Troubled Times 1926 - 1927
I wish to to bring before the House two evictions of miners' families which took place last Wednesday at South Garesfield Colliery ...One of the men concerned is 62 years of age, and he was turned out with his wife and three adult sons. This man has worked for this colliery for almost 50 years. Last Wednesday the police took possession of the house, put the furniture into the street, and locked the family out...
William Whiteley MP for Blaydon in a HC debate April 27th 1927
William Whiteley MP for Blaydon in a HC debate April 27th 1927
The years 1926 and 1927 - and for many miners the ensuing years - were dire times in the Durham Coal Field.
To understand the situation to which the above quote refers; a situation in which men and their families at South Garesfield (according to a pattern which ran nationwide) were denied work and evicted from their homes, an understanding of events of the time is required.
To understand the situation to which the above quote refers; a situation in which men and their families at South Garesfield (according to a pattern which ran nationwide) were denied work and evicted from their homes, an understanding of events of the time is required.
The General Strike of 1926
The General Strike of 1926 was the largest industrial dispute in Britain’s history. It lasted for a total of nine days – between 4 May 1926 to 12 May 1926 – and was called by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in support of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain (MFGB) and in an attempt to force the governement to act to prevent wage reduction and worsening conditions for 1.2 million locked-out coal miners.
The General Strike of 1926 was the largest industrial dispute in Britain’s history. It lasted for a total of nine days – between 4 May 1926 to 12 May 1926 – and was called by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in support of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain (MFGB) and in an attempt to force the governement to act to prevent wage reduction and worsening conditions for 1.2 million locked-out coal miners.
Background
The aftermath of the Frst World War had brought about economic depression and a reduced demand for exports, coal in particular, which, already on April 15th 1921 - Black Friday - had resulted in mine owners reducing wages and increasing hours of work. In 1925, in repsonse to the continuing crisis mine owners sought to balance their losses by again asking the miners to accept further cuts in their wages and work an extra hour per day. The miners refused and the Government intervened by paying the owners a subsidies for nine months and setting up a Royal Commission to examin the problem. In March 1926 the Samuel Commission concluded that the industry was in need of re-organization and its first recommendation was a cut in wages. Mine owners insisted a 13.5% pay cut plus an increase in the miner's working day from 7 to 8 hours. |
The response of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain, voiced by their leader, A. J. Cook, was "not a penny off the pay, not a minute on the day".
On the 30th April 1926, those miners who refused the cuts were locked out of the pits where they were employed and Britain’s coalfields came to a stop.
On May 3rd the TUC called all trade unionists to strike, and for nine days the country was paralysed as 1.7 million workers, especially in transport and heavy industry, came out on strike to support the miners.
The strike was, however, short-lived and called off unconditionally by the TUC General Council when on May 12th it accepted the compromise put forward by the Samuel Commission. The embittered MFGB leadership did not and the lock-out continued for seven months. As time wore on levels of distress and destitution for miners and their families increased and soup kitchens were organised in halls and chapels. As miners were involved in an industrial dispute they were not eligible for unemployment benefit The miners carried on their strike until the end of the year when their own economic needs forced them back to work. |
Consequences for the miners
When on May 12th the TUC General Council had visited 10 Downing Street to announce their decision to call off the strike, provided that the proposals worked out by the Samuel Commission were adhered to and that the Government offered a guarantee that there would be no victimization of strikers, the Government had stated it had "no power to compel employers to take back every man who had been on strike." The TUC had thus agreed to end the dispute without this essential guarantee.
Whilst most miners were back at work by the end of November, those who were re-employed were forced to accept longer hours, lower wages, and district wage agreements, Return to work was also a time for retribution with militants, lodge officials, Labour Party representatives and anyone colliery management objected to were frequently black-listed by the mine owners, refused work and remained unemployed for many years.
When on May 12th the TUC General Council had visited 10 Downing Street to announce their decision to call off the strike, provided that the proposals worked out by the Samuel Commission were adhered to and that the Government offered a guarantee that there would be no victimization of strikers, the Government had stated it had "no power to compel employers to take back every man who had been on strike." The TUC had thus agreed to end the dispute without this essential guarantee.
Whilst most miners were back at work by the end of November, those who were re-employed were forced to accept longer hours, lower wages, and district wage agreements, Return to work was also a time for retribution with militants, lodge officials, Labour Party representatives and anyone colliery management objected to were frequently black-listed by the mine owners, refused work and remained unemployed for many years.
In the Durham Coal Field
"During the dispute, the Durham Coal Field in particular had lost vital export orders and the introduction of an 8 hour day exacerbated the problem of over production in an already diminishing market. As a result about thirty thousand miners had not restarted after the strike... whilst coal owners promised no victimisation a number of families were evicted from their homes... in some cases without alternative accommodation"
(Source: "Preambule to an Account of Life in the Durham Coal Field following the Great Strike of 1926").
The following Hanson Report refers to the aftermath of the 1926 lock-outs and the ensuing times of hardship borne by many men and their families.
"During the dispute, the Durham Coal Field in particular had lost vital export orders and the introduction of an 8 hour day exacerbated the problem of over production in an already diminishing market. As a result about thirty thousand miners had not restarted after the strike... whilst coal owners promised no victimisation a number of families were evicted from their homes... in some cases without alternative accommodation"
(Source: "Preambule to an Account of Life in the Durham Coal Field following the Great Strike of 1926").
The following Hanson Report refers to the aftermath of the 1926 lock-outs and the ensuing times of hardship borne by many men and their families.
EVICTIONS, DURHAM.
HC Deb 27 April 1927 vol 205 cc987-92
Mr. WHITELEY* I desire to draw the attention of the Secretary for Mines to a state of affairs in Durham County, the like of which we have not seen for 50 years. At the present time evictions of miners are going on in many parts of Durham County, their wives, children and furniture being put on to the street, although there is no possibility of alternative accommodation being secured. At South Garesfield Colliery there are a number of men who are to be evicted on 1st May, and that is one of the reasons why we desire to raise the matter to-night. I have had information that those men have made every effort to secure alternative accommodation, and up to the moment they have failed. Some of those men have occupied those colliery houses for over 30 years, have been employed at the colliery for over 30 years; now they have been served with eviction orders which are to take effect on 1st May. At Greenside Colliery there is a similar state of affairs. A large number of men there are to be evicted a very short time. We are anxious that the Secretary for Mines shall get into touch with the coalowners of Durham to see that these orders are not put into operation...
I want the House to realise that in Durham in 1879 the umpire fixed the basic rate of wages, after hearing both sides, at 5s. 2d., but owing to the fact that the men occupied colliery houses it was reduced to 4s. 2d. The rate fixed was 5s. 2d., but those who occupied colliery houses were to receive 4s. 2d. That is to say, adult workers were paying a day for the houses they were occupying on the actual evidence that was brought before the umpire. In some cases men have actually paid, during these 30 years, £469 10s. in rent, and yet many people believe that miners have free houses and free coal. When one goes back to the 1879 award one finds that is not the case. Where there are three or four adult workers in the house you have people paying on the average about £704 in rent. When there comes a period of depression like the present, these people are turned out on to the road, not because the houses are really wanted. These men could be employed were it not for the fact that the colliery management is bringing in strangers to do their work and is evicting them in order that strangers may occupy the houses.
The Secretary for Mines and the Government as a whole ought to see that what they have been preaching for so long—namely, harmonious co-operation—is begun by the coalowners. The coal-owners should be told to practise what they have been preaching. They are always telling us that the workers are raising difficulties. These evictions are causing more unrest in Durham at present than anything else I know. People who have served the colliery companies for many years are being moved out on to the streets. That is their only recompense, and I hope the Secretary for Mines will use his influence between now and the end of the week to have these evictions prevented.
Mr. BATEY I desire to bring before the House two evictions of miners' families which took place last Wednesday at South Garesfield Colliery in the County of Durham...One of the men concerned is 62 years of age, and he was turned out with his wife and three adult sons. This man has worked for this colliery for almost 50 years. Last Wednesday the police took possession of the house, put the furniture into the street, and locked the family out. The other case is one of a man who has worked at the same colliery for 23 years. Last Wednesday his adult son, who is working at the colliery was actually at the pit when the furniture was carried out into the street. There was no house to which they could go, and the local co-operative society was good enough to allow them to store the furniture. The people themselves had to shelter with kindly neighbours. As my colleague has said, it is a number of years since we had evictions in Durham. There have been years of peace, as far as evictions are concerned, but now the practice is breaking out like an epidemic. The owners are using the present bad times to turn these men out of the houses. The men are being turned out of houses for which they have paid, because these are old colliery houses. The men are simply waiting to be restarted at the colliery, but they are paying the penalty of being refused work and of being evicted because they are good trade unionists and were loyal to the Miners' Federation during the dispute. They are refused work; strangers have been brought to the colliery and started; and now they are suffering the further penalty of being turned out of their houses, and they have no other places to go to. I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that this is a barbarous practice. We thought that it had been completely abolished. It must be said to the credit of the coalowners in Durham that during the dispute of last year they never attempted to turn a man out of his house, and during the dispute in 1921 they never attempted to turn a man out of his house; but now they are adopting this barbarous practice, and turning the men out of their houses, and abusing the local police by getting them to go into houses, carry out the furniture and put it into the street.
I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that he should use his influence with the colliery companies, with a view to getting peace in the industry...Not only have we to complain of the cases where the men have been turned out, but there are notices of further evictions which are to take place. No one can tell what will happen in these colliery villages if this practice is to continue. It is a real reflection upon a great wealthy colliery company...Once they had a good name. They were fair employers, who treated their work-people as fairly as did any other colliery company. Now they are soiling their good name by carrying out such a practice. We believe that these coal-owners are carrying out these practices because they think that they have the Government behind them. When this Government are so keen upon protecting blacklegs, we maintain that they ought to protect good trade unionists, and if the men cannot get work, at least the Secretary for Mines should try to bring pressure upon this particular colliery company and other colliery companies to allow the men to remain in their houses until such time as they can be restarted.
Colonel LANE FOX I am sorry that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) should have thought it necessary in connection with this matter to use such a term as "blacklegs." I think we can discuss the question with less prejudice if terms like that are left out. I can only give the information which I have received by telephone this morning. I am informed that so far only three evictions have taken place and that no general scheme of evictions has taken place. The point is that there are fewer men being employed now than there were before the stoppage, for various reasons. Some men are leaving their employment. The colliery houses are, very naturally, from the point of view of the colliery, required for those men who have work in the colliery.
Those who are not now working in the colliery are, according to my account, having their houses free of rent, and I admit—that is the point of view that is put to me—if they are receiving their houses free of rent and if on the other hand the colliery company are paying rent allowances, as they allege, to these men who have not got free houses, because they have to live in other houses, and at the same time if the colliery company have to pay rates and repairs in respect of the houses in which unemployed men are living rent free, then it would seem that the greatest consideration, according to my information, was given, the men who had been evicted having received notice from the company more than two months ago. The hon. Member said there is no alternative accommodation. The men on whom notices have been served have been given the names and addresses of the workmen to whom the colliery houses had been allocated. That is my information.
Mr. BATEY In one of the cases the co-operative society has stored the furniture, and the people are living with their neighbours. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the name.
Mr. LAWSON They cannot take these houses because men are coming long distances to the collieries.
Colonel LANE FOX The hon. Member must see that that is not according to the statement I have received, and I can act only on the information that has reached me.
Mr. RICHARDSON Does the right hon. Gentleman assume that a man can get another house?
Colonel LANE FOX Again, that is the information that comes to me. Arrangements are being made by which these men will be told the houses which the other men are vacating. As regards strangers being brought in from a distance to do their work, if it be the fact that these men are receiving rent allowance, it does not seem as though they are entire strangers. If there are fewer men employed in the collieries, it seems that inevitable colliery houses should be occupied by these men. That it should be done with the least inconvenience to people I fully agree, but I fear it is inevitable there must be some modification, some readjustment. If it is the fact that these owners are having to pay rent allowances and at the same time to pay rates for and do the repairs of the houses in question, it is obvious that this is an uneconomic position with which we should have no power to interfere.
HC Deb 27 April 1927 vol 205 cc987-92
Mr. WHITELEY* I desire to draw the attention of the Secretary for Mines to a state of affairs in Durham County, the like of which we have not seen for 50 years. At the present time evictions of miners are going on in many parts of Durham County, their wives, children and furniture being put on to the street, although there is no possibility of alternative accommodation being secured. At South Garesfield Colliery there are a number of men who are to be evicted on 1st May, and that is one of the reasons why we desire to raise the matter to-night. I have had information that those men have made every effort to secure alternative accommodation, and up to the moment they have failed. Some of those men have occupied those colliery houses for over 30 years, have been employed at the colliery for over 30 years; now they have been served with eviction orders which are to take effect on 1st May. At Greenside Colliery there is a similar state of affairs. A large number of men there are to be evicted a very short time. We are anxious that the Secretary for Mines shall get into touch with the coalowners of Durham to see that these orders are not put into operation...
I want the House to realise that in Durham in 1879 the umpire fixed the basic rate of wages, after hearing both sides, at 5s. 2d., but owing to the fact that the men occupied colliery houses it was reduced to 4s. 2d. The rate fixed was 5s. 2d., but those who occupied colliery houses were to receive 4s. 2d. That is to say, adult workers were paying a day for the houses they were occupying on the actual evidence that was brought before the umpire. In some cases men have actually paid, during these 30 years, £469 10s. in rent, and yet many people believe that miners have free houses and free coal. When one goes back to the 1879 award one finds that is not the case. Where there are three or four adult workers in the house you have people paying on the average about £704 in rent. When there comes a period of depression like the present, these people are turned out on to the road, not because the houses are really wanted. These men could be employed were it not for the fact that the colliery management is bringing in strangers to do their work and is evicting them in order that strangers may occupy the houses.
The Secretary for Mines and the Government as a whole ought to see that what they have been preaching for so long—namely, harmonious co-operation—is begun by the coalowners. The coal-owners should be told to practise what they have been preaching. They are always telling us that the workers are raising difficulties. These evictions are causing more unrest in Durham at present than anything else I know. People who have served the colliery companies for many years are being moved out on to the streets. That is their only recompense, and I hope the Secretary for Mines will use his influence between now and the end of the week to have these evictions prevented.
Mr. BATEY I desire to bring before the House two evictions of miners' families which took place last Wednesday at South Garesfield Colliery in the County of Durham...One of the men concerned is 62 years of age, and he was turned out with his wife and three adult sons. This man has worked for this colliery for almost 50 years. Last Wednesday the police took possession of the house, put the furniture into the street, and locked the family out. The other case is one of a man who has worked at the same colliery for 23 years. Last Wednesday his adult son, who is working at the colliery was actually at the pit when the furniture was carried out into the street. There was no house to which they could go, and the local co-operative society was good enough to allow them to store the furniture. The people themselves had to shelter with kindly neighbours. As my colleague has said, it is a number of years since we had evictions in Durham. There have been years of peace, as far as evictions are concerned, but now the practice is breaking out like an epidemic. The owners are using the present bad times to turn these men out of the houses. The men are being turned out of houses for which they have paid, because these are old colliery houses. The men are simply waiting to be restarted at the colliery, but they are paying the penalty of being refused work and of being evicted because they are good trade unionists and were loyal to the Miners' Federation during the dispute. They are refused work; strangers have been brought to the colliery and started; and now they are suffering the further penalty of being turned out of their houses, and they have no other places to go to. I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that this is a barbarous practice. We thought that it had been completely abolished. It must be said to the credit of the coalowners in Durham that during the dispute of last year they never attempted to turn a man out of his house, and during the dispute in 1921 they never attempted to turn a man out of his house; but now they are adopting this barbarous practice, and turning the men out of their houses, and abusing the local police by getting them to go into houses, carry out the furniture and put it into the street.
I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that he should use his influence with the colliery companies, with a view to getting peace in the industry...Not only have we to complain of the cases where the men have been turned out, but there are notices of further evictions which are to take place. No one can tell what will happen in these colliery villages if this practice is to continue. It is a real reflection upon a great wealthy colliery company...Once they had a good name. They were fair employers, who treated their work-people as fairly as did any other colliery company. Now they are soiling their good name by carrying out such a practice. We believe that these coal-owners are carrying out these practices because they think that they have the Government behind them. When this Government are so keen upon protecting blacklegs, we maintain that they ought to protect good trade unionists, and if the men cannot get work, at least the Secretary for Mines should try to bring pressure upon this particular colliery company and other colliery companies to allow the men to remain in their houses until such time as they can be restarted.
Colonel LANE FOX I am sorry that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) should have thought it necessary in connection with this matter to use such a term as "blacklegs." I think we can discuss the question with less prejudice if terms like that are left out. I can only give the information which I have received by telephone this morning. I am informed that so far only three evictions have taken place and that no general scheme of evictions has taken place. The point is that there are fewer men being employed now than there were before the stoppage, for various reasons. Some men are leaving their employment. The colliery houses are, very naturally, from the point of view of the colliery, required for those men who have work in the colliery.
Those who are not now working in the colliery are, according to my account, having their houses free of rent, and I admit—that is the point of view that is put to me—if they are receiving their houses free of rent and if on the other hand the colliery company are paying rent allowances, as they allege, to these men who have not got free houses, because they have to live in other houses, and at the same time if the colliery company have to pay rates and repairs in respect of the houses in which unemployed men are living rent free, then it would seem that the greatest consideration, according to my information, was given, the men who had been evicted having received notice from the company more than two months ago. The hon. Member said there is no alternative accommodation. The men on whom notices have been served have been given the names and addresses of the workmen to whom the colliery houses had been allocated. That is my information.
Mr. BATEY In one of the cases the co-operative society has stored the furniture, and the people are living with their neighbours. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the name.
Mr. LAWSON They cannot take these houses because men are coming long distances to the collieries.
Colonel LANE FOX The hon. Member must see that that is not according to the statement I have received, and I can act only on the information that has reached me.
Mr. RICHARDSON Does the right hon. Gentleman assume that a man can get another house?
Colonel LANE FOX Again, that is the information that comes to me. Arrangements are being made by which these men will be told the houses which the other men are vacating. As regards strangers being brought in from a distance to do their work, if it be the fact that these men are receiving rent allowance, it does not seem as though they are entire strangers. If there are fewer men employed in the collieries, it seems that inevitable colliery houses should be occupied by these men. That it should be done with the least inconvenience to people I fully agree, but I fear it is inevitable there must be some modification, some readjustment. If it is the fact that these owners are having to pay rent allowances and at the same time to pay rates for and do the repairs of the houses in question, it is obvious that this is an uneconomic position with which we should have no power to interfere.
* Mr. William Whiteley - Labour, MP for Blaydon 1922 - 1931, 1935 - 1955, former Miners Lodge Official, President of the Miners Homes Association 1927 - 1955.
Joseph Batey - Labour, MP for Spennymoor 1922 - 1942
Jack Lawson - Labour, MP for Chester-le-Street 1919 - 1949
Roberts Richardson - Labour, MP for Houghton le Spring 1918 - 1931
Col. George Lane Fox - Tory, MP for Barkston Ash 1906 - 1931, Secretary for Mines.
Joseph Batey - Labour, MP for Spennymoor 1922 - 1942
Jack Lawson - Labour, MP for Chester-le-Street 1919 - 1949
Roberts Richardson - Labour, MP for Houghton le Spring 1918 - 1931
Col. George Lane Fox - Tory, MP for Barkston Ash 1906 - 1931, Secretary for Mines.
NOTE: Special thanks to Mr. Wesley Gargett and Mr. Roy Lambeth of the Durham Mining Museum for their assistance in respect of this topic.