?

Witness: You will hear it in any colliery village on a Saturday night.

Did you look upon them as “blacklegs”?—I never said anything about that.

Did you hear Walsh say that if a two-years’ battle was fought at Denaby, would not it bring that gentleman to his senses?—Yes.

To whom did he refer?—Mr. Chambers, I suppose.

Counsel called witness’s attention to the fact that he had said at the meeting he was sorry he was not there on a better mission.

What did that mean?—That it was not a tea meeting, and that they were not all working. (Laughter.)

At the meeting witness said the men should follow Mr. Walsh’s advice.

Was it not Walsh’s advice that they should go back, and then come out and fight it to a finish?—No, we advised them to go back to work and give in their notice, and give us an opportunity of getting the thing settled.

Do you from first to last in this speech say anything about going back to give in their notices?

Mr. Isaacs: You would, Mr. Bankes, if you read it through.

Re-examined by Mr. Rufus Isaacs, K.C., witness said the bag dirt question arose long before the award was given by Lord James. The trouble was therefore not over the 10 per cent.

Mr. Bankes said he wished to recall Mr. Chambers to deny the suggestion made by Mr. Wadsworth that there was an agreement among the Associated Colliery Owners to boycott the men from Denaby and Cadeby who went out on strike.

Mr. Wadsworth: I can prove it.

Mr. Isaacs said it was not relevant.

Mr. Bankes: I shall ask for an opportunity to deny it when the proper time comes.

The further hearing was adjourned until this morning.