of pressure was brought to bear upon me and my directors to take them back, that is, to say, by the secretary of the union, who had in fact forced the men out.

991. (Chairman.) To take them back on what terms? It came at last to be on any terms.

992. That is to say, they would come back on piecework terms ?—Yes, at last. They thought at first they would force the company to take them back on the old terms; but eventually we were urged to take them back on any terms, but we did not do so. The men were told in the kindest possible way, but very firmly, that if they struck and left their employment they would never be taken back; and they were not taken back. number of those men have done no work since.

A

993. (Mr. Cohen.) Is it the general rule, may I ask, that if men strike once they are never taken back?— I cannot say it is a general rule, because everything must depend upon circumstances; but in this case the men were told beforehand. We knew, of course, we were in a position to fill their places, and we did fill their places; and they were told they would never be taken back, and they were not taken back. I mention that case to illustrate my point, of course, with regard to the great hardship it has brought upon the men, who have no legal remedy against expulsion from the society. And I should like to say, incidentally, or rather suggest, that that was not in the ordinary sense of the word a trade dispute" at all; there was no dispute whatever with the men.

66

994. That is a legal question ?—I admit it is a legal question, but I simply suggest, as a matter well worth consideration, whether that is a trade dispute in the ordinary sense of the term. Of course, ever since that date our shops have been non-society shops, that is to say, a man is not asked whether he is a member of a union of not. Some men may be, and I daresay some men are, but none of them are ever asked the question.

995. (Sir William Lewis.) And you work piece-work? -We work piece-work, and always have done ever since. There is just one other point that I might incidentally mention, as showing the hardship which these rules entail upon the men, and that is, the extraordinary system that these societies have of fines, for every conceivable offence. This engineers' society contains a list of seventy-four offences punishable by fines varying from 6d. to £5 (Vide Appendices, p. 32); the stone-mason's society has a list of eighty-one offences for which fines are inflicted (Vide Appendices, p. 33); and the ironfounders' society no less than 152 (Vide Appendices, pp. 34-37); and that seems to me to be very remarkable as coming from the trade unions, who, I believe, were the cause of the Truck Act, 1896, passing, which has practically rendered it impossible for a railway company to inflict a fine at all. I have made one or two notes here of other ways in which the pressure which is brought to bear upon the men who are members operates very considerably to their disadvantage, as, for instance, it will be known to the Commission, of course, that the trade unions invariably resist the formation of provident and pension and other funds by the employers. There was the well-known case of the Great Eastern Railway Company, which I daresay you remember.

996. (Chairman.) I do not think we need go on with that branch of the subject, because we are not enquiring as to the question of whether trade unions are good things or not. You are now really getting into the general consideration which might lead to the conclusion that it was much better for a man not to join a trade union at all; but I do not think that is anything to us?—I propose then to proceed very briefly with my notes with regard to the South Wales Miners' Federation, which is the other society to which I referred, as their operations very seriously affect the Taff Vale Railway Company.

997. (Sir William Lewis.) And all other industries too?-Yes, I quite agree-all other industries in the district. We being largely a coal carrying railway, anything that stops the coal industry is very injurious to the Taff Vale Railway Company. I am speaking, of course, in the presence of Sir William Lewis, who has very intimate knowledge of all these things, and I am sure he will correct me if I make any mis-statements with regard to them. The colliery workmen, as a rule, belong to the South Wales

Miners' Federation, which is affiliated to the Miners” Federation of Great Britain. I may say that this Miner's Federation was established only about two or three years ago, and it takes the place of an association which carried on its operations in relation to employers, under what was known as the sliding scale, which I think was established in 1875. I have a copy of its rules here. The rule of the South Wales Miners' Federation with regard to strikes is this-it is Rule 8: The society will not undertake the responsibility of a strike of any dimensions whatever, nor will they provide or make any arrangements for the financial support of those who may be on strike, unless the matter in dispute has first been legitimately placed before the executive council or conference and thoroughly discussed upon just principles, exceptions to be made in cases of emergencies, such as the employers tendering notices or violating any agreement." This rule does not provide for the contingency of a strike taking place after being prohibited by the executive council or conference if that body has power to prohibit it, which, under another rule, seems to me to be doubtful. Rule 44 says: "No lodge or part thereof" (a lodge means a branch of the association) "shall give notice of a strike beforefirst securing the permission of the monthly meeting. Any number of men coming out on strike without complying with this condition shall forfeit all claims on, or protection from, this Federation." The monthly meeting appears to be a meeting of the district committee, and those two rules seem to conflict; one says there shall not be a strike until it is placed before the executive council or conference, and the other says no Lodge "Shall give notice of a strike before first securing the permission of the monthly meeting." Rule 50 seems to favour the settlement of disputes by conciliation and arbitration. That Rule 50 is this: "Courts of conciliation and arbitration shall be acknowledged by the Federation and recommended in the settlement of all disputes where they can be adopted with justice to all parties concerned.' That rule is rather an important one, having regard to the methods which have been adopted by the association or are being adopted up to the present day. From 1875— that was after the great strike of that year, which lasted from the 1st of January to the 1st of June-up to 1902, the relations between the colliery owners and the workmen were governed by the agreement I have already referred to, the sliding scale agreement, under which the wages rose and fell automatically between a fixed minimum and a fixed maximum, according to the fluctuations of the selling price of coal. During the whole period from 1875 to 1902, which would be twenty-seven years, there were, I think, only two general strikes, one in 1893, which lasted two or three weeks, and the great strike in 1898, which lasted for about five months or five and a half months.

998. One was only sectional; confined to the hauliers ?— But it led to a complete stoppage; the hauliers by striking could stop any pit; and the strike of 1898 was a general. stoppage of course. As the wages rose and fell automatically with the selling prices of coal, which were ascertained in a particular manner by accountants on behalf of the men and the employers, there appeared to be no room for a strike, or no room for any difficulty at all arising which might lead to a strike. Then the sliding scale agreement, although entered into with the main object of regulating wages, made provision for the discussion and, it was hoped, for the settlement of disputes without

resort to strikes. The rule is a very short one, it is this; "Both parties to this agreement pledge their respective constituents to make every effort possible to avoid claims or disputes at the collieries, and that in case of any un-avoidable differences the owners and their officers together with their workmen shall endeavour to settle all matters at the collieries, and only in case of failing to effect a settlement shall an appeal be made to the joint committee. It is also hereby agreed that in such cases no notices to terminate contracts shall be given by either employers or workmen before the particular question in dispute shall have been considered by the joint committee and they shall have failed to arrive at an agreement." I said just now that there were two general strikes during those twenty-seven years, one in 1893 and the other in 1898, but there were a continual number of small disputes affecting particular collieries, and that rule was intended to meet those cases; it was a measure of conciliation in fact.

999. (Mr. Arthur Cohen.) What rules were those, may I ask?-That was a clause in the agreement known as the sliding scale agreement.

1000. It was assented to by employers and workmen ? -Yes, it was a clause in the agreement. That great strike in 1898 which I have just referred to, entailed upon my company a loss of revenue of £194,679. It lasted for twenty-two weeks. That clause in that agreement it will perhaps be noticed does not provide any machinery for settling a dispute at all; it provides for disputes being brought before the joint committee and being discussed, and a large number of these matters were brought before the joint committee from time to time and discussed, but very few of them indeed were ever settled; generally they resulted in a strike-I think always where the men themselves did not give way on the point; so that there were constantly small strikes arising. Now the sliding scale agreement was terminated in 1902 and has been replaced by a new agreement dated the 31st of March, 1903, the object of which was declared to be to establish a Board of Conciliation; the words are: "That a Board of Arbitration shall be established to determine the general rate of wages to be paid to the workmen and to deal with disputes at the various collieries of the owners subject to the conditions hereinafter mentioned." (Copies of the sliding scale agreements were handed in. Vide Appendices, pp. 38-42). The agreement is for & fixed period expiring on the 31st of December, 1905. The Board of Conciliation consists of twenty-four represen. tatives of the employers and twenty-four representatives of the men with a chairman from outside who is to determine questions of wages only.

1001. (Sir William Lewis). That Chairman is Sir Michael Hicks-Beach ?-Lord Peel was the first -chairman, and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach has just been appointed to occupy the position. Clause 5 of this new agreement is intended to provide for the settlement of disputes, and is practically identical in effect with Clause 17 of the sliding scale agreement which I have read, and therefore I need not read it again; but this Board of Conciliation is not registered and no provision is made for its being registered under the Act of 1896; and no provision is made for the final settlement of disputes except as regards the scale of wages. The Board of Conciliation has failed in most instances. as the former one did, to settle the questions in dispute, and strikes, as a general rule, have resulted. The Board of Trade Reports on strikes and lock-outs from 1894 to 1902 inclusive give the number of strikes and lock-outs at South Wales collieries as follows:-In 1894 there were forty-three; in 1895, twenty-seven; in 1896, thirty-one; in 1897, twenty-two; in 1898, that is the year of the general strike, there were eighteen; in 1899, there were twenty-seven; in 1900, fifty-two; in 1901, fourteen; and in 1902, thirtytwo. Of course, the majority of those strikes affected injuriously the Taff Vale Company, because the closing of a pit always has that effect in the district. I have put together here, compiled from the Board of Trade returns, a statement for these years showing the number of strikes in South Wales, the number of men affected directly and indirectly, the aggregate duration of the stoppages in days, and the aggregate number of days' work lost (handing in the same. Vide Appendices, p. 42). The only observation I wish to make upon this statement is as to the aggregate number of days work lost. Taking the year 1898, which is the year of the great strike, the average number of days work lost was 15,618,712 days; and I think I may take it that that represents a loss in the output of an equal

number of tons of coal. I also hand in a statement show

ing the output of coal and the number of persons employed at the collieries in the United Kingdom for the years 1897 to 1903, showing the tons raised per man per annum, and showing South Wales separately from the United Kingdom (handing in the same. This statement was subsequently withdrawn and a more detailed one handed in instead. Vide Question 1019 and Appendices, pp. 46 and 47). There is just one figure that I want to refer to. In 1899 the total number of tons raised per man per annum in the United Kingdom was 384, spread only over the underground men. If make the calculations upon the total number of men employed on the surface and underground, the output

you

63

Mr. A. Beasley.

was 307 tons. In 1903, that output had fallen to 340 tons and 273 tons per man respectively. In South Wales for the same year, 1899, the output per man per annum calculated on the number of underground men, was 356 1 June 1904. as compared with 384 in the United Kingdom, and 300 based on the number of surfacemen and underground men instead of 307. In 1903 those figures had fallen to 311 as against 356, and 264 as against 300.

1002. (Sir Godfrey Lushington.) How do you connect that with the union, or show that it is a case of cause and effect?-For the simple reason that we know the men do not turn out as much as they used to do. They turn out a certain number of trams (Sir William Lewis will correct me if I am wrong), and after they have turned out that given number of trams they do no more work-they are not allowed to do any more work.

1003. (Sir William Lewis.) That is to say, you suggest that is done under either a rule or a direction or a resolution of the trade union ?—Yes, one or the otherit is done. You cannot talk to a colliery proprietor in South Wales who will not tell you the same thing-that the output is nothing like what it was; and these figures are official, that is, they are compiled from official figures, and they show that to be the case.

1004. (Chairman.) You have produced a table which shows that the output as a matter of fact has diminished? -Yes.

1005. First of all, is the diminished output due to the fact that the men do not work so much time as they might work?-It is not so much a question of time; they do not do the work as well; they do not work as hard during the time that they are down in the pit as they formerly did.

1006. (Sir William Lewis.) But they do restrict themselves; that is what you suggest ?—That is what I suggest.

1007. (Chairman.) Then in your opinion is the restriction which they impose upon themselves of output due to the action of the unions ?-I have no doubt about it.

1008. But when you say you have no doubt about it, can you prove it. Are there any rules of the union or commands of the union which have been promulgated to that effect?-I am not aware of any rules. I get my information from the colliery proprietors themselves. It is the universal complaint.

1009. (Sir William Lewis.) But with regard to the restriction which was referred to in the stop-day action, that was in compliance with a distinct resolution of the union ?—Yes, it was; that was an actual stopping for days together with the express purpose of restricting the output; and similarly the old arrangement which had existed for some years of stopping the first Monday in each month, called Mabon's Day, was for the same object. That is now put an end to. It is called Mabon's Day after Mr. Abraham, M.P., whose Welsh name is Mabon. That day has now ceased; but we know it has been publicly declared that the object of the stop days was to restrict the output.

1010. Mabon's Day was one of the subjects in dispute which led to the strike of 1898, and which, at the final agreement with the workmen, the men agreed to abandon ?→ Yes. I also hand in a statement containing a return of the strikes in the South Wales and Monmouthshire coalfield entered upon with the object of compelling nonunion men to join the Miners' Union, from 1894 to 1902 inclusive, compiled from the Board of Trade Returns (handing in the same. Vide Appendices, pp. 43 and 44).

In 1894 there were none; in 1895, one; in 1896, two; in 1897, one; in 1898, one; in 1899, two; in 1900, nine; in 1901, four; and in 1902, twelve. I have all the details here, and I should like to draw attention to the fact that the number in the year 1902 was far greater than in any other year, and that is since the men have come under the influence of the Miners' Federation.

1011. But numbers there hardly indicate a fair comparison, because you may have twelve in one year, which might apply to a small number of men, as against two in another year applying to thousands of men, or vice versa; and it is possible that we may have to ask, if that point is pursued, as to the details of the different strikes ?

-I have the details here. I have summarised this statement showing the aggregate number of days the collieries were idle in each year, which I think will give you what you want.

1012. I am only suggesting that you can hardly compare them by means of the bald information of numbers ?Then perhaps this will give you an idea of what it means: In 1894 I said there were none. In 1895 the aggregate number of days' work lost by the stoppages of the pit against the non-unionists, for the purpose of squeezing out the non-unionists, was 2,779; in 1896, 7,270; in 1897, 11,200; in 1898, 900; in 1899, 1,305; in 1900, 55,058; in 1901, 42,135; and in 1902, 147,547. ́I think that meets the point.

66

1013. That is what I wanted ?-As illustrating the methods pursued by the union which lead up to a strike in most cases, I have here a circular notice, issued by the Committee of the Lewis Merthyr Lodge, which appears to be one of the preliminary steps leading up to a strike. Lewis Merthyr Lodge." This is undated. Notice ! A special examination of cards will take place during the week commencing May 9th. All members are expected to clear up on Saturday, May 7th." (those dates tell me it is last month) "when clearance cards will be issued to all that are clear on the books. As a result of the last show cards, we discovered that there were a large number of non-unionists and also several members in. arrears working at these collieries. The whole of these faithfully promised to join on the first opportunity afforded them, but they have not yet fulfilled that promise, hence it has become necessary to again get an examination, in order to see if these persons are still working here; if so, it will become the duty of the lodge to seriously consider what steps shall be taken to compel these persons to join the ranks. It has also been brought to our notice, that some unscrupulous members have allowed non-unionists to wear their clearance badge in order to deceive the persons examining the cards; therefore the Committee has decided that every member must bring his contribution card with him during the week. The secretaries will be in attendance at the lodge room, Vaughan's Arms, Hafod, on Monday evening to receive the contributions of those members travelling to work by train. By order of the Committee." That is printed in English and Welsh. And there is one other document which perhaps it would be convenient I should produce now, which again is a very striking illustration of the methods taken to compel men to join the union. This is a hand bill which was largely circulated in the Ogmore and Gilfach districts of the Miners' Federation, which you will find on the map lying to the west, where the lines are coloured yellow; those are the Great Western lines: Ogmore

and Gilfach District of the Miners' Federation. To Householders who provide accommodation (lodgings, etc.) to miners and other colliery workmen. It being well known that a number of unprincipled workmen, who are willing to appropriate all the benefits obtained through the Federation, are constantly trying to evade their responsibility in supporting the same, we appeal to you to assist us in preventing this imposition by Refusing to Accommodate (Board or Lodge) any persons who cannot produce the Federation Credentials, or, failing these, a note from one of the local Lodge Secretaries. Your co-operation in this matter will tend to prevent friction, and also imposition upon the Federation, which has so greatly enhanced the prosperity of the district."

1014. (Mr. Cohen.) Who is that published by ?There is no name to it at all.

1015. (Sir William Lewis.) That is distributed right through the district ?—That is distributed right through the district; and that is quite in accordance with our own experience. After our strike of 1900 we could not get lodgings for any men who came to us during the strike. To Treherbert and Ferndale particularly, which you will find at the top of the map, and which are the farthest from Cardiff, it is necessary to send up men to live there permanently, or go there one day, work up the train, and come back the next day; and although the company have a number of houses at both these places inhabited by their own servants, it was absolutely impossible for the men to get lodgings, either with our own servants or with any other people in the town. Consequently we had to fit up a house and put in caretakers for the purpose of accommodating these men who could not get lodgings elsewhere.

1016. (Mr. Cohen.) Why could they not get lodgings. elsewhere?-Because the people refused to take them in on account of their being blacklegs.

1017. Why did they refuse ?-The reason was, of course, because they wanted to get rid of the blacklegs. It was part of the system of getting rid of men who came to us during the strike.

1018. Why was that wrong ?-Well, I should consider it very wrong from our point of view. Whether it was wrong from their point of view is another question. I am speaking now of the fact that these men could not get accommodation even in our own houses, and we were obliged to give notice to our men who lived in our houses to quit their houses before we could get that stopped. The instant we provided accommodation ourselves there was no further difficulty in the men getting lodgings, and we have recently closed the houses weprovided because the men preferred to go into the lodgings which, now, they can get freely.

65

66

1019. (Chairman.) Had you gone as far as you wished in giving the statistics about trades unions?—There are one or two figures I should like to add if you will allow me, but would you permit me, as I was referring on the last occasion to the question of fines and also to the question of the hardship which I considered was entailed upon the members of the trade union by their inability to bring and maintain actions against the union, to call your attention to a case which is reported in this morning's Times-you may have seen it, sir, it is the case of Mullet v. The United French Polishers' (London) Society. The report is brief, and if you will permit me I will read it: The plaintiffs were members of the United French Polishers' London Society, a society registered under the Friendly Societies Acts and having its headquarters at 34, Gray's Inn Road. Rule 1 of the rules of the society, which dealt with the constitution and objects of the society, stated that the society was established (among other purposes) for the collection and circulation of information and trade matters generally, and to offer all legitimate resistance to encroachments upon the work and wages of its members, and for their legal protection when subject to unjust treatment on the part of employers, and for the establishment of funds for the support of members who were unemployed or in dispute. Rule 3, which related to the constitution and powers of the executive committee, provided that the executive committee should watch over all matters in the interest of the society or trade unionism generally, and should take such steps as they deemed necessarily conducive to the welfare of the society or the trade union movement. This action was brought for an injunction to restrain the defendant society from levying certain fines which had been imposed by the executive committee upon the plaintiffs in the following circumstances: In March, 1903, all the plaintiffs were working for a French polisher named Simeon Emanuel in Camden Town. It was then discovered by the defendant society that another workman named Lanning, who was not a member of the society, was working for the same employer, and accordingly Rudd, the secretary of the society, was sent to Emanuel to expostulate, and he saw one Foley, Emanuel's foreman, about the matter. Foley explained that Lanning was nominated for membership of another trade union society and that his election would take place on the following Monday. Lanning, however, was not elected. Notwithstanding his non-election, the plaintiffs wrote a letter to their employer signifying their willingness to work with Lanning, and in spite of Rudd's remonstrances, they announced their intention of sticking to Lanning. Eventually the executive committee held a meeting, which the plaintiffs attended. The plaintiffs subsequently retired at the request of the committec, and the committee decided to impose a fine of 153. on each of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs complained that the fine was ultra vires and illegal, and also that it was unjust and oppressive, inasmuch as it was not owing to any misconduct of the plaintiffs. The defendant society pleaded that the executive committee were acting within the authority of Rule 3, and further, that under Section 4 of the Trade Union Act 1871, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's claim. Mr. Cyril Dodd, K.C., and Mr. Bassett Hopkins appeared for the plaintiffs;

Mr. A. Beasley.

and Mr. Mulligan, K.C., and Mr. Martin O'Connor for the defendant society. Mr. Justice Kekewich was of opinion that the action was not maintainable. The plaintiffs complained that their fellow workman had been victim- 22 June 1904. ised; they complained of injustice to themselves; they wished to stand by their fellow workman and to assert their freedom. If they wished to assert their freedom they had only to refuse to submit to be bound by the rules of this trade union. But having chosen to submit they must be bound. All that the Legislature said was that the court would not enforce the rules of these societies. The plaintiffs alleged that they had been improperly fined, and that the executive committee proposed to visit them with certain penalties and disqualifications for non-payment of the fine; and they asked the Court to say that, notwithstanding the nonpayment of the fine, they should be free from these penalties and disqualifications. That was asking that the rules of the society should be construed and enforced for their benefit; that they should be restored to complete membership without paying the fine. That was relief which the Legislature had thought good to say the Court should have no jurisdiction to grant. This case was covered by Rigby v. Connel (14 Chancery Division, 482), and Chamberlain's Wharf (Limited) v. Smith (1900, 2 Chancery, 605). Howden v. Yorkshire Miners' Associa tion (1903. 1 K.B., 308) was a case of an entirely different character. There the society was proposing to divert funds which were contributed for a certain purpose to other purposes not authorised by the rules. That was a case of the misapplication of the funds of the society, and was quite a different case from an action by a member to enforce the rules for his benefit. That case stood sound by itself and was in no way inconsistent with the other two cases. This action failed because it was within the statutory prohibition of the Act of Parliament. There would be judgment for the defendant society with costs." At the last sitting I put in a statement (Vide Question 1001) which I had had prepared showing the output per man per annum in the South Wales Coalfield and the United Kingdom. I have since been furnished by the South Wales Coal Owners' Association with a somewhat more complete statement, and I would ask leave to put that in in place of the other one; it is more complete and shows the number of men employed year by year and gives various other information which was not given in the statement which I put in before. (The Statement was handed in. Vide Appendices, pp. 46 and 47.)

1020. (Sir William Lewis.) Was that on the subject of restriction?-That was on the subject of restriction; you will remember I compared the figures of 1899 with 1903, showing that not only in South Wales but in the United Kingdom there was a very considerable falling off, but that the output in South Wales was much less than in the United Kingdom at large.

1021. (Sir Godfrey Lushington.) May I ask whether the coal in South Wales can be got as easily as the coal in other parts of the country?-Certainly, for anything I know to the contrary. I never heard that suggested as a reason why the output should be less. You may remember, sir, when I referred to that phase of the question before, you asked me whether I was in a position to prove

22 June 1904.

that this reduced output was due to any order or rule of the men's union. Then I was not in a position to say anything, except what was of a general character.

1022. (Chairman.) The Secretary points out to me that on the last day, speaking of the output, you said a good deal, and I see it is all summed up in a question I asked you at the end: (Q) 1007: "Then, in your opinion, is the restriction which they impose upon themselves of output due to the action of the unions? (A.) I have no doubt about it." Can you carry the matter further than that? -I have got several letters here from colliery managers bearing upon this point; they do not all assign the same reason, but as the question has been raised I might be permitted to read these letters. (The letters were ruled to be inadmissible as evidence.) There is one case I should like particularly to refer to, because involved in the case is a very serious strike, which affected us very materially indeed.

1023. (Sir William Lewis.) When you say mean the Taff Vale Railway Company?—Yes.

us" you

1024. (Chairman.) If you wish to speak of the incidents of any case that were within your own knowledge, that, of course, is a perfectly different thing. Will you state the particular instance you refer to ?-This paper I hold in my hand partly consists of statements, partly of letters, and partly of the minutes of meetings that took place with regard to a strike at the Hetty Pit of the Great Western Colliery Company. The Taff Vale Company are interested in that matter in two ways. First, because by that strike the traffic was very seriously affected, and next, because by the closing of that Hetty Pit the Taff Vale Railway Company were unable to obtain from the Great Western Colliery Company, their contractors, a large part of the coal which the Great Western Colliery Company had contracted to supply, and we had, therefore, to get our supplies of coal from our reserve, which we always like to keep, and we were put to very serious cost and inconvenience in consequence. The facts as to this strike will appear from this statement; it is very brief, or I would not trouble you with it. It is a memorandum, the date of which is 11th July, 1903, while the strike was proceeding: "The Company" (that is, the Great Western Colliery Company)" commenced opening out the 2 feet 9 inches seam towards the end of 1898" (that was a new seam in this colliery.) "The seam was then very stiff and was at first wet. Datal" (that is, daily)" wages were paid to the few colliers engaged" (that means they were not paid by the ton, but by daily wages, because they would have to do a great deal of opening out and such like, not the actual production of the coal upon which it would ordinarily be fair to pay them, so much a ton). "The facility for coal getting improved, and in December of 1898 the colliers were loading two trams from each working place per shift (two men), but these were very heavy trams, carrying thirty-five cwts. to forty cwts. each. This continued for twelve months. In January, 1899, the men still continued loading two trams from each place, and the management, to induce better work, agreed to

increase

the datal wage if an additional tram per place was loaded. Since that time three trams per place (two men) have been sent out, and notwithstanding a complete change in the working of the seam, as well as a change in the weight of the coal in each tram, the same continues. The coal is now easy to get, and the trams are only loaded to twentyfive or thirty cwts., and the workmen refuse to do more. For the fortnight ending November 29th, 1902, the Company kept a complete record of the time each collier was actually working each shift, with the following results :Average time per shift colliers should have been in the face, after allowing ample time for travelling to and from the shaft, eight hours, twenty-seven-and-a-half minutes. Actual average time per shift actually worked by the colliers, three hours eleven-and-a-half minutes. The minimum in the latter case is two hours, fifty-six minutes, and the maximum is three hours, forty minutes, showing that any two men can in this seam load three trams of coal in three hours, forty minutes. The owners have all along contended that six trams from each place was a reasonable average production, some would do more and some would do rather less. This restriction of production by the workmen in this particular seam (two feet nine inches) renders it unworkable to advantage by the Company." I may say, sir, that in consequence of their inability to get the men to turn out more coal, the colliery was closed after

notices given in November, 1902. In January, 1903, immediately after the notices had expired, negotiations took place between the colliery officials and representatives of the union, and it was agreed that the pit should be re-opened, and should be open for nine weeks, during which time it was anticipated that some settlement would be arrived at. The owners of the colliery notwithstanding that they were losing heavily by keeping the pit open agreed to re-open the pit; and it was kept open for this period of nine weeks, and during that time negotiations took place which resulted in an agreement between the representatives of the men and the officials of the colliery. The arrangement, under which the pit was to be kept. open for nine weeks, contained this clause: "The Hetty Pit shall be restarted at once on the following conditions: If it is proved that the system of restricting trams exists. in the Hetty Pit, the representatives of the Federation agree that they will use their utmost influence and endeavours to get the Great Western workmen to abandon it." I say terms were agreed, but when submitted to the men they refused to ratify those terms, and as a matter of fact they refused to go to work; the pit was closed until April of this year, which is thirteen months altogether, when an agreement was finally entered into on the 19th April last, which contains this clause: The company undertake (this agreement, I may say, is signed by the agent of the colliery and by fourteen men representing the workmen)

66

1025. (Mr. Sidney Webb.) And by the Union? There is one who signs himself "Miners' Agent," and therefore he is the representative of the Union.

1026. (Sir William Lewis.) That would be the Federation ?-Yes, he signs it first. "The Company undertake to divide the trams between the several districts in the respective pits as evenly as is practicable, and such trams shall then be divided between the persons working in the several working places in accordance with the practice prevailing in the other collieries in the Rhondda Valley, and so that an equal opportunity shall be given to each workman in the district to have the same number of trams, but if any workman is not ready to be cleared when his turn comes round the trams shall be offered in rotation to the workmen in the adjoining working places, and a haulier shall be appointed to keep the turn. Subject to the foregoing clause the workmen on their part undertake to allow each man to fill without restriction according to his capacity and the condition of his working place.' On those terms the colliery has been reopened and is now at work.

1027. (Mr. Cohen.) Then what complaint is there against the trade union? I thought they did not sanction the strike originally; they rather interfered in order to bring about an agreement ?-The first phase-I am afraid I did not make it quite clear-was the stoppage of the colliery on account of the restriction of output.

1028. Not by the trade union, not at the orders of the trade union, but on the contrary ?-By the men, certainly; but if the trade union were in a position to make that agreement which was made on the 19th April last, surely they were in a position to control the men.

1029. (Sir William Lewis.) The question is, in declining to do more than a certain amount of work as indicated there, were they doing so as part of the rules of the Federation or not? Were they acting on their own initiative, or were they acting as part of the general instructions from the Federation ?-That, of course, I could not say; I am only able to speak with regard to the results, but there is one fact which is within my own knowledge which has a bearing upon the question; it is referred to in one of these letters, but I can, of course, to an extent, corroborate it myself, and therefore possibly I might be allowed to read that letter-that there is a system of compelling individual men to reduce their output by some process of intimidation. You cannot go through a colliery district without seeing names and addresses and hieroglyphics of various kinds chalked on the walls. That is explained by the writer of this letter if I may read it without mentioning his name; it says: "If individuals elect to produce on an average a little extra quantity they are soon reminded of it by having their names or marks by which they are known chalked all over the neighbourhood where they work. This is one way by which the general attention of the workmen is drawn