A Frozen Spring (relaunched version)
- Thread starter IanBertram
- Start date
Syndicalism gets a foothold
Political unrest spreads
The mutiny in Newcastle by the Territorial Force of the Northumberland Fusiliers that began when John Telford was freed from his arrest, turned out to be a significant event. Across the North East of England, members of the Territorial Force began to refuse to take part in any duties that might involve them in supporting the police at strikes or other civil disturbances. Attempts by the Army command to deal with these by courts martial of ringleaders almost always failed. Despite all the Army could do, it became commonplace for the men of a Territorial unit to debate orders given to them before deciding whether to obey. The regular army was at full stretch and every home regiment had been mobilised. The issuing of Detention Orders under the Emergency Powers act, that began in August 1912 only made the situation even more fragile.
With no spare capacity left, in either Police or the Army, the Government took desperate measures and began to plan for the recall of regiments serving abroad. In October 1912 one was ordered home from Gibraltar and a second from Malta. These were to be supported if needed by regiments currently stationed in India. It was hoped however that the addition of almost 2000 experienced troops who had not been 'exposed' to the current dissent would be enough.
Meanwhile the disputes in the North East were taking on a different character. At a flour mill and bakery in Gateshead in November 1912, workers, frustrated with their vindictive boss and poor pay, kicked out the manager and declared a workers commune. This was not a spur of the moment action. They had already arranged contracts to sell the flour and bread before the mill was even taken over. They also made deals with local farmers and supplies continued as normal. It operated for ten days under the slogan: “We make bread not profits.” Their action won the workers a pay rise, shorter hours and the removal of the unpopular manager.
Inspired by this example, unemployed workers seized and reopened a closed sawmill near Morpeth in Northumberland and workers also took over and ran the local gasworks. In Chopwell, after a strike lead to a lockout, miners stormed the pit head. took over the mine and continued to work it, selling the coal directly to local people and arranging with local hauliers for distribution to the surrounding area. In perhaps the strangest takeover of all, staff and inmates at a mental hospital in Durham barricaded themselves inside for almost two weeks before winning a payrise. There were probably dozens of such occupations, some only lasting days, some up to six weeks.
In most cases these were as much a tactic as an end in themselves and once concessions had been secured they usually ended without problems. Even so, they were unpopular with Trades Union leaders who did all they could to undermine the workers taking part, in some cases to the extent of colluding with factory owners and lying to their members about planned actions. It was clear that they saw the occupations, not as a chance to extend the influence of workers, but as a challenge to their own authority.
In a few locations it became clear that the workers had no intention of giving up despite the blandishments of Trade Union leaders or the offer of concessions. In these cases, the police were given orders to remove the occupiers with predictably violent clashes, the worst being at the Morpeth sawmill in late November and in Chopwell in early December 1912.
In Morpeth the workers, who saw themselves as taking over what had been abandoned, refused to give way and fortified the premises. After a two day siege by police, the army was called in. They took another day to clear the site, at the end of which 2 workers and one soldier were dead and some 50 people had been injured. At Chopwell it was even worse. Pitched battles took place on the village street as police tried to arrest strike leaders. A church hall where an army unit was billeted was attacked and burnt to the ground. Miners from nearby pits flooded into the village to support the occupation and eventually some 600 men faced perhaps 200 police and 60 cavalry. It took repeated charges by cavalry to clear the streets after which they still had to take possession of the pit head.
The local army commander wanted to wait things out, reasoning that the men inside would eventually run out of food and would have to give up. However after intense political pressure he was ordered to secure the site by force of arms. The consequences were bloody. The main entry points to the pit head had been booby trapped using explosives from the mine. The men inside had also improvised grenades and even crude mortars. When the assault began, in the middle of a snow storm, 4 men were killed by blasts within minutes and the rest withdrew. The commander called for reinforcements which came the next morning in the form of two field artillery pieces. Four shells were fired into the pit compound and the men inside were then invited to surrender. When no reply was given the commander gave the order to start shelling again. After 20 minutes all the buildings on the site were reduced to rubble.
Despite entering with great care two more booby traps were detonated. Eventually the site was made safe and a search made for bodies, but none could be found. The men, all experienced miners, had set the booby traps and then it seems retreated down the shaft and made their way through the workings to another pit head some 2 miles away, from where they escaped with the support of men from that pit.
Faced with such unrest, Regulations were made under the Emergency Powers Act declaring several areas in the North East as Special Military Zones. Anyone working in these zones or needing to travel to or from them was required to have an identity card issued by their employer. People not in work had to obtain a pass from the local Labour Exchange. Children were required to obtain a pass from their school. Army and police check points were set up and identity checks made on anyone passing through them. Additional mobile checkpoints were also set up at short notice.
Unsurprisingly these stringent controls were not well received. Workers across the region were exhorted not to cooperate. Since employers were not allowed to employ anyone without a pass, the resulting lockouts rapidly spread. Even children joined in with school strikes erupting everywhere. The region rapidly ground to a halt as workers outside the Zones took sympathetic strike action.
Eventually though as occupiers reached the end of their endurance and the authorities took action against those dealing with them, even the most obdurate of the occupations was over by April of 1913. Most of the ring leaders were detained under the Emergency Powers Act but not formally charged. A few however were brought to trial, most notably Tom Mann, charged with sedition for an article in the Syndicalist rather than with any specific acts and sentenced to three years.
The mutiny in Newcastle by the Territorial Force of the Northumberland Fusiliers that began when John Telford was freed from his arrest, turned out to be a significant event. Across the North East of England, members of the Territorial Force began to refuse to take part in any duties that might involve them in supporting the police at strikes or other civil disturbances. Attempts by the Army command to deal with these by courts martial of ringleaders almost always failed. Despite all the Army could do, it became commonplace for the men of a Territorial unit to debate orders given to them before deciding whether to obey. The regular army was at full stretch and every home regiment had been mobilised. The issuing of Detention Orders under the Emergency Powers act, that began in August 1912 only made the situation even more fragile.
With no spare capacity left, in either Police or the Army, the Government took desperate measures and began to plan for the recall of regiments serving abroad. In October 1912 one was ordered home from Gibraltar and a second from Malta. These were to be supported if needed by regiments currently stationed in India. It was hoped however that the addition of almost 2000 experienced troops who had not been 'exposed' to the current dissent would be enough.
Meanwhile the disputes in the North East were taking on a different character. At a flour mill and bakery in Gateshead in November 1912, workers, frustrated with their vindictive boss and poor pay, kicked out the manager and declared a workers commune. This was not a spur of the moment action. They had already arranged contracts to sell the flour and bread before the mill was even taken over. They also made deals with local farmers and supplies continued as normal. It operated for ten days under the slogan: “We make bread not profits.” Their action won the workers a pay rise, shorter hours and the removal of the unpopular manager.
Inspired by this example, unemployed workers seized and reopened a closed sawmill near Morpeth in Northumberland and workers also took over and ran the local gasworks. In Chopwell, after a strike lead to a lockout, miners stormed the pit head. took over the mine and continued to work it, selling the coal directly to local people and arranging with local hauliers for distribution to the surrounding area. In perhaps the strangest takeover of all, staff and inmates at a mental hospital in Durham barricaded themselves inside for almost two weeks before winning a payrise. There were probably dozens of such occupations, some only lasting days, some up to six weeks.
In most cases these were as much a tactic as an end in themselves and once concessions had been secured they usually ended without problems. Even so, they were unpopular with Trades Union leaders who did all they could to undermine the workers taking part, in some cases to the extent of colluding with factory owners and lying to their members about planned actions. It was clear that they saw the occupations, not as a chance to extend the influence of workers, but as a challenge to their own authority.
In a few locations it became clear that the workers had no intention of giving up despite the blandishments of Trade Union leaders or the offer of concessions. In these cases, the police were given orders to remove the occupiers with predictably violent clashes, the worst being at the Morpeth sawmill in late November and in Chopwell in early December 1912.
In Morpeth the workers, who saw themselves as taking over what had been abandoned, refused to give way and fortified the premises. After a two day siege by police, the army was called in. They took another day to clear the site, at the end of which 2 workers and one soldier were dead and some 50 people had been injured. At Chopwell it was even worse. Pitched battles took place on the village street as police tried to arrest strike leaders. A church hall where an army unit was billeted was attacked and burnt to the ground. Miners from nearby pits flooded into the village to support the occupation and eventually some 600 men faced perhaps 200 police and 60 cavalry. It took repeated charges by cavalry to clear the streets after which they still had to take possession of the pit head.
The local army commander wanted to wait things out, reasoning that the men inside would eventually run out of food and would have to give up. However after intense political pressure he was ordered to secure the site by force of arms. The consequences were bloody. The main entry points to the pit head had been booby trapped using explosives from the mine. The men inside had also improvised grenades and even crude mortars. When the assault began, in the middle of a snow storm, 4 men were killed by blasts within minutes and the rest withdrew. The commander called for reinforcements which came the next morning in the form of two field artillery pieces. Four shells were fired into the pit compound and the men inside were then invited to surrender. When no reply was given the commander gave the order to start shelling again. After 20 minutes all the buildings on the site were reduced to rubble.
Despite entering with great care two more booby traps were detonated. Eventually the site was made safe and a search made for bodies, but none could be found. The men, all experienced miners, had set the booby traps and then it seems retreated down the shaft and made their way through the workings to another pit head some 2 miles away, from where they escaped with the support of men from that pit.
Faced with such unrest, Regulations were made under the Emergency Powers Act declaring several areas in the North East as Special Military Zones. Anyone working in these zones or needing to travel to or from them was required to have an identity card issued by their employer. People not in work had to obtain a pass from the local Labour Exchange. Children were required to obtain a pass from their school. Army and police check points were set up and identity checks made on anyone passing through them. Additional mobile checkpoints were also set up at short notice.
Unsurprisingly these stringent controls were not well received. Workers across the region were exhorted not to cooperate. Since employers were not allowed to employ anyone without a pass, the resulting lockouts rapidly spread. Even children joined in with school strikes erupting everywhere. The region rapidly ground to a halt as workers outside the Zones took sympathetic strike action.
Eventually though as occupiers reached the end of their endurance and the authorities took action against those dealing with them, even the most obdurate of the occupations was over by April of 1913. Most of the ring leaders were detained under the Emergency Powers Act but not formally charged. A few however were brought to trial, most notably Tom Mann, charged with sedition for an article in the Syndicalist rather than with any specific acts and sentenced to three years.
Last edited:
Paramilitaries begin to cause concern
Paramilitaries in England
Hansard 24 October 1911
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the formation of a volunteer police force by some private organisation to interfere in the case of a strike has been brought to his notice; whether the Home Office have been consulted at all as to its formation or regulations; and what steps His Majesty's Government intend to take if these volunteer police attempt to interfere with pickets in the carrying out of their lawful functions?
§ Mr. McKENNA
The Home Office was informed of the proposal to organise this body, but has not been consulted, and if consulted, would not have undertaken to supply advice, as to its formation and regulations. If the volunteer police should interfere with the pickets in the exercise of their lawful rights, the pickets will be entitled to protection as in the case of any other form of unlawful interference.
~~~
Letter published in Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail 18 November 1911
Volunteer Police Force
Proposals are being developed for the creation of a volunteer body to assist the community at large by preventing the disturbance or breakdown of any Service of Public Utility. This body will voluntarily assist in carrying on Transport and other Services of vital importance to the distribution of the necessities of life to the community at large.
The Volunteer Police Force will also offer its protection to men desiring to work from being compelled by force or threats unwillingly to abandon their employment with a view to prevent any breach of the peace or the disruption of the Food Supply of the Community.
Any businessman faced with with such threats or any honest man wishing help in returning to work without hindrance is encouraged to contact the undersigned at the address given.
Abercorn
President
C. E. StJ. Blenkinsopp
Secretary
~~~
Hansard 28 November 1911
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has further considered the matter of the formation of the volunteer police force, last raised with him on 24 October last and whether he is aware of recent advertisements offering the services of this body to employers nationally?
§ Mr. McKENNA
I refer the Honorable Member to my answer on that occasion. The Home Office has not been consulted, and if consulted, would not have undertaken to supply advice, as to its formation and regulations. Any actions that may or may be taken by such a body are hypothetical.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
Will pickets be allowed to have life preservers the same as the volunteer police force?
Mr. DUNCAN
Will they be allowed to carry revolvers?
§ Mr. McKENNA
They will obey the ordinary law which governs the life of the ordinary private citizen.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the instructions sent to officers saying that life preservers will be supplied and that the ring-leaders of the pickets will be "made for"?
§ Mr. McKENNA
If there is any breach of the law the hon. Member will find the police authorities only too resolute to put a stop to any such breach.
§ Mr. O'GRADY
May I ask whether in view of the fact that these men are purposely armed with bludgeons to break people's heads, and therefore commit a breach of the peace, the Home Office cannot intervene?
§ Mr. McKENNA
Wild statements are very frequently made. It would be impossible in the case of any wild statement of this kind for the Home Office to intervene. I am informed that the Home Office has no responsibility as regards these so-called volunteer police.
§ Mr. MORRELL
Has any necessity been shown for those police?
§ Mr. McKENNA
I am not responsible for them.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
Is it not the duty of every citizen to assist the civil authority in case of riot?
§ Mr. McKENNA
Yes.
Mr. DUNCAN
Is it the duty of every citizen to carry a bludgeon?
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
I will raise the whole question on the Adjournment.
~~~
Hansard 29 November 1911
§ Mr. W. THORNE
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state how many men have now been enrolled in the Volunteer Police Force; if he is aware that over 90 per cent. of the men are non-union men; and if it is the intention of the employers to use the men not only to protect their property, but to work in the places of the men who may be out on strike?
§ Mr. McKENNA
I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. The so-called volunteer police force is a private organisation, over which I have no control, and as to whose numbers I have no information.
~~~
Hansard 04 December 1911
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the volunteer police force intend to issue to their men uniforms and life preservers; and whether he will call for samples of these and see that the uniform is not a colourable imitation of that of the police?
§ Mr. PONSONBY
asked whether this force has been raised by, or at the instance of, the railway companies and mining companies; and who is the president of the force and responsible for its behaviour?
§ Mr. MORRELL
asked (1) when and by whom the right hon. Gentleman was informed of the proposal to organise a force of volunteer police, and under whose orders these police will act; (2) whether he has considered the added danger of a breach of the peace that may arise through the organising and arming of a force of volunteer police to act under the orders of private persons during a time of strike; and whether he has any reason to suppose that the ordinary police forces of the country are not sufficient to preserve order?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)
The Home Secretary was first informed of the proposed volunteer police on 16th September last by Mr. W. M. Power. As I have already explained in answer to questions in the House, I am in no way responsible for the organisation. I have no knowledge of the body except from the statements which it has published. From these I learn that the Duke of Abercorn is president of the force, but the extent of the president's functions and responsibility are not set out. I do not know whether any railway or mining companies are supporting the movement. It is stated that the volunteer police force are to wear a distinguishing uniform, or, at any rate, a badge. It is a statutory offence, both in the Metropolis and elsewhere, to assume the dress or otherwise pretend falsely to be a member of a police force. It is well known that the ordinary police forces of the country are not and cannot be made so powerful as to be capable of maintaining law and order unaided in all emergencies; and it is the duty of all citizens to assist them in so doing. But it appears to me that all those who desire to fulfil that duty should not form an independent organisation whose methods inevitably become open to suspicion, but should put themselves in direct communication with the responsible police authorities. The Home Office has recently advised the police authorities to take steps to supplement the ordinary force should occasion arise; and the additions to the strength of the police so provided will act under the directions of the chief constables.
§ Sir W. BYLES
If private citizens do discharge the duties indicated would it not then be unnecessary at any time to call in the military to keep civil order?
§ Mr. McKENNA
That is a hypothetical question which I cannot answer without reference to a particular case.
§ Sir W. BYLES
Surely it is not hypothetical.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
Does the Home Office advice allow for the use by the police of this volunteer force as has recently been suggested by Lord Abercorn.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I repeat my statement earlier, namely that those who desire to fulfil their duty to the police should not form an independent organisation whose methods inevitably become open to suspicion, but should put themselves in direct communication with the responsible police authorities.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
Will this volunteer force have any power to effect arrests, as they state in their communications to members?
§ Mr. McKENNA
They will have powers no different from those of ordinary citizens. They will have no special powers.
§ Mr. W. THORNE
Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to an organisation of labour forces in a similar way, to be armed with similar weapons?
§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Gentleman will see the perils and dangers anybody must run who attempts to enrol an organisation of this sort.
§ Mr. JAMES ROWLANDS
Will the right hon. Gentleman take an opportunity of informing the public of the difference between these bodies and ordinary special constables organised by the police authorities when required?
§ Mr. McKENNA
I think that suggestion an extremely valuable one; but I am not yet aware that this body is in existence.
Mr. KING
Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate his condemnation of this movement to the Duke of Abercorn?
§ Mr. McKENNA
I should think the Duke will be aware of what takes place in this House.
~~~
Bradford Daily Argus
15 Dec 1911
VOLUNTEER POLICE FORCE.
The Bradford branch of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants met on Sunday, and resolved that a volunteer police force for service during strikes, as recently created by Lord Abercorn and others is a menace to their liberties. It was decided to recommend the central executive to form a trade union Physical Protection League, which would meet on equal terms “the bullies of organised capital."
Hansard 24 October 1911
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the formation of a volunteer police force by some private organisation to interfere in the case of a strike has been brought to his notice; whether the Home Office have been consulted at all as to its formation or regulations; and what steps His Majesty's Government intend to take if these volunteer police attempt to interfere with pickets in the carrying out of their lawful functions?
§ Mr. McKENNA
The Home Office was informed of the proposal to organise this body, but has not been consulted, and if consulted, would not have undertaken to supply advice, as to its formation and regulations. If the volunteer police should interfere with the pickets in the exercise of their lawful rights, the pickets will be entitled to protection as in the case of any other form of unlawful interference.
~~~
Letter published in Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail 18 November 1911
Volunteer Police Force
Proposals are being developed for the creation of a volunteer body to assist the community at large by preventing the disturbance or breakdown of any Service of Public Utility. This body will voluntarily assist in carrying on Transport and other Services of vital importance to the distribution of the necessities of life to the community at large.
The Volunteer Police Force will also offer its protection to men desiring to work from being compelled by force or threats unwillingly to abandon their employment with a view to prevent any breach of the peace or the disruption of the Food Supply of the Community.
Any businessman faced with with such threats or any honest man wishing help in returning to work without hindrance is encouraged to contact the undersigned at the address given.
Abercorn
President
C. E. StJ. Blenkinsopp
Secretary
~~~
Hansard 28 November 1911
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has further considered the matter of the formation of the volunteer police force, last raised with him on 24 October last and whether he is aware of recent advertisements offering the services of this body to employers nationally?
§ Mr. McKENNA
I refer the Honorable Member to my answer on that occasion. The Home Office has not been consulted, and if consulted, would not have undertaken to supply advice, as to its formation and regulations. Any actions that may or may be taken by such a body are hypothetical.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
Will pickets be allowed to have life preservers the same as the volunteer police force?
Mr. DUNCAN
Will they be allowed to carry revolvers?
§ Mr. McKENNA
They will obey the ordinary law which governs the life of the ordinary private citizen.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the instructions sent to officers saying that life preservers will be supplied and that the ring-leaders of the pickets will be "made for"?
§ Mr. McKENNA
If there is any breach of the law the hon. Member will find the police authorities only too resolute to put a stop to any such breach.
§ Mr. O'GRADY
May I ask whether in view of the fact that these men are purposely armed with bludgeons to break people's heads, and therefore commit a breach of the peace, the Home Office cannot intervene?
§ Mr. McKENNA
Wild statements are very frequently made. It would be impossible in the case of any wild statement of this kind for the Home Office to intervene. I am informed that the Home Office has no responsibility as regards these so-called volunteer police.
§ Mr. MORRELL
Has any necessity been shown for those police?
§ Mr. McKENNA
I am not responsible for them.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
Is it not the duty of every citizen to assist the civil authority in case of riot?
§ Mr. McKENNA
Yes.
Mr. DUNCAN
Is it the duty of every citizen to carry a bludgeon?
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
I will raise the whole question on the Adjournment.
~~~
Hansard 29 November 1911
§ Mr. W. THORNE
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state how many men have now been enrolled in the Volunteer Police Force; if he is aware that over 90 per cent. of the men are non-union men; and if it is the intention of the employers to use the men not only to protect their property, but to work in the places of the men who may be out on strike?
§ Mr. McKENNA
I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. The so-called volunteer police force is a private organisation, over which I have no control, and as to whose numbers I have no information.
~~~
Hansard 04 December 1911
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the volunteer police force intend to issue to their men uniforms and life preservers; and whether he will call for samples of these and see that the uniform is not a colourable imitation of that of the police?
§ Mr. PONSONBY
asked whether this force has been raised by, or at the instance of, the railway companies and mining companies; and who is the president of the force and responsible for its behaviour?
§ Mr. MORRELL
asked (1) when and by whom the right hon. Gentleman was informed of the proposal to organise a force of volunteer police, and under whose orders these police will act; (2) whether he has considered the added danger of a breach of the peace that may arise through the organising and arming of a force of volunteer police to act under the orders of private persons during a time of strike; and whether he has any reason to suppose that the ordinary police forces of the country are not sufficient to preserve order?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)
The Home Secretary was first informed of the proposed volunteer police on 16th September last by Mr. W. M. Power. As I have already explained in answer to questions in the House, I am in no way responsible for the organisation. I have no knowledge of the body except from the statements which it has published. From these I learn that the Duke of Abercorn is president of the force, but the extent of the president's functions and responsibility are not set out. I do not know whether any railway or mining companies are supporting the movement. It is stated that the volunteer police force are to wear a distinguishing uniform, or, at any rate, a badge. It is a statutory offence, both in the Metropolis and elsewhere, to assume the dress or otherwise pretend falsely to be a member of a police force. It is well known that the ordinary police forces of the country are not and cannot be made so powerful as to be capable of maintaining law and order unaided in all emergencies; and it is the duty of all citizens to assist them in so doing. But it appears to me that all those who desire to fulfil that duty should not form an independent organisation whose methods inevitably become open to suspicion, but should put themselves in direct communication with the responsible police authorities. The Home Office has recently advised the police authorities to take steps to supplement the ordinary force should occasion arise; and the additions to the strength of the police so provided will act under the directions of the chief constables.
§ Sir W. BYLES
If private citizens do discharge the duties indicated would it not then be unnecessary at any time to call in the military to keep civil order?
§ Mr. McKENNA
That is a hypothetical question which I cannot answer without reference to a particular case.
§ Sir W. BYLES
Surely it is not hypothetical.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
Does the Home Office advice allow for the use by the police of this volunteer force as has recently been suggested by Lord Abercorn.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I repeat my statement earlier, namely that those who desire to fulfil their duty to the police should not form an independent organisation whose methods inevitably become open to suspicion, but should put themselves in direct communication with the responsible police authorities.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
Will this volunteer force have any power to effect arrests, as they state in their communications to members?
§ Mr. McKENNA
They will have powers no different from those of ordinary citizens. They will have no special powers.
§ Mr. W. THORNE
Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to an organisation of labour forces in a similar way, to be armed with similar weapons?
§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Gentleman will see the perils and dangers anybody must run who attempts to enrol an organisation of this sort.
§ Mr. JAMES ROWLANDS
Will the right hon. Gentleman take an opportunity of informing the public of the difference between these bodies and ordinary special constables organised by the police authorities when required?
§ Mr. McKENNA
I think that suggestion an extremely valuable one; but I am not yet aware that this body is in existence.
Mr. KING
Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate his condemnation of this movement to the Duke of Abercorn?
§ Mr. McKENNA
I should think the Duke will be aware of what takes place in this House.
~~~
Bradford Daily Argus
15 Dec 1911
VOLUNTEER POLICE FORCE.
The Bradford branch of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants met on Sunday, and resolved that a volunteer police force for service during strikes, as recently created by Lord Abercorn and others is a menace to their liberties. It was decided to recommend the central executive to form a trade union Physical Protection League, which would meet on equal terms “the bullies of organised capital."
Last edited:
Roger Casement on UVF
Letters of Roger Casement
Letter from Roger Casement to Eoin MacNeill [FN1]
9 June 1912
…
I love the Antrim Presbyterians … they are good, kind, warm-hearted souls, and now to see them exploited by that damned Church of Ireland, and that Orange Ascendancy gang who hate Presbyterians only less than papists, and to see them delirious before a Smith and a Carson (a cross between a badly reared bloodhound and an underfed hyena sniffing for Irish blood in the track) and whooping Rule Britannia through the streets is a wound to my soul. Now those dogs are sniffing out trouble in England too, well I wish them well of that, for trouble in England is good news for Ireland.
The only really healthy thing is their damned Volunteer Force. That is fine; it is the act of men; and I like it, and love the thought of those English ministers squirming before it. Even so, it would be better if we could confront them similarly as men. It would be far better than to go on lying and pretending – if only we could be left free to fight out our battle here ourselves.
…
Letter from Eoin MacNeill to Roger Casement
15 June 1912
...
O, would it not be simply heavenly, if the Government undertook to suppress our Volunteers and Carson's together. Is there any way of getting them to do it? … We have them in a cleft stick. The question of arms need not discourage us. We have to get the young men to understand that now every one of them can get military training and can join in a permanent national militai to be ready for arming at any time and to be ready to come out on command.
…
Letter from Roger Casement to Eoin MacNeill
1 July 1912
…
I pray for the Germans. Their coming would teach the English a real Protestant lesson. We have reached the point I think where revolution must replace resolutions. If the people of Ireland want freedom as much as the people of Ulster do not want it, they will have to fight for it.
...
FN1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eoin_MacNeill
Photo: Eoin MacNeill
Letter from Roger Casement to Eoin MacNeill [FN1]
9 June 1912
…
I love the Antrim Presbyterians … they are good, kind, warm-hearted souls, and now to see them exploited by that damned Church of Ireland, and that Orange Ascendancy gang who hate Presbyterians only less than papists, and to see them delirious before a Smith and a Carson (a cross between a badly reared bloodhound and an underfed hyena sniffing for Irish blood in the track) and whooping Rule Britannia through the streets is a wound to my soul. Now those dogs are sniffing out trouble in England too, well I wish them well of that, for trouble in England is good news for Ireland.
The only really healthy thing is their damned Volunteer Force. That is fine; it is the act of men; and I like it, and love the thought of those English ministers squirming before it. Even so, it would be better if we could confront them similarly as men. It would be far better than to go on lying and pretending – if only we could be left free to fight out our battle here ourselves.
…
Letter from Eoin MacNeill to Roger Casement
15 June 1912
...
O, would it not be simply heavenly, if the Government undertook to suppress our Volunteers and Carson's together. Is there any way of getting them to do it? … We have them in a cleft stick. The question of arms need not discourage us. We have to get the young men to understand that now every one of them can get military training and can join in a permanent national militai to be ready for arming at any time and to be ready to come out on command.
…
Letter from Roger Casement to Eoin MacNeill
1 July 1912
…
I pray for the Germans. Their coming would teach the English a real Protestant lesson. We have reached the point I think where revolution must replace resolutions. If the people of Ireland want freedom as much as the people of Ulster do not want it, they will have to fight for it.
...
FN1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eoin_MacNeill
Photo: Eoin MacNeill
Last edited:
Thanks
I wondered if anyone was even looking! I have a few more references to add to the bibliography, which I will do in little while.
I wondered if anyone was even looking! I have a few more references to add to the bibliography, which I will do in little while.
In case anyone IS reading this, the rather surprising admiration of the UVF by Casement is recorded in his letters. Most of the views in this last post are taken from his and MacNeill's letters but 'repurposed' to change date and context.
Lenin on Britain 1912
The British labour movement in 1912 - V I Lenin
The miners’ strike was the outstanding event of the past year. While the railway strike in 1911 showed the “new spirit” of the British workers, the miners’ strike of 1912 definitely marked an epoch.
Despite the “war” preparations of the ruling classes, and despite the strenuous efforts of the bourgeoisie to crush the resistance of the rebellious slaves of capital, the strike was a success. The miners displayed exemplary organisation. There was not a trace of blacklegging. Coal-mining by soldiers or inexperienced labourers was out of the question. And after six weeks of struggle the bourgeois government of Britain saw that the country’s entire industrial activity was coming to a standstill and that the words of the workers’ song, “All wheels cease to whir when thy hand wills it”, were coming true.
The government made concessions.
“The Prime Minister of the most powerful empire the world has ever seen attended a delegate meeting of the mine-owners’ striking slaves and pleaded with them to agree to a compromise.” That is how a well-informed Marxist summed up the struggle.
The British Government, which year after year usually feeds its workers with promises of reform “some day”, this time acted with real dispatch. In five days a new law was rushed through Parliament! This law introduced a minimum wage, i.e., regulations establishing rates of pay below which wages cannot be reduced.
It is true that this law, like all bourgeois reforms, is a miserable half-measure and in part a mere deception of the workers, because while fixing the lowest rate of pay, the employers keep their wage-slaves down all the same. Nevertheless, those who are familiar with the British labour movement say that since the miners’ strike the British proletariat is no longer the same. The workers have learned to fight. They have come to see the path that will lead them to victory. They have become aware of their strength. They have ceased to be the meek lambs they seemed to be for so long a time to the joy of all the defenders and extollers of wage-slavery.
In Britain a change has taken place in the balance of social forces, a change that cannot be expressed in figures but is felt by all.
Unfortunately, there is not much progress in Party affairs in Britain. The split between the British Socialist Party (formerly the Social-Democratic Federation) and the Independent (of socialism) Labour Party persists. The opportunist conduct of the M.P.s belonging to the latter party is giving rise, as always happens, to syndicalist tendencies among the workers. Fortunately, these tendencies are not strong.
The British trade unions are slowly but surely turning towards socialism, in spite of the many Labour M.P.s who stubbornly champion the old line of liberal labour policy. But it is beyond the power of these last of the Mohicans to retain the old line!
The miners’ strike was the outstanding event of the past year. While the railway strike in 1911 showed the “new spirit” of the British workers, the miners’ strike of 1912 definitely marked an epoch.
Despite the “war” preparations of the ruling classes, and despite the strenuous efforts of the bourgeoisie to crush the resistance of the rebellious slaves of capital, the strike was a success. The miners displayed exemplary organisation. There was not a trace of blacklegging. Coal-mining by soldiers or inexperienced labourers was out of the question. And after six weeks of struggle the bourgeois government of Britain saw that the country’s entire industrial activity was coming to a standstill and that the words of the workers’ song, “All wheels cease to whir when thy hand wills it”, were coming true.
The government made concessions.
“The Prime Minister of the most powerful empire the world has ever seen attended a delegate meeting of the mine-owners’ striking slaves and pleaded with them to agree to a compromise.” That is how a well-informed Marxist summed up the struggle.
The British Government, which year after year usually feeds its workers with promises of reform “some day”, this time acted with real dispatch. In five days a new law was rushed through Parliament! This law introduced a minimum wage, i.e., regulations establishing rates of pay below which wages cannot be reduced.
It is true that this law, like all bourgeois reforms, is a miserable half-measure and in part a mere deception of the workers, because while fixing the lowest rate of pay, the employers keep their wage-slaves down all the same. Nevertheless, those who are familiar with the British labour movement say that since the miners’ strike the British proletariat is no longer the same. The workers have learned to fight. They have come to see the path that will lead them to victory. They have become aware of their strength. They have ceased to be the meek lambs they seemed to be for so long a time to the joy of all the defenders and extollers of wage-slavery.
In Britain a change has taken place in the balance of social forces, a change that cannot be expressed in figures but is felt by all.
Unfortunately, there is not much progress in Party affairs in Britain. The split between the British Socialist Party (formerly the Social-Democratic Federation) and the Independent (of socialism) Labour Party persists. The opportunist conduct of the M.P.s belonging to the latter party is giving rise, as always happens, to syndicalist tendencies among the workers. Fortunately, these tendencies are not strong.
The British trade unions are slowly but surely turning towards socialism, in spite of the many Labour M.P.s who stubbornly champion the old line of liberal labour policy. But it is beyond the power of these last of the Mohicans to retain the old line!
Don't worry. I'm halfway through right now and will finish by tomorrow or this evening. Hopefully I have some comments then!
Thanks
It's good to get some feedback. Understandably, with the long gaps between updates, people will lose track and probably won't want to read back to refresh themselves.
I'm now working on the period up to the outbreak of WW1. The major changes won't hit until after the war, which won't end quite as it did in OTL. I have a feeling my original idea of "jackboots on Tyneside in 1947" may also change into something a bit more subtle, although possibly just as bad, but we'll see.
I'm going to try my best to keep to a regular schedule of updates, even if they are small ones. I need to update the Bibliography too.
It's good to get some feedback. Understandably, with the long gaps between updates, people will lose track and probably won't want to read back to refresh themselves.
I'm now working on the period up to the outbreak of WW1. The major changes won't hit until after the war, which won't end quite as it did in OTL. I have a feeling my original idea of "jackboots on Tyneside in 1947" may also change into something a bit more subtle, although possibly just as bad, but we'll see.
I'm going to try my best to keep to a regular schedule of updates, even if they are small ones. I need to update the Bibliography too.
Britain at war
The intricacies of setting up the entry of the UK into WW1 in the right context for the post war nastiness I envisage is proving a bit trickier than I thought. However there are some more 'context' posts to come in the next day or so.
The intricacies of setting up the entry of the UK into WW1 in the right context for the post war nastiness I envisage is proving a bit trickier than I thought. However there are some more 'context' posts to come in the next day or so.
Civilian Force restructures
The Civilian Force
Abercorn, President
C. E. StJ. Blenkinsopp, Secretary
Governance
The Force will consist of Service Members, Honorary Members and Patrons under the control of a Grand Council.
Grand Council
The Grand Council shall consist of British Subjects elected (irrespective of sectarian or party consideration) purely out of regard for their patriotism, reputation, influence, knowledge, experience, and ability to direct and assist the Force in attaining its objects.
The Grand Council may from time to time co-opt additional members from amongst the following categories, or persons recommended by them.
The Grand Council shall elect from its members a President, Honorary Secretary, and Honorary Treasurer.
The Grand Council, or an elected Officer acting in its stead, may employ such other persons as may be required to support them in directing the work of the Force.
Service Members
Members are divided into the following classes:
Patrons
Members
Originally agreed by the Grand Council, February 16th 1912,
Amended November 11th, 1912
Abercorn, President
C. E. StJ. Blenkinsopp, Secretary
Service Members may be formed into companies consisting of 120 men. Each Company shall be commanded by a Captain, who shall be appointed by Headquarters.
Composition of a company
One Captain
Two Lieutenants
Two Sub-Lieutenants
One Medical Officer
One Company Sergeant-Major
Ten Section Sergeants
One Signalling Sergeant
One Commissariat Sergeant
One Hospital Sergeant
One Hundred and twenty men
Company Equipment
Each man in a company will be issued with a uniform of a soft grey colour, unrelieved by any conspicuous facings. Uniform of Officers and Sergeants will be likewise, with appropriate insignia. All company members will be issued in addition with a helmet for active service and a cap for other duties, together with a whistle, numbered shoulder badge and appropriate weapon of defence.
The
Civilian Force
Headquarters:
100, Victoria Street, S. W.
________
Aims and Objects
Civilian Force
Headquarters:
100, Victoria Street, S. W.
________
Aims and Objects
- To assist as a Civil Force in the maintenance of Law and Order and the preservation of the peace of the Realm.
- To provide a Reserve Force available for the maintenance of Internal Order during the absence of the Regular Forces in times of War or other National Emergency.
- To oppose all those who advocate the use of force or violence in attacks upon the British Constitution, the destruction of National Institutions, the seizure of private property, the coercion of free labour, interference with personal liberty, or revolutionary objects of any kind.
- To render help to operators of Railways, Ships, Docks, Tramways, Electric Power, Light, Sanitation, or other Public Services in the maintenance and operation of such Services in times of Emergency.
- To insure the community at large against starvation, famine or deprivation of food, milk, coal or other necessities of life when a paralysis of the existing sources of supply is threatened.
- To supplement the various Corps available for Special Constables, Life-boat, Fire Brigade, Salvage, Ambulance or similar.
- To provide a system of physical and moral training for young men, to render them proficient in some branch of public service, to educate their sense of public spirit and patriotism, and to equip them for the full discharge of the responsibilities of Citizenship.
Abercorn, President
C. E. StJ. Blenkinsopp, Secretary
~~~
GOVERNANCE AND COMPOSITION
OF
THE CIVILIAN FORCE.
GOVERNANCE AND COMPOSITION
OF
THE CIVILIAN FORCE.
Governance
The Force will consist of Service Members, Honorary Members and Patrons under the control of a Grand Council.
Grand Council
The Grand Council shall consist of British Subjects elected (irrespective of sectarian or party consideration) purely out of regard for their patriotism, reputation, influence, knowledge, experience, and ability to direct and assist the Force in attaining its objects.
The Grand Council may from time to time co-opt additional members from amongst the following categories, or persons recommended by them.
- Lords Lieutenants, High Sherrifs, Chairmen of Quarter Sessions or of County Councils, Recorders, Stipendiary or other Magistrates.
- Chambers of Commerce, Railway, Dock, Shipping, or Transport Companies and other industrial undertakings.
- Banks, Insurance Companies, &c.
The Grand Council shall elect from its members a President, Honorary Secretary, and Honorary Treasurer.
The Grand Council, or an elected Officer acting in its stead, may employ such other persons as may be required to support them in directing the work of the Force.
Service Members
Members are divided into the following classes:
Special Service Members - being those who are willing to serve throughout the kingdom, and hold themselves in readiness to start at short notice in Flying Columns.
Trade Service Members – being those who are willing to serve in any prescribed trade for the protection of their own business or employment, or with the consent of their employers, for the protection of other concerns of a similar kind.
Service Members – being those who join the force for active service in case of need within a prescribed area.
Patrons
Special Patrons are Donors of at least £500, for the purpose of equipping two Companies of 120 men each.
Ordinary Patrons are Donors of £250, for the equipment of one Company of 120 men.
Members
Honorary Members - being Donors of £2 10s., the cost of equipment of one Service Member of a Company.
Ordinary Members - being Annual Subscribers of One Guinea or more to the General Funds of the Force.
Originally agreed by the Grand Council, February 16th 1912,
Amended November 11th, 1912
Abercorn, President
C. E. StJ. Blenkinsopp, Secretary
~~~
Organisation of the Civilian Force
Organisation of the Civilian Force
Service Members may be formed into companies consisting of 120 men. Each Company shall be commanded by a Captain, who shall be appointed by Headquarters.
Composition of a company
One Captain
Two Lieutenants
Two Sub-Lieutenants
One Medical Officer
One Company Sergeant-Major
Ten Section Sergeants
One Signalling Sergeant
One Commissariat Sergeant
One Hospital Sergeant
One Hundred and twenty men
Company Equipment
Each man in a company will be issued with a uniform of a soft grey colour, unrelieved by any conspicuous facings. Uniform of Officers and Sergeants will be likewise, with appropriate insignia. All company members will be issued in addition with a helmet for active service and a cap for other duties, together with a whistle, numbered shoulder badge and appropriate weapon of defence.
Last edited:
Interlude - letter to Times
Letter to the Editor, Times Newspaper, published March 13th 1913
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,-I am a West-end shopkeeper of 28 years standing. My windows were broken in the recent disorders, and as I am a woman I should, according to anti-suffragist logic, stand in particular need of protection by the laws I have no hand in framing. The Queen's Hall meeting yesterday was convened by a committee of West-end tradesmen whose business largely depends upon the support of women, either in trade or otherwise. No tradeswoman or woman shopkeeper was asked to come on that committee or to be among the speakers, nor-to my knowledge-was any woman in the trade consulted as to the procedure or resolutions. When I, as a West-end shopkeeper, asked to be allowed to move the following amendment to the first resolution-”That this meeting calls upon the Government to put a stop to the suffragette disorders by removing the cause of their grievance”-I was shouted down, and had it not been for the determined intervention of those beside me, I should have been roughly handled by several members of the new civilian force, who, paying no attention to the chairman's shouting “Let the lady speak!” forced their way through rows of occupied stalls with an evident intention of violent action. I am an old woman of frail appearance and yet the majority of men present shouted “Turn her out!” the instant I stood up, thus creating disorder and encouraging violence. No better demonstration is needed to show how little women count when men think they can safely ignore or ill treat them. So much for British fair play and much-vaunted chivalry.Yours faithfully,
A E ATHERTON
Fine Arts Society, New Bond-street, March 12
A E ATHERTON
Fine Arts Society, New Bond-street, March 12
Last edited:
National Railway Strike 1913
The Times, Tuesday, June 10th 1913
The declaration of a national strike was made at a meeting of the national executive of the Transport Workers' Federation, held in a Committee-room of the House of Commons last night. A crisis in the London dock dispute had been reached in the course of the day, and upon the breakdown of the negotiations which had been initiated by the Government between masters and men, the transport workers carried out their threat of taking national action in support of their demands. Shortly before 9 o'clock the following telegram was sent to every centre in the country:-
The representatives of the men, who had been waiting at the House of Commons for some time, met the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other Ministers after the conference with the employers, and the latters' reply was communicated to them. The National Executive of the Transport Workers' Federation met immediately afterwards in a Committee Room of the House and came to their decision to recommend a national stoppage. They further drew up a manifesto explaining the nature of their grievance, and asking their fellow trade unionists for immediate aid in money and kind.
The notice is signed by Father Hopkins and Mr. Richard McGhee (trustees), and Mr. Peter Wright (chairman of the Executive Council).
Many bodies of employers have sent protests to the Prime Minister against the Home Secretary's attitude with regard to the protection of free labour. The Shipping Federation has sent the following message:–
The secretary of the Civilian Force, Mr Blenkinsopp has also been in communication with the Home Secretary and with the Shipping Federation as follows : –
Mr McKenna has made no statement on this suggestion. Mr Brett, the secretary of the Shipping Federation said that individual ship owners had been made use of volunteers from the Civilian Force already, both to protect workers and to supplement labour on the dockside. Mr Brett denied the statement that members of the Civilian Force had been armed by the Federation with revolvers. “As far as we are concerned,” he said, “we have not provided them with any weapons at all.”
A NATIONAL STRIKE DECLARED.
*
MINISTERS' PLAN REJECTED BY EMPLOYERS.
*
FEDERATION IMPRACTICABLE.
*
WORKERS' APPEAL TO THE PORTS.
A national strike of transport workers was decided upon last night. About 300,000 men employed in the ports of the United Kingdom are affected by this decision, and there is grave danger of a serious dislocation of the shipping trade of the country similar to that which was the central feature of the industrial troubles of 1911 and 1912. The trade union leaders do not expect that their recommendation of a general stoppage will take place immediately. They are looking for an early response to the call from the Bristol Channel Ports, the Humber and the North-East Coast. They expect the Mersey, the Clyde, the English Channel and the Irish ports to fall into line as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made locally. The Liverpool men have an agreement, the terms of which will presumably be observed as far as giving notice is concerned. The Scottish transport workers are understood to be lukewarm towards an extension of the London troubles to their country, and workers in other districts do not seem to be favourable to a national stoppage on a sectional issue. In Dublin and Belfast especially, other local differences seem likely to weigh heaviest, especially in light of the recent disturbances in Belfast and other Ulster ports. The immediate problem is, therefore, as to how far the sailors dockers, carters, and the rest will respond to the call. It is unlikely that there will be so unanimous and enthusiastic a response as there was in 1911, and there seems little prospect for the moment of an extension of the trouble to the railwaymen, who, of course, are not affiliated to the Transport Workers' Federation. A number of the more bellicose branches of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants have passed resolutions of sympathy with the London transport workers, and have threatened not to handle traffic diverted from the Port. The great mass of railwaymen, however, do not seem at the moment to be ready or willing to enter the lists with the transport workers as they have done in previous years. Still a strike of greater or less dimensions at every port in the kingdom is certain to take place immediately.*
MINISTERS' PLAN REJECTED BY EMPLOYERS.
*
FEDERATION IMPRACTICABLE.
*
WORKERS' APPEAL TO THE PORTS.
POSITION OF THE SEAMEN'S UNION
The most significant feature of the recent meetings of the Transport Workers' executive is that, though the provincial delegates are known to have come to London in a spirit hostile to the declaration of a national strike, they acquiesced in it when the grievances of the London men were placed before them. The leaders, therefore, in every port will undoubtedly recommend their members to comply with the decision of the executive. They have, however, at the start to reckon with the attitude of the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union. This body, on hearing of the declaration of the strike, issued late last night a manifesto, stating that none of their members was authorized to comply with the decision of the Transport Workers' Federation until one of their rules, necessitating a ballot of the union, had been put into effect.The declaration of a national strike was made at a meeting of the national executive of the Transport Workers' Federation, held in a Committee-room of the House of Commons last night. A crisis in the London dock dispute had been reached in the course of the day, and upon the breakdown of the negotiations which had been initiated by the Government between masters and men, the transport workers carried out their threat of taking national action in support of their demands. Shortly before 9 o'clock the following telegram was sent to every centre in the country:-
Employers point blank refuse to accept proposals for settlement. National executive recommends general stoppage at once.
POSITION OF THE EMPLOYERS.
Representatives of various groups of masters had met in the morning to consider the Government's scheme to end the deadlock in the Port of London – the creation of a Joint Board representing both parties, and the deposit of monetary guarantees to guard against the breaking of agreement by either side. The meetings in the main found the former proposal impracticable and the latter reasonable. It is understood however that in most cases the view was strongly expressed that the displacement of men who are now working by the reinstatement of strikers in their old positions – a point strongly pressed by the trade union leaders – could not be conceded. The various groups met jointly in the afternoon and came to similar conclusions, special stress being laid on the impracticability of federating efficiently the employers in the transport trade. The Port of London Authority also held a meeting and decided to decline the proposals of the Government. The representatives of the various interests accordingly proceeded to Westminster and explained their position to the Government, who were represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Buxton, Mr McKenna, Mr Burns, Mr McKinnon-Wood, Lord Beauchamp, and the Attorney-General. Sir George Askwith was also present. When the employers had indicated their attitude – according to an official statement issued last night – Lord Devonport, in answer to a question by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that the employers had no further counter-proposals to make. They were unable to agree on the principle underlying the Government's proposals.The representatives of the men, who had been waiting at the House of Commons for some time, met the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other Ministers after the conference with the employers, and the latters' reply was communicated to them. The National Executive of the Transport Workers' Federation met immediately afterwards in a Committee Room of the House and came to their decision to recommend a national stoppage. They further drew up a manifesto explaining the nature of their grievance, and asking their fellow trade unionists for immediate aid in money and kind.
STRENGTH OF THE FEDERATION.
Apart from London the strength of the Federation lies principally in Liverpool and Hull. The following is a full list of the unions affiliated to the Federation, together with an estimate of the membership given at the Headquarters of the Federation: –[list elided]
STRIKE LEADERS' MANIFESTO.
The following manifesto is being issued to the transport workers at all the ports : –STRIKE LEADERS' MANIFESTO.
Brothers, – After protracted efforts to prevent the dispute and prolonged efforts to stay the present one we have reached a deadlock. The employers have refused (a) to recognise the right of the transport workers as trade unionists; (b) they have refused to act as a responsible body of employers to observe agreements; (c) they have refused to recognize the legal bond of contract and agreement or the Government's offer of a Court to enforce terms of settlement; (d) they depend upon the use of brutal weapons of starvation and intimidation, police and military repression, and now threaten private armies, to beat us; (e) We have had agreements, awards, and legal judgements thrown aside; (f) we have had our wages filched to a very large sum covering the period since our settlement.
We now ask you, our fellow transport workers, to join at once in co-operation with us in a national effort to protect our right of organization. To our fellow trade unionists and labour sympathizers and friends of justice in the national traditions of freedom we appeal for assistance. We ask your immediate aid in money and kind assistance, also in housing, and feeding the children. We request your immediate assistance.
A WARNING TO SEAMEN.
The following manifesto is being issued to all members of the National Sailors' and Firemens' Union: –
Be it known that no member of the above union is authorised to comply with the manifesto of the National Transport Workers' Federation, calling a general national strike, until Rule 13 of the National Sailors' and Firemens' Union has been carried into effect. By this rule the executive has – (a) to state the circumstances of the dispute to the branches of the union; (b) take the vote of all the members at home and willing to vote; (c) the voting must be by ballot, and be open for four successive days; (d) the votes must be sent up to the Executive Council.
“Without the consent of a majority of members ashore at the time, no general strike shall be proclaimed” (Rule 13, section 2)
The notice is signed by Father Hopkins and Mr. Richard McGhee (trustees), and Mr. Peter Wright (chairman of the Executive Council).
– – –
THE PROTECTION OF WORKERS
PROTESTS AGAINST MR. McKENNA'S POLICY
THE PROTECTION OF WORKERS
PROTESTS AGAINST MR. McKENNA'S POLICY
Many bodies of employers have sent protests to the Prime Minister against the Home Secretary's attitude with regard to the protection of free labour. The Shipping Federation has sent the following message:–
The Shipping Federation Federation protests against the refusal of the Home Secretary to provide protection for men carrying on work during the strike, from attacks by strikers, which refusal amounts to encouragement by the Government of lawless interference with the fundamental rights of citizenship and threatens to subvert the basis of industry.
Similar telegrams came from the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, the Farmers' Federation, the Scottish Employers' Federation of Iron and Steel Founders, and the Potters' Federation.HOME SECRETARY'S STATEMENT.
In reply to the various protests from Employers, Mr McKenna has circulated the following statement: –The representations which I earlier mentioned as having reached me were made verbally and no record of them has been kept. The communication with the Chief Constable of Essex were entirely by telephone. He reported that he anticipated a demonstration by strikers from Grays and Tilbury against Messrs. Houlder's boat the American Transport, unloading timber with labour imported from Newport, at Purfleet, and he asked that troops or Metropolitan Police should be sent. In reply he was reminded that the responsibility for requisitioning troops rests with the magistrates, and later, after the Commissioner of Police had been consulted, he was informed that 100 foot police and 25 mounted police could be sent in the afternoon, but with notice in the following terms: – “Special protection is in the present circumstances to be given by the Metropolitan Police only (1) for the food supply; (2) guarding oil stores; (3) to deal with actual disturbances which have arisen, whatever the circumstances. If they are not required for these purposes, they cannot be spared from London, where there services are more urgently needed.” The Chief Constable replied that with the above limitations, he did not wish the Metropolitan Police to be sent.
STATEMENT FROM CIVILIAN FORCE
The secretary of the Civilian Force, Mr Blenkinsopp has also been in communication with the Home Secretary and with the Shipping Federation as follows : –
The Grand Council considers the threat posed to the well being of the Kingdom by the present dispute to be extremely serious, following as it does on similar events in the past two years. I am instructed therefore to place the entire resources of the Civilian Force in support of the Government or employers and any law-abiding member of the community wishing to remain at work.
Mr McKenna has made no statement on this suggestion. Mr Brett, the secretary of the Shipping Federation said that individual ship owners had been made use of volunteers from the Civilian Force already, both to protect workers and to supplement labour on the dockside. Mr Brett denied the statement that members of the Civilian Force had been armed by the Federation with revolvers. “As far as we are concerned,” he said, “we have not provided them with any weapons at all.”
Last edited:
Nice last updates. I have sadly not much to comment on, but I really like the style of this timeline, especially Atherton's letter to the editor in these last updates. That this timeline emphasize how (partly overlapping) different groupings interact with each other, rather than focus on a specific group, makes it a very enjoyable read.
Keep up the good work, -KZ
Keep up the good work, -KZ
I have to confess that both Atherton's letter to the Times and the Times article following are almost verbatim from the originals, although they both date from 1911, rather than 1913. The changes I made were to exaggerate the impact of the Civilian Force. The CF did exist, but was one of several such. I don't think it survived the death of Lord Abercorn in early 1913, which I've used as an opportunity for Arrow to move in - as the eminence gris behind Blenkinsopp.
So far life in this TL is much as it was in reality - just a bit more violent, and the violence is more protracted and more widespread. I'm not giving anything away by saying that there will be a crunch point in 1914 around the outbreak of WW1 in OTL at which point we get a major swarm of butterflies.
So far life in this TL is much as it was in reality - just a bit more violent, and the violence is more protracted and more widespread. I'm not giving anything away by saying that there will be a crunch point in 1914 around the outbreak of WW1 in OTL at which point we get a major swarm of butterflies.
Askwith looks back
Address to the Founding Conference of the National Citizen's Union (formerly the Middle Classes' Union) December 19th, 1925 by the President, George Ranken Askwith, Baron Askwith of St Ives in the County of Huntingdon.
Today's meeting is the Founding Conference of a new patriotic organisation. It is true that technically we are simply renaming an existing group. However with that new name comes a new approach and a new focus for our activities. We are casting aside the prejudices which arose, whether by misjudgement or misrepresentation, from our old name. We intend a much wider appeal and to work more closely with other organisations with similar aims. The core of all our activities though will be the renewal of representative government and opposition to the use of direct action for political purposes, such as has become so commonplace these past ten years.
I first wish briefly to rehearse some of the key events which I believe brought us to our present fractured and unhappy position, beginning with the conflicts in Parliament – and outside it – over the powers of the House of Lords that came to a head in the passage of the Parliament Act of 1911. Until that Act, the Lords had equal rights over legislation compared to the Commons, but did not utilise its right of veto over financial measures by convention. As a member of that august body, although not at that time, I hope I may be forgiven for saying that collectively their Lordships in 1909 were extremely conservative and immensely powerful but sadly, quite stupid. Their decision to break with convention and reject Mr Lloyd George's budget in 1909 was profoundly damaging and the trigger for the downfall of Mr Balfour and his replacement by Mr Bonar Law. In turn, it was his decision to use the Ulster issue as a weapon against the Liberal Party, even to the point of endorsing the threat of violence against the settled wish of Parliament that brought us to our present predicament.
Lest you think I am guilty of hyperbole, I simply repeat: – the Ulster Volunteer Force was created as an armed milita, with the explicit aim of resisting the settled will of Parliament. In normal times that might be considered seditious and yet it had the express support of the Opposition party in Parliament, publicly offered on numerous occasions by Mr Bonar Law and others. Once such a thing comes to pass it is inevitable that others would say, and indeed they did, “If His Majesty's Loyal Opposition can condone such actions, then so can we.” It was as inevitable as night follows day. And of course, once these become the norm, then others, even less scrupulous, will seize their chance – and indeed they did. So we saw the Republican Militias in Ireland and the tragedy of 1916-17, we saw the creation in England of the so-called 'Civilian Force', by the late Lord Abercorn out of a desire to protect vital services during industrial disputes, but with the precedent of the UVF converted after his death into a similar and disciplined force organised on military lines. In response, especially after the intervention of the Civilian Force in the 1913 transport strike we saw the Workers' Defence League, and others, poorly armed at first, but willing to use any means to enforce their socialist cause.
None of these militias would have existed had it not been for the decision in 1911 by Mr Bonar Law to make common cause between the Conservative Party and Mr Carson's Ulster Unionists. Once the Party showed itself willing to support the idea of violent resistance to decisions taken in Parliament, then they created a position whereby others might make the same fallacious claim to defence of Liberty.
And so I come to the critical year of 1913. You will recall that the year began with widespread violence across much of the North requiring the recall of two full regiments of infantry from Gibraltar and Malta. It was only after much bloody fighting that these disturbances were suppressed. They were however largely ad hoc, with only minor links between groups. Indeed by June of 1913, it seemed that we might see happier times ahead. Industrial unrest had receded and from almost 3 million days lost to strikes in 1912, days lost to strikes by the end of May 1913 had fallen to less than 100,000. Sadly this was not to be so, with the outbreak of yet another transport strike in June. This began, as had so many previously, in the Port of London, but rapidly spread to Liverpool and other areas. The nominal cause was the old question of non-unionism, where the employers continually refused any undertaking to restrict themselves to union labour – and, once the strike had begun, even to talk to the leaders. This was not new – this sort of posturing from both sides was well known to me. I had always found that a degree of straight speaking from me allowed progress and brought the parties together. I did this in Hull in 1911 for example, even though a local town councillor described the conditions in that town as being the worst he had seen since the Paris Commune.
I am sure, given the chance, I could have made similar progress in the 1913 dispute as it stood in August of 1913, but for one critical factor. In July of 1913, the then Secretary to the Civilian Force, Mr Blenkinsopp, a cashiered cavalry officer, persuaded the Grand Council of the Force to throw their entire resources, by then substantial, into the dispute. The beleaguered Shipping Federation accepted this offer with alacrity. The dispute was spreading beyond the ports and police resources were stretched. Support from the Metropolitan Police in Tilbury was for example only offered in such meagre numbers and on such stringent terms that it was ineffective. The Civilian Force provided some 400 men, some to replace strikers, the remainder to provide protection. Rumours that these men were to be armed were denied by the Shipping Federation so the Home Secretary declined to intervene.
We now know of course how matters went on that dreadful August day and their consequences. We have seen the world at war. We have seen the finest of our young slaughtered in unimaginable numbers. We have seen much of Europe fall under the yoke of socialism. Saddest of all we have seen the decline and degradation of our once noble country and its Empire. We cannot let this unhappy position persist. If Britain is to survive as a Nation, let alone the Empire, we cannot continue to settle our political differences by main force. A new politics is essential. Change must come and the National Citizens' Union intends to be in the van of securing that change. Let me now move on to the work ahead.
…
Today's meeting is the Founding Conference of a new patriotic organisation. It is true that technically we are simply renaming an existing group. However with that new name comes a new approach and a new focus for our activities. We are casting aside the prejudices which arose, whether by misjudgement or misrepresentation, from our old name. We intend a much wider appeal and to work more closely with other organisations with similar aims. The core of all our activities though will be the renewal of representative government and opposition to the use of direct action for political purposes, such as has become so commonplace these past ten years.
I first wish briefly to rehearse some of the key events which I believe brought us to our present fractured and unhappy position, beginning with the conflicts in Parliament – and outside it – over the powers of the House of Lords that came to a head in the passage of the Parliament Act of 1911. Until that Act, the Lords had equal rights over legislation compared to the Commons, but did not utilise its right of veto over financial measures by convention. As a member of that august body, although not at that time, I hope I may be forgiven for saying that collectively their Lordships in 1909 were extremely conservative and immensely powerful but sadly, quite stupid. Their decision to break with convention and reject Mr Lloyd George's budget in 1909 was profoundly damaging and the trigger for the downfall of Mr Balfour and his replacement by Mr Bonar Law. In turn, it was his decision to use the Ulster issue as a weapon against the Liberal Party, even to the point of endorsing the threat of violence against the settled wish of Parliament that brought us to our present predicament.
Lest you think I am guilty of hyperbole, I simply repeat: – the Ulster Volunteer Force was created as an armed milita, with the explicit aim of resisting the settled will of Parliament. In normal times that might be considered seditious and yet it had the express support of the Opposition party in Parliament, publicly offered on numerous occasions by Mr Bonar Law and others. Once such a thing comes to pass it is inevitable that others would say, and indeed they did, “If His Majesty's Loyal Opposition can condone such actions, then so can we.” It was as inevitable as night follows day. And of course, once these become the norm, then others, even less scrupulous, will seize their chance – and indeed they did. So we saw the Republican Militias in Ireland and the tragedy of 1916-17, we saw the creation in England of the so-called 'Civilian Force', by the late Lord Abercorn out of a desire to protect vital services during industrial disputes, but with the precedent of the UVF converted after his death into a similar and disciplined force organised on military lines. In response, especially after the intervention of the Civilian Force in the 1913 transport strike we saw the Workers' Defence League, and others, poorly armed at first, but willing to use any means to enforce their socialist cause.
None of these militias would have existed had it not been for the decision in 1911 by Mr Bonar Law to make common cause between the Conservative Party and Mr Carson's Ulster Unionists. Once the Party showed itself willing to support the idea of violent resistance to decisions taken in Parliament, then they created a position whereby others might make the same fallacious claim to defence of Liberty.
And so I come to the critical year of 1913. You will recall that the year began with widespread violence across much of the North requiring the recall of two full regiments of infantry from Gibraltar and Malta. It was only after much bloody fighting that these disturbances were suppressed. They were however largely ad hoc, with only minor links between groups. Indeed by June of 1913, it seemed that we might see happier times ahead. Industrial unrest had receded and from almost 3 million days lost to strikes in 1912, days lost to strikes by the end of May 1913 had fallen to less than 100,000. Sadly this was not to be so, with the outbreak of yet another transport strike in June. This began, as had so many previously, in the Port of London, but rapidly spread to Liverpool and other areas. The nominal cause was the old question of non-unionism, where the employers continually refused any undertaking to restrict themselves to union labour – and, once the strike had begun, even to talk to the leaders. This was not new – this sort of posturing from both sides was well known to me. I had always found that a degree of straight speaking from me allowed progress and brought the parties together. I did this in Hull in 1911 for example, even though a local town councillor described the conditions in that town as being the worst he had seen since the Paris Commune.
I am sure, given the chance, I could have made similar progress in the 1913 dispute as it stood in August of 1913, but for one critical factor. In July of 1913, the then Secretary to the Civilian Force, Mr Blenkinsopp, a cashiered cavalry officer, persuaded the Grand Council of the Force to throw their entire resources, by then substantial, into the dispute. The beleaguered Shipping Federation accepted this offer with alacrity. The dispute was spreading beyond the ports and police resources were stretched. Support from the Metropolitan Police in Tilbury was for example only offered in such meagre numbers and on such stringent terms that it was ineffective. The Civilian Force provided some 400 men, some to replace strikers, the remainder to provide protection. Rumours that these men were to be armed were denied by the Shipping Federation so the Home Secretary declined to intervene.
We now know of course how matters went on that dreadful August day and their consequences. We have seen the world at war. We have seen the finest of our young slaughtered in unimaginable numbers. We have seen much of Europe fall under the yoke of socialism. Saddest of all we have seen the decline and degradation of our once noble country and its Empire. We cannot let this unhappy position persist. If Britain is to survive as a Nation, let alone the Empire, we cannot continue to settle our political differences by main force. A new politics is essential. Change must come and the National Citizens' Union intends to be in the van of securing that change. Let me now move on to the work ahead.
…
Last edited: