The Watnall Riot - Sept 7th 1893 - Sleepy old Watnall was once the scene of a miners' riot as significant at the time as the infamous "Battle of Orgreave" during the miners' strike of 1984. The big difference was the miners at Orgreave had little intention of causing trouble whereas the miners at Watnall were fully intent and tooled up for it.
 |
| During their trial the rioters were quoted as threatening to kill the policemen... |
 |
| Nottingham's Shire Hall - where the Watnall rioters were tried and convicted |
 |
| Scavenging for coal during the 1893 strike at Clay Cross |
 |
| "Waiting for Coal" - Coal merchants in Kildwick, North Yorkshire during the 1893 dispute. They would have a long wait. |
THE RIOTING AT WATNALL.
PRISONERS BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES.
The miners who were arrested in connection with the recent
disturbances at the New Watnall Colliery were again brought before the
magistrates at the Shire Hall, Nottingham, yesterday. It will be remembered
that the men were twice remanded, and in anticipation of the case being gone
into yesterday a number of colliers were present in court. The magistrates on
the Bench were Mr. Thomas Hill, Mr. Albert Heymann, Mr. W. Wright, Mr. George
Fellows, and Mr. R. Bagnall-Wild. Mr. E. Williams (of Messrs. Whittingham and
Williams) prosecuted on behalf of the police, and the prisoners were defended
by Mr. H. B. Clayton.
Case 1 – Rioting of Sept 6th at Watnall
The events of the evening of the 6th inst. were first
gone into. Thomas Bailey, 26, William Felse, 22, William Hovell, 26, Levi
Finney, 27, all of Hucknall, were charged with committing a riot in the parish
of Greasley on the 6th of September, and also with assaulting Police-sergeant
Freer and Police-constable Pearson, county constables, whilst in the execution
of their duty.
Mr. Williams, in opening the case, said the charges arose
out of disturbances which took place at the New Watnall Colliery, belonging to
Messrs. Barber, Walker, and Co., on September 6. The charges were of
rioting and assaulting the police, Mr. Williams pointed out the law as to
rioting, quoting cases to show that to constitute riot the behaviour must be
such as to alarm not only foolish persons, but reasonable men and women. He
said the bench were aware that an unfortunate dispute was pending between colliery
proprietors and coal miners as to wages, and that that dispute had resulted in
the cessation of operations in all the collieries in this neighbourhood. With
the merits of the dispute he had nothing to do, but to confine himself to the
particular cases with which they had to deal. The facts, briefly, were that on
the evening in question between five o'clock and nine large crowds of people
gathered at the New Watnall Colliery, and were very disorderly. Some of them
were armed with sticks and stones, and used threatening language to such extent
that the engineman who was in charge of the enginehouse became so alarmed that
he had to quit the place. The police appeared, and found that considerable
damage had been done by stone throwing. The mob threatened to kill the police
and burn the place down, and the excitement grew till the police felt it their
duty to charge the crowd. They did this, and the crowd pelted them with stones.
The four prisoners were taken into custody. The evidence would show that each
of the men took a very active part in the disturbance. He thought he would
satisfy the magistrates that the crowd was disorderly, that some of them had
sticks, and threw stones at the windows and at the police, and used the sticks
to assault the police when the officers charged the mob. If he did satisfy the
magistrates of this, he would ask the bench to deal with the prisoners
severely. He believed it would be their duty after they had heard the evidence
to commit the prisoners to take their trial at the Assizes.
Witnesses were then called. The first was Walter Sisson,
of Clay Cross, engine man, employed at the New Watnall Colliery, who said
he was on duty at the colliery on the evening of the 6th inst. There were a
large number of people there about half-past six. The prisoners were there.
Felse and others demanded to have the horses out of the pit. There were no
horses at work, and witness told the men that it was not possible to bring the
horses up because the engine was not going, and he could not get steam uр. Witness
tried to get steam up, and whilst he was doing this the men did considerable
damage, breaking into certain premises and smashing several windows.
Subsequently the men told witness to leave, and not come again, or it would be
worse for him. Witness became afraid, and went away. He met the police on the
way in charge of Sergeant Freer, and he returned in their company. The crowd
were on the premises, and as soon as the police made their appearance the men
rushed at them, and the police had to charge the crowd. Some of the crowd had
hedge sticks in their possession. Two men were arrested and taken into the engine
house, whereupon the crowd made their way into the house, intending to release
them. The police charged them a second time, and secured the two other
prisoners. The crowd afterwards dispersed, some of them, saying they would come
again the next day. Witness missed some tools from the shop. The windows of the
joiner's shop, the black-smith's shop, and the machine house were all damaged.
None of the men were employed at the colliery.
In cross-examination by Mr. Clayton, witness said it was
dark on the night in question, Witness could identify Felse as being there, but
did not see the other three men till they were apprehended. There were hundreds
of people in the crowd. Felse had no stick.
Sergeant Freer was then called. He said he was
stationed at Eastwood. On the evening of the 6th inst. he was on duty at
Watnall. A large number of people gathered there between six hundred and a
thousand as nearly as he could estimate. He had gone there in consequence of
hearing that there had been a riot. He had thirteen police officers with him.
He arrived about half-past eight, and found that great damage had been done.
The pit bank was covered by a yelling, shouting, mob. Witness asked the men
what they wanted, and they replied with a shower of stones. He endeavoured to
speak to them again, when they attacked the police with stones a second time.
One of the stones struck witness. He saw Finney strike Police-constable Pearson
with a stick. The police then charged the mob, and four of the prisoners -
Bailey, Hovell, Finney, and Felse - were apprehended. These men were taking
part in the riot, and were among the men who threw the stones. Hovell struck
witness with a stick. The mob separated after the first charge, but returned in
five minutes, and threatened to burn the place and kill the police if the
prisoners were not released. More stones were thrown. Witness apprehended
Hovell and Bailey. Both prisoners struck him with sticks. The four prisoners
were taking a leading part in the rioting, leading the mob.
By Mr. Clayton: All the prisoners were apprehended in the
pit yard. Witness struck Bailey, knocking him down. He did not see Bailey throw
stones. He was in the act of charging Bailey when prisoner struck him. He swore
prisoner had a stick, though he did not take it from him when he arrested him.
When Finney struck Police-constable Pearson, the officer was about to strike
Finney with his staff. Pearson knocked Finney to the ground.
By Mr. Williams: The crowd was so disorderly that witness
deemed it necessary to charge them.
Police-constable Pearson was the next witness. He
deposed that he accompanied Sergeant Freer to the colliery on the evening in
question. He heard Frear ask the crowd what they wanted. He heard no reply, but
a shower of sticks and stones came down upon them. Witness was struck with a
stone on his shoulder. They charged the crowd, and witness saw Hovell strike
Freer with a stick. Finney threw a hedgestick at witness, hitting him on the
jaw. He heard Felse say: "Let them have it." The four prisoners were
in front of the crowd.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clayton: Witness did not see Bailey
strike anybody. He saw him knocked down. Sergeant Freer warned the men that he
would have to charge them if they continued the disturbance. Witness's jaw was
injured at the present time. Some of the men received injuries, Bailey's eye
being cut.
Police-constable Holmes deposed that he was on duty at
the colliery on the night in question, and corroborated the evidence of the
previous witnesses. He added that at one time Bailey had a four-pronged garden
fork in his hand. The fork was produced; one of its prongs was went, Bailey was
knocked down when he was apprehended, and made no attempt to use the fork.
Witness was struck several times. Some of the police officers were very badly
hurt.
Police-constable Newstead spoke particularly as to
Felse. He said the prisoner had a large, stout hedge-stick (produced) in his
possession. He arrested Felse, who was shouting “Come on, lads."
Isaac Chambers, manager at the colliery, said he was
at the colliery on the night of the 6th inst. He saw stones thrown and several
windows broken. Witness was very much frightened. Witness escaped unhurt,
though some of the men in the crowd followed him.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
The Chairman asked Mr. Clayton if he intended to call
evidence.
Mr. Clayton said he had not settled this question. He asked
the Bench to consider whether they intended to deal with the case that day or
to send the men forward for trial. The Magistrates retired for a few minutes,
and on returning into court said the magistrates had decided to deal summarily
with this case.
Mr Clayton then addressed the magistrates on behalf of
the men. He said it was a case in which under the circumstances connected
with it he hoped their worships would see fit to deal more leniently than they
otherwise might do under ordinary circumstances. Now, according to the evidence
and he did not think, after conferring with the defendants, that he should call
any witnesses for the defence - there could be no doubt about it that the
charge of assaulting the police was made out, if they believed the police, more
or less, against these four defendants. There were degrees with regard to the
men which he should endeavour to point out later on. He was not there to defend
their action for a single moment. It was a serious day's work for these miners
in connection with this strike, or lock-out, but he thought their worships
would see that up to this 6th of September, and from that day, considering the
treatment they had been subjected to on the whole they had behaved exceedingly
well; in fact, exceptionally so, and he could not fairly or rightly argue that
these men had been incited or encouraged to do what they or somebody did on the
6th of September. He could not say that their leaders - Councillor Bailey or
anyone - had incited them to riot; but their whole leaders had advised them to
do nothing of the kind. Therefore, it would not be right or fair of him to make
any insinuations that they were incited.
Mr. Williams: I have not suggested that they were incited by
anyone.
Mr. Clayton, continuing, said so that for what took place on
the 6th of September these men must bear the consequences - pay any penalty or
undergo any imprisonment which their worships might seem fit to impose upon
them. In this case they had before them not men who had been repeatedly
convicted before the Bench. He had characters with regard to three out of the
four, namely, Finney, Hovell, and Felse, and there was nothing, according to
his instructions, whatever known by the police against those three. With regard
to Bailey, he had been convicted once, and fined 10s. 6d. for assault, so that
their worships had before them men, he might put it, who were not in the habit
of assaulting the police, but on the whole hard-working, respectable miners - men
who worked for their living, yet who seemed to have lost their heads on this
night in question, and who seemed to have gone to this pit because they
thought someone was employed working the ponies to or mine, and acting as
blacklegs. That led to these going the pit and causing the damage to the
windows and the machinery in the place. He felt certain their Worships were not
going to visit the whole of the punishment upon these four men, because the
police had admitted that not one of these men was seen to throw stones, and the
principal part of the damage and injuries sustained by the police seemed to
have been done by stone-throwing. That someone threw stones no one had
disputed. These men were charged with various assaults, but he hoped their
Worships would see that there were degrees in their cases. For instance, with
regard to Felse it was not suggested that he assaulted anyone, for all the
police said with regard to him was that he made use of some kind of expression
- "Let them have it" - and that thereby he caused the crowd to do
something to the police.
Mr. Williams: He had a stick.
Mr. Clayton said he didn't use it. With regard to Bailey it
was suggested that he struck out freely but didn't strike anyone. With regard
to Havell the case was clear, the case against Finney being that he struck
Pearson. That officer was undoubtedly struck on the jaw, but none of the
officers were seriously injured. What took place after the damage to this
property was that Sergeant Frear and 14 or 15 officers charged the crowd
without notice. The defendants were undoubtedly amongst the mob, and one of the
policemen said they were doing their best to charge the mob. He (Mr. Clayton)
ventured to say there was a very great difference between an assault committed
under these circumstances, and if the men had actually been the aggressors. He
asked their worships to take into consideration seriously that matter. He could
not defend the men because when the police rushed amongst them they ought to
have run away of course, it was not everyone who could have run away. He asked
their worships to bear in mind this fact that since these unfortunate riots at
Watnall these colliers had behaved well. There seemed to have been no
repetition of these offences, and he did ask for leniency on that account. He
also asked the bench to consider the position of these men, the serious
privation they, their wives, and families had undergone, and not deal was them
as roughs who had been continually brought before their worships. Leniency
would have re a far better effect as a deterrent than if they acted with great
severity. The magistrates had exercised leniency in other parts, and he
asked their worships to exercise that leniency in this case.
A number of letters as to the character of the three
defendants named by Mr. Clayton were handed up to the bench, the chairman
remarking without reading the letters that they accepted what Mr. Clayton had
said.
The Chairman, after consultation with his colleagues, said:
The magistrates have decided to make no distinction between the four defendants,
and their decision is that all four defendants go to Her Majesty's gaol with
hard labour for two calendar months.
Case 2 – Rioting on Sept 7th at Watnall
The second case was then proceeded with. Samuel
Briddlestone (40) and John Gulley (35) of Hucknall Torkard; John Richards (50),
Henry Birchmore (38), Henry Saint (50), Albert Palmer (14), and Charles Robert
Eaves (14), of Bulwell, were charged with a felonious riot at Greasley on
the 7th September, and setting fire to some buildings belonging to Thomas
Barber and others, a second charge being that of a common riot at the same time
and place and assaulting William Frear, police-constable, and Superintendent
Harrop. Mr. Williams prosecuted, and Mr. H. B. Clayton defended all the
prisoners.
Mr. Williams said in this case the prisoners were charged
with a felonious riot, and also with a riot in common law, and also with
assaulting the police in the execution of their duty. There was one more charge
than in the last case, viz., of feloniously setting fire. He regretted to say
that in this case the character of the offences charged against these men
was far more serious than that in the last case. The crowd which gathered at
the colliery was much larger and the resistance was much greater the damage
which was done to the buildings and property of the colliery company was very
considerable. The offences in this case were committed on Thursday, the 7th
September, the day following the last case.
It appeared about seven o'clock in the morning a very
large crowd gathered at the pit and they appeared to have been under the
impression that some work was going on down below. Mr. Laidley, the manager of
the colliery, who was there with a view to bringing about a peaceable condition
of things, consented to some of the men going down the pit to see whether any
work was going on. That crowd seemed to be satisfied with what they had seen
and heard, and then another crowd came about ten o'clock in the morning,
numbering somewhere about 4,000, some armed with hedge stakes, some with
sticks, and others with stones, and some had hammers as well. It appeared as
time went on that this crowd became very disorderly and behaved in a most riotous
and disorderly way. They set fire to the building, and got a barrel of tar
which was on the pit bank and sent it down to the railway below. This they also
fired, and pushed some railway wagons that were on the line on to the fire, and
they also threw some on to some timber. So alarming became the situation that
the police considered it necessary that they should get a magistrate to read
the Riot Act, calling upon the crowd to disperse. Mr. John Holden, one of the
county magistrates, attended, and while in considerable danger of being injured
by stones, he read the Riot Act. The police charged the crowd, and they were
extensively assaulted. In the end seven prisoners were arrested, and taken into
custody. He thought there would be abundant evidence to show that each one of
these prisoners took a very active part in what was going on. An estimate of
the damage had been made, and it was said to be somewhere about £330, including
the windows, timber, bricks, and other property of the Company, which was
destroyed. He thought their Worships might think there was some distinction
between one prisoner and another but having regard to all the circumstances connected
with the case, he was afraid that their Worships would feel it almost to be
their duty to send these men for trial.
Sergeant Frear stated that he was on duty at the New
Watnall Colliery on Thursday, 7th September, about seven in the morning. A
crowd of people came to the colliery, numbering about 500. They said they had
heard there were some men working. That crowd want away after a deputation had
been down the pit. There was one more officer than on the previous day.
About ten o'clock the same morning another crowd came numbering
not less than 4,000, some coming from Bulwell and some from Hucknall. All
were armed, without exception, the instruments including pick shafts, hedge
stakes, and others, with what they could get out of an adjacent wood. They were
marching in a body. Witness went to the crowd, and asked them what they wanted,
and the other officers went to the engine-house. In reply to witness, the leaders,
some of them - none of the defendants spoke – said “We have heard there are men
at work and we intend to have them out." They also said there were horses
in the pit, and they intended to have them out too. Witness recognised the
defendants as being there. Witness also said in a loud voice, standing on a
raised platform, that there had been a deputation down the pit that morning,
and that one of the deputation had addressed the people telling them he was
perfectly satisfied no coal was being got. The reply was “It’s a ***** lie.”
Witness asked if they would go to Kimberley to ascertain for themselves of what
he said was correct, and if it wasn't he would give them a sovereign. They
refused to go. They used threatening language to witness, one saying "That's
the sergeant that was here last night, and got some of our men. Let's kill the ****
and chuck him down the pit."
After a time they forced their way to the pit bank. Witness
had 18 officers there at that time. When they got on to the pit bank, and set
fire to the joiners shop, which was partly destroyed by fire, witness went to
the engine-house, where his men were. After that the blacksmiths' shop and
storehouse took fire. There was a barrel of tar in the pit bank, and this was
rolled on to the railway and smashed, the contents running down the pit bank.
Shortly after, it was set on fire, by whom he did not know. Witness next saw a
heap of timber on the opposite side of the pit bank on the railway set on fire.
There were two distinct fires.
While the timber was burning he saw Richards with a number
of others take up the brakes of two railway trucks and push them down on to the
burning timber. The trucks were destroyed completely, and others beside. About
one o'clock Superintendent Harrop came with other police officers. About two
o'clock there was a danger of the pit bank getting on fire, and 30 or so trucks
which were below. Witness and Harrop and others were endeavouring to remove the
trucks when Richards with a number of others came and used very bad language,
also saying "This is 25 per cent chaps." Shortly after that
the mob started to stone the police, the stones coming in thousands. He
recognised all the defendants as being there and throwing stones. Witness was
struck very badly on the back of his head. The Riot Act was read by Mr. John
Holden. Whilst he was doing that stones were being thrown from all directions.
He saw Saint and Birchmore there while the stones were being thrown. Eventually
the police charged the mob. It would be about five minutes after the Riot Act
had been read. He saw Birchmore strike Superintendent Harrop with a large
stick. Each of the defendants was armed with sticks. For some time before any
damage was done that morning he tried to persuade the defendants and others to
retire. Richards threw a stone which struck Superintendent Harrop at the time
that officer was trying to remove a truck from the burning tar.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clayton: Richards was one of
the men who were lifting the brake when the mob was trying to lower the trucks.
There were, at the least, four or five thousand men, each of whom, without
exception, was armed with either sticks or stones. He really meant what he said.
At the examination at Bagthorpe he said that all the men present were throwing
stones, and he said so now. He saw the two lads throwing stones. Eves was
running after the police throwing stones. A great portion of the mob were
throwing stones, and the defendants present in Court were among those who were
throwing stones. The seven defendants were arrested by the police at different
short periods after the Riot Act had been read.
By Mr. Williams: The mob was sufficient to terrify
any ordinary person.
Superintendent Harrop, examined by Mr. Williams, said
he went to Watnall on the morning of the disturbance. There were about ten
other officers present besides himself. A very large crowd was assembled on the
pit-bauk and about the colliery. When he arrived there the mob appeared to be
destroying property -the workshops and windows - and fires were alight at
several places on the pit bank. Three railway wagons, which had been on fire,
were nearly burnt out. The crowd generally was armed with sticks and stones. He
went to where some other colliery wagons were close to the fire, and said, "Come,
lads, it's no use destroying other people's property. Let's move these wagons
out of the road." The wagons were on the other side of the colliery,
which were danger of being burned. They were near a lighted barrel of tar.
Several of the men out of the crowd came to assist to remove the wagons. The
prisoner, Richards, had a hammer in his hand, and was very excited. He
said he would kill those who helped. "Let the b****** policemen shift
them, if they want. They're paid for it.” He and some officers moved
one wagon, and they went back to shift the other one, when he was struck on the
back of the head with a stone, and he was knocked down. At the same moment he
heard Richards who was just behind him, call out "That's 25 per cent.
for you, you b******.”
The stone was thrown from behind him, and he could not say
who threw it. The stone cut him but the injury was not a serious one. Richards when
he afterwards observed him, had a number of stones and "cinders"
gathered in the bend of his arm. He saw the prisoner throw stones amongst the
other officers, saying "Let's kill the b******* now we've got
them." Sticks and stones were coming at the police from all
directions then. The crowd was gathering on them, and he ordered the constables
to "fall in" on the clover field. The mob followed throwing at them,
till they had exhausted all their stones, and just then he saw a contingent of
the Hull police - twenty of them - coming up in a break to the assistance of
the constables present, and they then returned to the pit bank. The crowd
retired from the pit bank as the officers approached, the mob throwing stones as
they retired. Captain Holden (a magistrate) and himself went in front of the
constables, and he called out to the mob to be still while the Riot Act was
read. He called out "Silence" several times. Mr. Holden read the Riot
Act, and during that time stones were thrown at them from the direction of the
crowd.
After that he told the crowd to be peaceable. The Riot Act
had been read, and he told them to go away: but stones continued to be thrown,
so he gave the order for the constables to draw their staves and charge the crowd.
He went first. The prisoner Birchmore stood before the others, armed with a big
stick (produced), which he was waving about. Witness said to him, "For
God's sake stop that and go away!" He swung the stick round, aiming a
blow at witness's head, and the stick, catching him on the shoulder, broke.
Witness then struck Birchmore with his staff, and a constable secured him.
Saint was present and had a big stick in his hand. Stones were thrown as the
officers charged the mob, but when they got amongst the crowd they retired,
and, afterwards re-assembling on the flank of the officers, the constables
charged them a second time, when they dispersed. Witness was struck several
times by stones and sticks, and many of the constables were also struck.
Police-constable Wilson was badly injured, and had been off duty ever since.
Sergeant Smith was also badly injured, and Police-constable Martin was also
severely stoned and injured.
Cross-examined by Mr. H. B. Clayton: Witness did not
see stones thrown by any one of the prisoners except Richards. Sergeant Frear
had not fallen in with his detachment on the occasion of the first charge. He
could not identify the lad Eves and Palmer as having been present.
Police-constable Martin gave evidence as to being present
at New Watnall, seeing the fire, and seeing stones thrown. He was stoned,
His helmet was cut through, and he was knocked down and kicked. The mob
seized him and threw him through a cottage window near the pit-bank, and
threw bricks and stones at him through the window. He identified Eves as one
who was present taking part in the disturbance. Eves was smashing the weighing
room windows with a stick, along with several other lads. He also saw
Brittlestone throwing logs of wood from a new sawn heap on to the fire caused
by the tar barrel.
Cross-examined by Mr. H. B. Clayton: He did not see
Eves arrested. He saw him breaking windows with a stick, but there were not
sufficient officers present then for them to attempt arrest. Witness could not
say who put him through the cottage window. He would only like to know.
John Archibald, residing at Eastwood, in the service of
Messrs. Barber, Walker, and Co. as engineer, was next called. He was at the
New Watnall Colliery in the morning of the 7th before any damage was done. He
had since examined the property, and estimated the damage done. The
machine-house windows were damaged, the pit-bank machine-house was burned and
smashed, and the carpenter's shop and goods shed were destroyed with their
contents. The whole amount of damage done on the Thursday would be about £332.
Mr. Williams here intimated to the magistrates that he had
called Mr. Archibald at this stage of the proceedings to show what his case was.
If their worships were inclined to commit the cases to the Assizes he should
shorten the evidence which he had to call considerably. He should of course
identify the whole of the prisoners. The Magistrates then retired for a few
minutes announcing on their return into court that they had decided to deal
with it summarily.
Sergeant James Ire was then called, but before being
examined, Mr. Clayton remarked that the prisoners were prepared on his advice
to plead guilty on the evidence as it stood. He did not wish to be guilty of a
repetition, and would not reiterate anything said in the former case. The men
had pleaded guilty, and the evidence of Sergeant Frear certainly to the effect
that they took part in the assault on the constables, and the case against two
of the defendants was undoubtedly of a more serious nature than in the cases
which their worships had previously disposed of. He was sure, however, the
magistrates would distinguish between the degree of guilt in the case of the two
boys as compared with the other defendants. Mr. Clayton produced letters of
character for Eaves and Palmer, including in connection with the last-named a
letter from the headmaster of Quarry-road Board School, Bulwell, stating that
Palmer left school at the age of 13 about two months ago, and had only reached
the second standard although he had attended regularly. He did not consider him
mentally responsible. Except stone-throwing there was no evidence against the
boys whatever of assaulting the police. He asked on their behalf that their
worships would see fit to take a very lenient view of their case. In respect of
Saint it was not suggested that he took any part in this matter in the opening
stages, and that he was in any way a ringleader.
Mr. Wiliams remarked that Mr. Clayton had pleaded guilty,
and he didn't think he had a right to comment upon the absence of evidence
against any one of the prisoners. The Chairman agreed, and asked what made
these men go all the way from Bulwell to Watnall? Mr. Clayton said they
were out of work. With regard to Briddlestone, he had borne a good character,
and had never been in trouble before. He did not think that it should be
suggested that he was actually a ring-leader in this matter. taking part in
these very disgraceful proceedings, however, he must suffer.
Mr. Williams called attention to Mr. Clayton's going against
the ruling of the bench.
Mr. Clayton, continuing, said with regard to the other two undoubtedly
Richards was more to blame than anyone. Under the whole circumstances, he
trusted the Bench would be as lenient as they could.
Mr. Williams said as to Palmer they did not wish to press
the case unduly against him. The Chief-Constable was content to take the
statement put in by Mr. Clayton.
Mr. Bagnall-Wild: Has the fellow sense enough to know the
difference between right and wrong? He must have.
Richards and Birchmore were each sent to prison for six
months with hard labour: Saint, Briddleston, and Gulley were committed for
three months with hard labour; and Eaves and Palmer to one month each.
THE COAL CRISIS.
To the Editor of the "Nottingham Daily Express.
September 19th, 1893.
Sir, Most friends of the miners will rejoice to see the
attitude which has now been taken up by the officials of the Notts. Miners'
Association on the question whether those men who can shall resume work at the
old rate of wages. I venture to wish them complete success in their campaign
through the county in support of an affirmative reply to this question. If they
succeed in carrying with them an overwhelming majority of the men and I think
they will - it is not likely that the Federation Executive Committee will withhold
its approval. It seems to me that it is on this point alone that the leaders of
the Miners' Federation have made any serious mistake in the course of their
great struggle. They would, I think, have been wise if, at the London
Conference on August 22, they had decided in favour of allowing work to be
resumed wherever possible at the old rates. In submitting this opinion, I do
not for one moment wish to hide the fact that the miners leaders are a body of
very shrewd and able men, and that it may seem almost an impertinence for an
outsider to question the wisdom of their policy. But they do not claim to be infallible,
and I am supported in my view by the fact that at least a minority of them,
including Mr. Bailey from our own county, and Mr. Cowey from Yorkshire, were
even then strongly in favour of partial resumption of work.
I regret to see that some of the Derbyshire men are
taking up a position hostile to the Notts. Association on this question. At
Mr. Haslam's Alfreton meeting yesterday, the chairman said, "they must
allow no sectional fighting." But is it "sectional fighting" in
the sense that it will divide the men in their aims! Every pit which starts work
at old rates is an argument in favour of other pits doing the same. It is an
argument which will appeal strongly both to coalowners and to the public. The
owners will not care to stand quietly by, while other doing their trade at high
prices. And the public will be strengthened in their support of the miners by the
consideration that if some owners can afford to pay the old rate of wage,
others can afford to pay it. Therefore, it seems to me that the men who will
resume work will be striving to carry out the objects of the Federation much
more efficentiv than if, under the circumstances, they remain idle. The phrase.
"Sectional fighting" represents a mere superstition. From the men's standpoint
there can be no objection to sectional fighting, unless it can be shown that
such fighting is likely to damage their cause. It would certainly damage the
masters; it could not damage the men. If all the collieries of the country were
in the hands of one man, or one company, It might answer his or their purpose
for a part of them to be at work while the others were idle.
But they do not all belong to one man, and if Nottinghamshire
pits commence work while Derbyshire pita do not, it means that Notts, owners
will do their own trade and a good portion of Derbyshire trade as well, and at
highly remunerative prices. The effect which this state of things would have on
the lock-out generally can be easily imagined.
At the same meeting at Alfreton yesterday Mr. W Whilde, of
Swanwick, said he was very sore that the Brierley Hill men were at work. He
condemned those men for breaking the rules of the Federation. They had no right
to be at work, and they must not be surprised if something occurred that they
did not expect. But in any case the Brierley Hill men must not blame the other
miners. This looks to me like a direct incitement to violence or intimidation
against the Brierley Hill men. I shall be pleased to hear that Mr. Whilde's
remarks will bear some other interpretation. If they will not, I can only say
that they deserve the strongest condemnation from all who have the miners' cause
at heart.
Yours truly, A. X. Ε. September 19th, 1893.
Comments
Post a Comment