The Strikes and Lockouts in the Iron Industry and the Formation of the Ironworkers' Unions, 1862–1869

N. P. Howard

doi:10.1017/S0020859000004399

The Strikes and Lockouts in the Iron Industry and the Formation of the Ironworkers' Unions, 1862–1869

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2008

N. P. Howard

Article contents

Extract
References

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

G. D. H. Cole has drawn attention to the militancy of the unions outside of the craftsmen's trades in the 1860's. The “class cleavage” which he ascribed to the engineering, shipbuilding and the building trades enabled the skilled men to use their “New Model Unions” as exclusive barriers against dilution by the semi-skilled and labouring classes. In consequence, the Amalgamated Unions had pacific tendencies which were only partially offset by their adoption of a centralised organisation, through which policy making and finance were mainly controlled. Although Cole described the Ironworkers' Union as one of the provincially based Amalgamated Unions, the three main unions which were formed by the ironworkers in the years 1862–3 never really succeeded in amalgamating along the lines described. When they did come together in 1868, after a period of disastrous defeats, the form of amalgamation they adopted resulted in a very weak union. The executive committee insisted upon making all decisions on the use of the strike tactic, but allowed the branches almost complete control over union finances.

Type: Research Article
Information: International Review of Social History , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , December 1973 , pp. 396 - 427

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859000004399 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1973

References

^{page 396 note 1} Cole, G. D. H., “British Trade Unions in the Third Quarter of the Nineteenth Century”, in: International Review for Social History, II (1937), reprinted in Essays in Economic History, ed. by Wilson, E. M. Carus, III, p. 202.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 2} Cole, G. D. H. and Postgate, R., The Common People (London, 1956), p. 373.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 1} combinations had been formed at earlier stages in the history of the ironworkers, most notably during the strikes in South Staffordshire in 1847– But these organisations ended with the defeat of the strikes. A strike in 1852 won 6d per ton, over the rate.

^{page 397 note 2} H. Cole, op. cit. (reprint), p. 206, in particular implies that the ironworkers' unions were more exclusive than the engineers and the carpenters. Clegg, Fox and Thompson assert that the unions were dominated by “very comfortably off” contractors, who, despite being in a majority, were paradoxically kept under control by the joint power of the union and the employers. Clegg, H. A., Fox, A. and Thompson, A. F., A History of British Trade Unions Since 1889 (Oxford, 1964), pp. 22–23.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 1} Seniority was determined by the length of time at the trade, as no apprenticeship schemes existed throughout the industry, with the exception of a few specialist firms. See J. Kane'idence to the Royal Commission on Trades Unions, q. 8,472.

^{page 398 note 2} 5/–6d and 2/– entrance fees, and 6d, 41/2d and 3d subscriptions.

^{page 398 note 3} Variations on this theme are to be found in S. and B. Webb, The History of Trade Unionism, 11th ed., p. 484; Clegg, Fox and Thompson, op. cit., p. 15; Hobsbawm, E., “Custom, Wages and Work Load”, in: Essays in Labour History, ed. by Briggs, Asa and Saville, John (1960), p. 125Google Scholar; G. D. H. Cole, op. cit., p. 206.

^{page 398 note 4} Details from the evidence of a Stafforshire puddler, given during an arbitration case. This showed that underhands earned about one half of the forehands' weekly earnings in puddling. The Ironworkers' Journal, 03, 1871, p. 6.Google Scholar The evidence covered a period eight years prior to this date.

^{page 399 note 1} Reported in the Sheffield & Rotherham Independent (S&RI), 07 20th, 1866.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 2} Carr, J. C. and Taplin, W., History of the British Steel Industry (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), p. 14.Google Scholar Also Birch, A., The Economic History of the British Iron and Steel Industry (London, 1967), p. 257.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 3} Quoted in N. P. Howard, “The Contract System in the Iron Industry” (Sheffield, 1972, unpublished).Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 4} Clegg, Fox and Thompson, op. cit., p. 15.

^{page 399 note 5} Brassey, , On Work and Wages (London, 1874), p. 265.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 1} The phrase was used by an anonymous puddler in a letter to the Engineer, November 20th, 1863, in which he complained about the lack of technical education in the industry.

^{page 400 note 2} Numbers of Pudding Furnaces, North-East England and South Staffordshire:?

^{page 400 note 3} Evidence of C. M. Palmer, north-east coast ironmaster, to the Royal Commission on Trades Unions, qq. 17,735–6.

^{page 401 note 1} The Engineer, November 28th, 1862.

^{page 401 note 2} The Engineer, July 24th, 1863.

^{page 401 note 3} Robert Danter was ASE President, 1866.

^{page 402 note 1} S&RI, October 27th, 1863.

^{page 402 note 2} Harrison's views are in the Minority Report, Eleventh and Final Report, Royal Commission on Trades Unions.

^{page 402 note 3} The Engineer, May and June, 1863.

^{page 402 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 402 note 5} The Engineer, August 21st, 1863.

^{page 403 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 403 note 2} The Engineer, October 30th, 1863. Quoting the Birmingham Post, the policies of Canning and Cobden in India and Paris were cited as reasons for the boom.

^{page 403 note 3} Report of the National Conference of Puddlers at Gateshead, in S&RI, December 30th, 1863. The delegates of the Southern union claimed 10,000 members, 949 had been recruited in South Yorkshire and North Wales, and an estimated 4,000 in the north-east.

^{page 403 note 4} The Ironworkers' Journal, 06 15th, 1871.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 1} 1S&RI, October 27th, 1863.

^{page 404 note 2} Royal Commission on Trades Unions, q. 9,622 and written evidence.

^{page 404 note 3} The Engineer, September 11th and 18th, 1863.

^{page 404 note 4} Ibid., September 25th, 1863.

^{page 405 note 1} In 1895, UK production of puddled iron equalled 1.5 million tons, or one half of the peak output of 1882. In his presidential address to the Iron & Steel Institute, Sir David Dale remarked that this quantity was still produced by the old imperfect process of hand puddling, that once seemed doomed to extinction. Journal, Iron & Steel Institute, XLVII (1895), p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 1} One such dispute led to the manslaughter of the roller by the puddler. S&RI, 05 22nd, 1872.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 2} The Engineer, September 11th, 1863.

^{page 406 note 3} The rules of the Round Oak Company of 1855 (copy in Dudley Public Library) were probably typical. Other copies for other works can be found at Cusworth Hall, near Doncaster, Museum Library; Report of the Committee on Societies, Trades, National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, 1860, p. 319.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 4} At the Chillington Works in January 1862, the employees set up an Association for the Education of the Operatives, which petitioned the HMI for South Staffordshire for day-release education for boys. The Engineer, February 7th, 1862.

^{page 407 note 1} Letter for recruitment raised this complaint in the Ironworkers' Journal, September 1st, 1871.

^{page 407 note 2} The Engineer, November 28th, 1863.

^{page 407 note 3} Presumably the three men would be able to engage their own underhands, as six tasks were listed. Such underhands would still be employees of the firm.

^{page 407 note 4} The Engineer, October 16th, 1863.

^{page 408 note 1} Case report in the Glasgow Sentinel, April 23rd, 1864. Marshall's defence rested on the attorney's plea that the letter was phrased in ignorance of polite language and was not intentionally offensive.

^{page 408 note 2} Report of the First Annual Conference of the Southern Union, in S&RI, May 20th, 1864.

^{page 409 note 1} Glasgow Sentinel, February 6th, 1864. The charge was brought under the Master and Servant Act, 4th Geo. IV, cap. 32. The charge against Marshall was under 6th Geo. IV, cap. 129.

^{page 409 note 2} The Times, April 29th, 1864.

^{page 409 note 3} Jefferys, J. B., The Story of the Engineers, p. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 410 note 1} S&RI, January 18th, 1864.

^{page 410 note 2} S&RI, September 9th, 1863, and December 28th, 1863.

^{page 410 note 3} S&RI, November 4th, 1863, and January 18th, 1864.

^{page 410 note 4} Glasgow Sentinel, December 28th, 1863.

^{page 410 note 5} S&RI, April 25th, 1864. Although figures for union membership in the Leeds district vary from 1,300 to 1,400, the figure would include all grades whose work had to stop when iron production ceased, including miners.

^{page 410 note 6} “Best” iron was a nationally reputed Yorkshire brand.

^{page 411 note 1} Jefferys, op. cit., p. 44. In 1852, 3,500 ASE Members were locked out.

^{page 411 note 2} Glasgow Sentinel, November 5th, 1864, report from the Gateshead Executive to the Glasgow District Committee.

^{page 411 note 3} Glasgow Sentinel, April 4th, 1864.

^{page 412 note 1} The Miner and Workmen's Advocate, April 16th, 1864, and S&RI, August 29th, 1864.

^{page 412 note 2} S&RI, September 17th, 1864.

^{page 412 note 3} S&RI, December 27th, 1864.

^{page 413 note 1} Royal Commission on Trades Unions, q. 10,549.

^{page 413 note 2} The Times, January 7th, 1865, and Ryland's Iron Trade Circular, January 14th, 1865. Ryland's was a weekly, strongly anti-union.

^{page 413 note 3} Glasgow Sentinel, January 28th, 1865.

^{page 414 note 1} The Staffordshire Sentinel, April 1st, 1865.

^{page 414 note 2} When the ironmasters threatened the lock-out, the Gateshead executive immediately ordered their members in Hanley back to work and cut off their strike benefit. Whereupon the Hanley men all voted to join the Brierley Hill union, which then gave them similar treatment. S&RI, March 4th, 1865.

^{page 415 note 1} Birmingham Post, February 29th, 1865.

^{page 415 note 2} S&RI, March 1st, 1865.

^{page 415 note 3} Ryland's Iron Trade Circular, March 4th, 1865.

^{page 416 note 1} S&RI, March 8th, 1865.

^{page 416 note 2} Ryland's Iron Trade Circular, March 11th, 1865.

^{page 416 note 3} R yland's Iron Trade Circular, March 18th, 1865, and S&RI.

^{page 417 note 1} The Beehive, April 4th, 1865.

^{page 417 note 2} Staffordshire Times, April 8th, 1865.

^{page 417 note 3} S&RI, March 9th, 1865.

^{page 417 note 4} Gazette, Birmingham Daily, Staffordshire Times and S&RI reports for March, 1865.Google Scholar

^{page 417 note 5} Ryland's Iron Trade Circular, January 4th, 1865. The politics of Chas. Ryland can be assessed from his negative advice to investors when Reuter's sought 1/4million pound share capital: “Reuter's means such news as the Jews choose to send. Must be turned down.”

^{page 417 note 6} The Times, March 9th, 1865.

^{page 418 note 1} Staffordshire Times, March 18th, 1865.

^{page 418 note 2} Ryland's Iron Trade Circular, March 25th, 1865.

^{page 418 note 3} The Times, March 22nd, 1865.

^{page 418 note 4} Harrison, Frederick, “The Iron-Masters' Trade-Union”, in: Fortnightly Review, Old Series, I (1865), p. 96.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 5} Staffordshire Times, April 15th, 1865. The account of the lock-out in Clegg, Fox and Thompson, op. cit., exaggerates the size of the strike and the duration of the lock-out.

^{page 419 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 419 note 2} Staffordshire Sentinel, April 15th, 1865.

^{page 419 note 3} Middlesbrough Weekly News, March 2nd, 1866.

^{page 420 note 1} Middlesbrough Weekly News, May 4th, 1866.

^{page 420 note 2} S&RI, June 18th, 1866.

^{page 420 note 3} S&RI, January 5th, 1867, from a conference speech by John Kane.

^{page 420 note 4} Evidence by C. M. Palmer explained the competition in the labour market. Quoted in the Ironworkers' Journal, January 1st, 1869.

^{page 421 note 1} S&RI, October 20th, 1866.

^{page 421 note 2} Glasgow Sentinel, November 5th, 1866.

^{page 421 note 3} S&RI, January 11th, 1867.

^{page 421 note 4} S&RI, January 15th, 1867.

^{page 421 note 5} Resolution quoted in the Dudley Herald, January 16th, 1867.

^{page 422 note 1} Glasgow Sentinel, March 30th, 1867.

^{page 422 note 2} S&RI, March 27th, 1868.

^{page 422 note 3} Birmingham Daily Gazette, April 13th, 1868.

^{page 423 note 1} Evidence from the statement published by the South Staffs committee of the National Amalgamated Association, in the Ironworkers' Journal, September 1st, 1871.

^{page 423 note 2} Dudley Herald, May 16th, 1868.

^{page 423 note 3} Birmingham Gazette, quoted in S&RI, April 21st, 1868.

^{page 424 note 1} The Ironworkers' Journal, November 1st, 1869.

^{page 424 note 2} Calculation made in the Birmingham Post, March 20th, 1865.

^{page 425note 1} Eleventh and Final Report, Royal Commission on Trades Unions.

^{page 425 note 2} Quoted in the Minority Report, Eleventh and Final Report, loc. cit.

^{page 425 note 3} Harrison, , “The Iron-Masters' Trade-Union”, loc. cit., p. 112.Google Scholar

^{page 425 note 4} Ashley, W. J., The Adjustment of Wages (London, 1903)Google Scholar; Jones, Daniel, “The Midland Iron and Steel Wages Board”, in: Ashley, W. J., British Industries (London, 1903)Google Scholar; Odber, A. J., “The Origins of Industrial Peace: The Manufactured Iron Trade of the North of England”, in: Oxford Economic Papers, III (1951), p. 204Google Scholar; Porter, J. H., “Wage Bargaining under Conciliation Agreements, 1860–1914”, in: The Economic History Review, Second Series, XXIII (1970), p. 460.Google Scholar

^{page 425 note 5} The Ironworkers' Journal, March 15th, 1869.

^{page 425 note 6} Ibid., June 1st, 1869.

^{page 427 note 1} Jeans, Harold, “Sixty Years of Technical Progress”, in: Iron & Steel Review, 12 1927.Google Scholar

^{page 427 note 2} The Ironworkers' Journal, May 1st, 1869.

^{page 427 note 3} Of almost 20,000 questions put by the Royal Commissioners, excluding those on the Sheffield and Manchester special Commissions, nearly 12% concerned the manufactured iron trades and their trades unions.

Article contents

The Strikes and Lockouts in the Iron Industry and the Formation of the Ironworkers' Unions, 1862–1869

Extract

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests