Search Connexions

Connexions Library

Articles, Books, Documents, Periodicals, Audio-Visual


Title Index

Author Index

Subject Index

Chronological Index

Spotlight: Most Popular

Format Index

Dewey Index

Library of Congress Index

Español

Français

Deutsch


Connexipedia:

Connexipedia Title Index

Connexipedia Subject Index

Connexipedia: People

Connexipedia: Events

Connexipedia:
  Movements/Organizations


Search the Library

Connexions Directory
Groups & Websites

Subject Index

Associations Index

SOURCES: Media Spokespeople

Search the Directory

Selected Resources by
Subject Area

Donate or Volunteer

Your support makes our work possible. Please Donate Today

Please Donate Today!
Volunteer and Internship opportunities

1926 United Kingdom general strike

The Subsidised Mineowner - Poor Beggar!
from the Trade Union Unity Magazine (1925)

The 1926 General Strike in the United Kingdom was a general strike that lasted ten days, from 3 May 1926 to 13 May 1926. It was called by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in an unsuccessful attempt to force the British government to act to prevent wage reduction and worsening conditions for coal miners.

Contents

[edit] History

[edit] Causes of the 1926 conflict

Foraging for coal in the strike
Tyldesley miners outside the Miners Hall during the strike

Mine owners therefore announced that their intention was to reduce miners' wages, the MFGB rejected the terms: "Not a penny off the pay, not a minute on the day." and the TUC responded to this news by promising to support the miners in their dispute. The Conservative government under Stanley Baldwin decided to intervene, declaring that they would provide a nine-month subsidy to maintain the miners' wages and that a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Sir Herbert Samuel would look into the problems of the mining industry.

This decision became known as "Red Friday" because it was seen as a victory for working-class solidarity and Socialism. In practice, the subsidy gave the mine owners and the government time to prepare for a major labour dispute. Herbert Smith (a leader of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain) said of this event: "We have no need to glorify about victory. It is only an armistice."

The Samuel Commission published its report on March 10, 1926:[3] it recommended that in the future, national agreements, the nationalisation of royalties and sweeping reorganisation and improvement should be considered for the mining industry. The report also recommended that the government subsidy should be withdrawn and that the miners' wages should be reduced by 13.5% to save the industry's profitability.[4] Two weeks later, the Prime Minister announced that the government would accept the Report provided other parties also did.[5] A previous Royal Commission, the Sankey Commission, had recommended nationalisation a few years earlier to deal with the problems of productivity and profitability in the industry, but Lloyd George, then Prime Minister, had rejected its report.

After the Samuel Commission's report, the mine owners published new terms of employment for all miners. These included an extension of the seven-hour working day, district wage agreements, and a reduction in wages. Depending on a number of factors, the wages would be cut by between 10% and 25%. The mine owners declared that if the miners did not accept the new terms then from the first day of May they would be locked out of the pits. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain (MFGB) refused the wage reduction and regional negotiation.

[edit] The General Strike of May 1926

Final negotiations began on 1 May, where an agreement was almost reached. However one million miners were locked out, impossible to get them back to work without firm assurances concerning their wages. A deal could not be brokered despite last minute attempts and the TUC subsequently announced that a general strike "in defence of miners' wages and hours" was to begin on 3 May.[6]

The leaders of the Labour Party were terrified by the revolutionary elements within the union movement and were unhappy about the proposed General Strike. During the next two days frantic efforts were made to reach an agreement with the Government and the mine owners. However, these efforts failed, due mainly to an eleventh-hour decision by printers of the Daily Mail to refuse to print an editorial condemning the General Strike entitled "For King and Country". They objected to the following passage: "A general strike is not an industrial dispute. It is a revolutionary move which can only succeed by destroying the government and subverting the rights and liberties of the people". When Baldwin heard of this, he called off the negotiations with the TUC by saying that this refusal was interfering with the liberty of the press.

King George V took exception to suggestions that the strikers were 'revolutionaries' saying, "Try living on their wages before you judge them."[7]

The TUC feared that an all-out general strike would bring revolutionary elements to the fore. They decided to bring out workers only in the key industries, such as railwaymen, transport workers, printers, dockers and ironworkers and steelworkers.

The Government had prepared for the strike over the nine months in which it had provided a subsidy, creating organizations such as the Organization for the maintenance of supplies, and did whatever it could to keep the country moving. It rallied support by emphasizing the revolutionary nature of the strikers. The armed forces and volunteer workers helped maintain basic services. The government's Emergency Powers Act - an act to maintain essential supplies - had been passed in 1920.

On 4 May 1926, the number of strikers was about 1.5 - 1.75 million. There were strikers "from John o' Groats to Land's End". Workers' reaction to the strike call was immediate and overwhelming, and surprised both the Government and the TUC; the latter not being in control of the strike. On this first day, there were no major initiatives and no dramatic events, except for the nation's transport being at a standstill.

On 5 May 1926, both sides gave their views. Churchill (at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer) commented as editor of the government newspaper British Gazette : "I do not agree that the TUC have as much right as the Government to publish their side of the case and to exhort their followers to continue action. It is a very much more difficult task to feed the nation than it is to wreck it". In the British Worker, the TUC's newspaper: "We are not making war on the people. We are anxious that the ordinary members of the public shall not be penalized for the unpatriotic conduct of the mine owners and the government". In the meantime, the government put in place a "militia" of special constables, called the Organisation for the Maintenance of Supplies (OMS). They were volunteers to maintain order in the street. A special constable said: "It was not difficult to understand the strikers' attitude toward us. After a few days I found my sympathy with them rather than with the employers. For one thing, I had never realized the appalling poverty which existed. If I had been aware of all the facts, I should not have joined up as a special constable"[8]. It was decided that Fascists would not be allowed to enlist in the OMS without first giving up their political beliefs as the government feared a right-wing backlash so the fascists formed Q Division under Rotha Lintorn-Orman to combat the strikers.

On 6 May 1926, there was a change of atmosphere. Baldwin said: "The General Strike is a challenge to the parliament and is the road to anarchy". The government newspaper British Gazette suggested that means of transport began to improve with volunteers and blackleg workers, stating on the front page that there were '200 buses on the streets'.[9] These were however figures of propaganda as there were in fact only 86 buses running.[10]

On 7 May 1926, the TUC met with Sir Herbert Samuel and worked out a set of proposals designed to end the dispute. The Miners' Federation rejected the proposals. The British Worker was increasingly difficult to operate because Churchill had requisitioned the bulk of the supply of the paper's newsprint so reduced its size from eight pages to four.[11] In the meantime, the government took action to protect the men who decided to return to work.

On 8 May 1926, there was a dramatic moment on the London Docks. Lorries were protected by the army. They broke the picket line and transported food to Hyde Park. This episode showed that the government was in greater control of the situation. In a change of policy, the Army was chosen to move the lorries instead of the OMS.[citation needed] The volunteers who comprised the OMS were seen as reactionaries by the strikers and were often met with violence. Revisionist historians have claimed that use of the OMS in transport would have caused a revolution.[citation needed]

On 10 May 1926, the Flying Scotsman was derailed by strikers near Newcastle.

On 11 May 1926, the British Worker, alarmed at the fears of the General Council of the TUC that there was to be a mass drift back to work, claimed: "The number of strikers has not diminished; it is increasing. There are more workers out today than there have been at any moment since the strike began."

However, the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union applied for an injunction in the Chancery Division of the High Court, to enjoin the General-Secretary of its Tower Hill branch from calling its members out on strike. Mr Justice Astbury granted the injunction, ruling that no trade dispute could exist between the TUC and "the government of the nation"[12] and that, save for strike in the coal industry, the general strike was not protected by Trade Disputes Act 1906. In addition, he ruled that the strike in the plaintiff union had been called in contravention of its own rules[13]. As a result, the unions involved became liable at common law for incitement to breach of contract, and faced potential sequestration of their assets by employers.

On 12 May 1926, the TUC General Council visited 10 Downing Street to announce their decision to call off the strike, provided that the proposals worked out by the Samuel Commission were adhered to and that the Government offered a guarantee that there would be no victimization of strikers. The Government stated that it had "no power to compel employers to take back every man who had been on strike." Thus the TUC agreed to end the dispute without such an agreement.

[edit] Aftermath of the conflict

For several months the miners continued to maintain resistance, but by October 1926 hardship forced many men back, especially those with young families. By the end of November most miners were back at work. However, many remained unemployed for many years. Those that were employed were forced to accept longer hours, lower wages, and district wage agreements. The strikers felt as though they had achieved nothing.

In 1927, the British Government passed the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act. This act made all sympathetic strikes illegal, and ensured that trade union members had to voluntarily "contract in" to pay the political levy. It also forbade civil service unions from affiliating with the TUC, and made mass picketing illegal.

The effect on the British coal-mining industry was profound. By the late 1930s, employment in mining had fallen by more than one-third from its pre-strike peak of 1.2 million miners, but productivity had rebounded from under 200 tons produced per miner to over 300 tons by the outbreak of the Second World War.[14]

[edit] The 1926 General Strike in popular culture

The poet Hugh MacDiarmid composed an ultimately pessimistic lyrical response to the General Strike which he incorporated into his long modernist poem of the same year, A Drunk Man Looks at the Thistle. His imagistic depiction of how events unfolded occurs in the extended passage beginning "I saw a rose come loupin oot..." (line 1119).

The strike functions as the 'endpiece' of the satirical novel The Apes of God by Wyndham Lewis. In that novel the half-hearted nature of the strike, and its eventual collapse, represents the political and moral stagnation of 1920s Britain.

The failure of the strike inspired Idris Davies to write "Bells of Rhymney" (published 1938), which Pete Seeger made into the song "The Bells of Rhymney" (recorded 1958).

In the 1945 novel Brideshead Revisited, the main character, Charles Ryder, returns from France to London to fight against the workers on strike.

The 1967 BBC television adaptation of John Galsworthy's series of The Forsyte Saga novels, and its sequel trilogy A Modern Comedy depicts the episode.

The LWT series "Upstairs, Downstairs" devoted an episode entitled "The Nine Days Wonder" (original air date 2 November 1975) to the General Strike. The house is divided over the strike, with Lord Richard Bellamy and family siding with the government, and several of their servants supporting the miners, especially Ruby Finch, whose Uncle Len is a miner and has travelled to London as part of a miners' delegation from Barnsley.

"Touchstone," a 2007 novel by Laurie R. King, is set in the final weeks before the strike. The issues and factions involved, and an attempt to forestall the strike are key plot points.

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ^ Peter Mathias, The First Industrial Nation: An Economic History of Britain, 1700-1914. London: Routledge, 2001. Page 449.
  2. ^ http://www.claverton-energy.com/little-known-or-conveniently-forgotten-reason-for-1926-miners-strike-recalled-dr-fred-starr.html
  3. ^ Robertson, D.H. 'A Narrative of the General Strike of 1926' The Economic Journal Vol. 36, no. 143 (Sept., 1926) p.376
  4. ^ Griffiths, D. A History of the NPA 1906-2006 (London: Newspaper Publishers Association, 2006) pg. 67
  5. ^ Robertson, D.H. p.377
  6. ^ Renshaw, P. The General Strike (London: Eyre Meuthen, 1975) pg. 157-160
  7. ^ David Sinclair, Two Georges: The Making of the Modern Monarchy. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1988. Page 105.
  8. ^ http://www.nottinghamshireexminer.com/Nottinghamshire-NUM-Area-History
  9. ^ 'Why Walk to Work?' British Worker Issue 2 (May 6th 1926), pg.1
  10. ^ Symons, J. The General Strike (London: Cresset Press, 1957) pg. 158
  11. ^ 'The British Worker and Paper Supplies,' The Times (8th May 1926), pg.4
  12. ^ Lee S. J. 1996 Aspects of British Political History 1914-1995 p 90]
  13. ^ The Legality of the General Strike in England A. L. Goodhart The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Feb., 1927), pp. 464-485 Published by: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.
  14. ^ Mathias, The First Industrial Nation, pg. 449.

[edit] External links




Related topics in the Connexions Subject Index

Alternatives  –  Left History  –  Libraries & Archives  –  Social Change  – 


This article is based on one or more articles in Wikipedia, with modifications and additional content contributed by Connexions editors. This article, and any information from Wikipedia, is covered by a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).

We welcome your help in improving and expanding the content of Connexipedia articles, and in correcting errors. Connexipedia is not a wiki: please contact Connexions by email if you wish to contribute. We are also looking for contributors interested in writing articles on topics, persons, events and organizations related to social justice and the history of social change movements.

For more information contact Connexions