Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

17 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

South Wales Coal Crisis. ..

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

South Wales Coal Crisis. SLIDING SCALE AGREEMENT. GENERAL CONFERENCE AT CARDIFF. The Split Ameng the Leaefors. On Monday a general conference of the South Wales and Monmouthshire Collieries workmen was held in St. John's Hall, Cardiff, to receive the report of negotiations with the employers re withdrawal of notices, and to consider the request of the hauliers for separate representation on the Sliding Scale Joint Com- mittee. Mr W. Abraham, M.P. (Mabon), pre- sided. There was a very large attendance—87 delegates, representing 56,185 men. THE LONDON AGREEMENT. The CHAIRMAN explained that at the last con- ference the miners' representatives on the Sliding Scale were empowered to seek another interview with the employers, and to make the best arrange- ment they could with respect to the Sliding Scale agreement. That resolution had been carried by 62 votes against 35 for a proposal to form a con- ciliation board for governing workmen's wages. Acting on that instruction, and believing it was necessary to hold such a meeting at the first opportunity, the workmen's representatives un- hesitatingly agreed to meet the employers' representatives at the Westminster PalacejHotei, London, on March 27eh. On the following day "be following agreement was come to :— It is hereby mutually agreed between the under. llgned employers' and workmen's representatives that the notice given by the workmen's representatives on the 1st October, 1894, to terminate the Sliding Scale Agreement of the 1st January, 1892, on the 31st March, 1895, is hereby withdrawn, and also that the notices jiven by the employers on the 1st March, 1895, to ter- minate contracts on the 31st March, 1895, are also withdrawn. The members of the Joint Committee (with one exception) are unanimously agreed that they will recommend to the employers embraced in the Mon. mouthshire Coalowners' Association, and to the workmen employed at the Associated Collieries respec- tively, that the Sliding Scale Agreement dated the 1st sf January, 1892. shall continue in force until the SI)th H September, 1896 (being terminable by a six months' notice to be given by either side not earlier than the 1st of April, 1896), and thenceforth until either party S'ves six months' notice in accordance with Clause 5 of e Memorandum of, Agreement dated the 17th 'February, 1893. W. THOMAS LEWIS, ARCHIBALD HOOD, EDWARD JONES, w ILLIAM THOMAS, ORAEME OGILVIE, CHARLES H. EDEN, JAMES WILLIAMS, FRED L. DAVIS, EDWARD DAVIES. T. FORSTKK BROWN, EDWARD P. MARTIN. WILLIAM ABRAHAM, THOMAS RICHARDS, JOHN MORGAN, THOMAS R. THOMAS. ALFRED ONIONS, DAVID BEYNON, PHILIP GEORGE, THOMAS DAVIES, T. D. ISAAC, ISAAC EDWARDS. Witness to the signatures of the parties hereto :— W" GASCOYNE DAIZIFL, Joint Secretaries. LEWIS MILES, Jomt The agreement had been signed by all the representatives on the part of the employers, and, with one exception by those who represented the workmen. AN UNPLEASANT REPORT. Mr THOMAS RICHARDS, in giving a detailed --eport of what took place at the meet- ing in London, said he felt this was »ne of the most unpleasant reports the -representati ves bad had to give to the miners ot South Wales and Monmonthshire. tHear, hear, and I believe so.") But they had to justify their action when they met the impioyers, and before 'oing so he would ltate, what the chalrm < had omitted, that Ahey had met at Cardif to receive the result if the ballot, the figures be ag :—For withdrawal jf notices, 41,356 for the jrmation of a concilia- lion board, 24,109; a majority of 17,247 Ju favour of withdrawal of the notice Ken to terminate the Sliding Scale Agreement. e employers' representatives pub it to them )hat a longer period of time should be given if the notices were withe.-awn, but the workmen's representatives did not t sel justified in accepting '(bat, and the em ioyers said if that mere not done tii. y were not prepared to withdraw their notices. The workmen's representatives considi ved the proposal that the present six months' p riod of notice should be Mctended. A section f the committee were in favour of not making ay recommendation at all, but to let the matter go on as be- Tore, and the majority decided that they should make an extension beyond the six months. Mr David Morgan spoke strongly against making any recommendation whatever, and not only so, but told the others of the workmen's representatives that they were awards if they agreed to the terms pro- posed. ("Oh!") The other members of the com- W. 'tt,c ciiought the course they took was the best, the opinion that prevailed being that if they could, without sacrificing very much, secure the withdrawal of the notices given it would avoid a struggle, for the men were not prepared to enter into a struggle now. They felt it was better to recommend the workmen to agree to a longer period than six months than enter into a conflict with the employers. Unfortunately Mr Morgan did not fall in with the majority, hence the explanation. On the Thursday they met the employers and told them that if the latter were agreed to withdraw their notices to terminate contracts the workmen's representatives were pre- pared to recommend to the workmen that they should not give notice to terminate the agree- ment before April next year, and that the agree- ment should exist for 12 months certain. Mr Morgan communicated to the em- ployers his dissent from the decision of his colleagues. It also appeared that the representa- tives on the employers' side were not unanimous in agreeing to the terms arranged, but the mino- rity had fallen in with the majority. Some of the employers said this appeared to be an oppor- tune time for going in for a fair percentage, %nd that was 7% per cent. If Mr Morgan had not spoken in such a strong manner the speaker might have bowed to his wisdom, but in view of the strong remarks and the facts of the case he could not agree with him. He thought they had given Mr Morgan sufficient proof that they were no cowards—(hear, hear)—and they were 10 to 1. Mr MORGAN I'll take the ten of you. (Laugh- ter.) A DELEGATE That is a matter between your- selves. Mr RICHABDS replied that it having been made publio an explanation should be made, and stated that it was through no fear or favour that he signed the agreement come to. He believed it was chu best policy to be carried out for the benefit of the miners. (Hear, hear.) The men themselves had decided by a large majority that they were willing to withdraw notice. It was also thought that probably during the ensuing 12 months something mutual might be done as between the men and the employers. But he was convinced that if they were to have a better arrangement in the Sliding Scale terms theymust force the bands of the employers, as they would not likely get anytbingoy mutual agreement. If they were to have a minimum wage, they ought to prepare for it, and it was worth while pre- paring for it during the 12 months. The employers had already told the workmen that as far as they were concerned the present arrangement was the utmost limit to which they could go, and that it even operated against them, and be did not feel that the question whether the Scale should last six months or longer was a matter to fight over. {Hear, hear.) If the men were to fight at all, let lbom fight for better terms. The CHAIRMAN, in reply to Mr W. Brace, ex- plained that the first clause of the arrangement come to in London was binding and the second part was not. If they rejected the recommenda- tion the ;workmen would be at liberty to give notice at the end of six months. He had hoped the recommendation would be accepted. Mr T. DARONWY ISAAC repeated in Welsh what Mr Richards had stated, and mentioned that the chairman on the employers' side apolo- gised for putting the workmen's representatives to the trouble and cost of meeting them in London. MR DAVID MORGAN'S POSITION. Mr DAVID MORGAN said it was painful for him to differ from his colleagues in such a matter, but he had only done what he considered to be his duty. (Hear, hear.) The chairman seemed to have put what he would call a false founda- tion stone down, not intentionally, but without knowing it, because he was not at the last meeting, and did not know the circumstances that led to the resolution which he had read. The CHAIRMAN I was at the last meeting. t" Yes, yes," and laughter.) Mr MORGAN Then you are more responsible. (Laugh ter.) The CHAIRMAN Well, that is the first false position. (Laughter.) Mr MOEGAN I say you are all the more re- sponsible. Proceeding, Mr Morgan said the whole issue was on the ballot paper, and from that ballot paper the representatives had a mis- sion to London, and that was that they did not do anything else than only agree to the result of the ballot. The ballot pap-r read thus For withdrawing notices aud continu- ing for the time being the present Scale." There was nothing more clear than that it meant to continue the then Scale, and that only for the time being. He understood the meaning of these words was that they should get the Sliding Scale continued, and that with the greatest chance of putting it on one side. As Mr Abraham put it to the employers in the first instance, We are here to withdraw the notices ourselves and ask you to withdraw yours, so that we can go on hereafter as if no notice had been given at all." They understood that they had nob the power to bind the men without coming back to consult them, aud that was the y>rrect view. That was that they should fall jack ou the mission, which meant that they had no plenary powers. Then if they hud uo power to bind the men for six months without coming 3»ck, they had no pledge to recommend, and 'j 'XHisidered he was justified :.) what he said in London. The CHAIRMAN protested against Mr Morgan putting words into the mouths of representatives, ALLEGED THEY EXCEEDED THEIR DUTY. III MCMAN objected to snob interruptions, and, proceeding, repeated that he was justified in what he said in Lon. don, namely, that his friends exceeded their duty. and that they had no power whatever to go beyond withdrawing the notices. He had used a very hard word, it was true, in the com- mittee meeting (but nob before the employers) in charging his friends with cowardice. He admitted that he might perhaps have found a better word, and that was fear. They were, in his opinion, afraid of a boey. (Laughter.) They in that meeting were doubtless pleased that a strike had been averted but they were not more pleased than the employers were. He (the speaker) was the only dissentient at their end of the table. it was true. It was alleged that there were great dissensions on the employers' side. Sir William Thomas Lewis may have told Mr Tom Richards so. but he (the speaker) did not believe that the facts were as represented. He maintained that It was plain during the whole of the negotiations at Cardiff that the employers rose the 7% per cent. threat merely as a bogey in order to check the men's agitation for the 10 per cent. scale, and he was strongly of opinion that had his colleagues made the same stand as he had in London they would have returned with a clean sheet to go on with the old Scale without having given any pledge at all. His friends on this occasion had acted differently to what they had used to do. Previously they used to make a strong stand before the employers even when perhaps they were weak, but on this occa- sion the whole business transacted in London. even including the audit, did not occupy more than two hours altogether, so it was quite clear that they had not made the stand that they should have made. It was alleged that the difference between him and his colleagues meant merely an additional existence of six months tor the Scale ligreement. In reality, however, it meant 12 months, and they would nob be such fools as to give notice on the 1st of April to finish in October, and so face the winter with a light against all circumstances. He had been blamed for not signing and sacrificing; be was exceedingly sorry that be could not see his way clear to do so. Had the sacrifice meant personal sacrifice only for himself be would have done it but the sacrifice in his opinion was the sacrifice ot principle and a great sacrifice for the whole of the miners of South Wales and Monmouthshire. It involved extreme humiliation on their part, and they would never get him to play so humihating a part aa that, after be bad been before the em- ployers telling them that the men received 10 per cent. less in wages than they had a right to. He had said and he said it now, and he would chal- lenge any man to prove otherwise befor" man and God, that they were being robbed to-day of 10 per cent. of their wages. (Cries of Shame ") After this could they expect him to sign another docu- ment to continue Sir William Thomas Lewis as chairman 1 It was said that the Scale Committee was a Conciliation Board, but he saw no concilia- tion in it except when the employers had their own way. It was all conciliation then. Sir W. Thomas Lewis at the London meetings spoke as smooth as velvet—(laughter)—for he knew he was going to win. He was very different indeed to the Sir William they met at the Cardiff meetings wheri they were fighting for the rights of the men. Mr Abraham, the first day in London, put the case of the men in as excellent a manner as any man could put it. He (the speaker) was never more pleased in his life than he was with what Mr Abraham did on the first day, when he informed the employers that the men's representatives bad no power beyond withdrawing their notice and asking the employers to withdraw theirs as well. If this were so, then it must mean that the only thing they could have done was to fall back upon the old agreement. (Hear, hear.) When the employers tried to push the matter down their throats and to get them to sign there and then Mabon turned round to defend his colleagues, and told the employers that they bad no power to do so, and that they expected the employers to act honourably towards them by withdrawing their notices and let things go on peaceably as before. 1Cheers.) But on the second day when he (Mr Morgan) turned upon the employers and told them that their action in asking the msn to pledge them- selves to anything was dishonourable, Mr Abraham got up and said to the employers, "Gentlemen, we are here—ten of us—and to say that you are not dishonourable." DID NOT IMPUTE DISHONOUR. MABON I did not say that. What I said was that we did not impute to them dishonour. This is the second false position which Mr Morgan has taken. Mr MORGAN (proceeding) repeated the allega- tion, and added that that was not the first time for him to be snubbed by his colleagues before the employers when he he was doing his utmost on behalf of the men. He (the speaker) did not claim to be infallible. He bad some corruption like everybody else. He again expressed his regret at having used the words cowards—(bear, bear)-and would sub- stitute it by saying that his colleagues were afraid of a bogey. He believed that they were conscientious—(hear, hear)—and so was be con- scientious when he alleged that they had exceeded their powers. The second part of the agreement which they had signed was not bind- ing upon the men, but if they wished to make it binding it was open to them as a conference to do so. He earnestly hoped, however, that they would not do so, even though, as he was sorry to think, such action on their part mast of necessity belittle his colleagues who had sijrned it. DAKONWT Oh don't trouble about that. Mr MOEGAN said he was honest when he said he was sorry. His wish had been to agree with his colleagues, but what was to be done when tbsy could not agree ? MRONIONS: Fall in with the majority. (Cheers.) Mr MORGAN I say no, wheu you are violat- ing tbe principles upon which you and I were sent to London. I agree with you that had we bad plenary powers I could have fallen in with the majority, and I have always done so, but this time we had a distinct mission which it was our duty to carry out faithfully without the least violation and as you did not do so, I had the unpleasant work of turning against the whole of you. MR ONION'S DEFENCE. Mr ALFRED ONIONS, in reply, said that as one specially siugled out for attack by Mr Morgan in an interview with a South Wales Daily News re- presentative it was his duty to say a few words in his own defence and in defence of his colleagues. He was very pleased indeed that Mr Morgan had considerably modified the charge of cowardice he bad brought against them, and that he had admitted that they were conscientious. He took it that that meant that they were not conscien- tious cowards at any rate. Mr MORGAN That's it, exactly. Mr ONIONS, proceeding, said that Mr Morgan's admission further meant that they were conscien- tious in their belief that they were doing what was right. Mr Morgan, in the interview, had said that the employers, in a dishonourable spirit, turned round and asked tbe men, before they (the employers) withdrew their notices, to pledge themselves to continue the scale for 12 months. Now, he bad to say that the employers asked nothing of the kind. They made no definite statement whatever as to the time they wished the agreement to continue in force, bub the im- pression they gave was that they desired it to remain in force for considerably more at any rate than twelve months; and the conclusion they had come to was in the nature of a compromise on this important point. Mr Morpran had chosen to attack Sir Wm. Thomas Lewis. Well, it was not his (the speaker's) province nor his duty to defend Sir William, but be would ask the conference not to allow anything that had been said in reference to Sir Wm. Thomas Lewis's conduct to influence their judgment in reference to the action of their own representatives. (Loud cheers.) That was a red herring drawn across the path, and he hoped they would discern it as such. Mr Abraham, when he spoke about Mr Morgan's charge of dishonour against the employers, spoke on behalf of ten of his colleagues, and what he said was not what Mr Morgan bad described by any means. Mabon'a words to the employers were, We do not impute to yon any dishonour- able motives." He (Mr Onions) had been a mem- ber of the Sliding Scale Committee for nearly four years, and he had never heard the employers impute dishonourable motives to the workmen's representatives, and he would like to ask anyone who understood anything of the conduct of busi- ness whether, if dishonourable motives were imputed to one side or other, business would not at once collapse ? (Hear, hear.) It was always their duty, unless they had conclusive evidence to the contrary, to regard each other as doing their best for the sides they represented, and it was in that spirit that he understood Mabon to say on behalf of the ten that they did not impute dis- honour to the employers. He contended that while according to the ballot they had no power to bind the men, he was always at liberty, whether as a leader or not, to exercise his judg- ment in recommending what he considered the best course to the men. (Hear, hear.) Mr Morgan had always claimed that right for himself, and he (Mr Onions) was prepared to carry out his pledge to recommend the men to carry out what he con- sidered to be the right course to adopb. As to Mr Morgan's allegation that the employers would have given in even if they (the workmen's repre- sentatives) had not given any such pledge, well, that was purely a matter of opinion, and in this case it was the opinion of 10 men against one. Ten of them were of the opinion that the employers would not have agreed to withdraw their notices and continue the present Sliding Scale agreement unless they bad given that pledge. They had been asked for more certainly and their opinion was that they had reduced the period to the very lowosb point that the employers would have agreed to. The employers knew the result of the ballot, that the men did not want a strike, and were not prepared for a rupture, and this was taken into consideration by them in endeavouring to force upon the men this important point as to the length of the agreement. He believed there was a greater difference of opinion among the employers than among the workmen's representatives, and that a good proportion of the employers wanted a strike and had prepared for it, believing this to be an opportune time to compel the men to accept a 7% per cent. soale. Had the workmen's representatives therefore resisted the pledge to make a recommendation to the workmen, they should have been playing into the hands of those employers that wanted a strike, and they would have been aobing against the emphatic declaration of the workmen in the ballot that they did not want a strike. He believed that had they not given in on this comparatively unimportant point they would nob have settled in London that day. Assuming that this view was the correct on and ten of them icid adopted it as agninst vne, what he asked was, whit the workmen have told them if they had come back without settling ? If they had, for the sake of this unimportant point, have allowed the men to come out on strike i until a conference had been convened! His impression was that the men would have told them very elearly "Yon have been to London wasting oar time and meney. Go back to London and settle, as we told you distinctly with the bal- lot to do." (Loud cheers.) He emphatically denied Mr Morgan's statement that the whole business in London did not occupy more than two hours. Why, one day they were kept an hour and a half outside waiting the employers' answer to a proposition they had made. He predicted that had any of the employers acted as Mr Morgan had done, had any single employer refused to abide by the agree- ment and endeavoured to force his colliery back to the 7^4 per cent. scale, Mr Morgan would have been the first to thunder out vials of wrath over his head. (Loud cheers and laughter.) And whab was the difference between Mr Morgan's conducb and tJhat of such assumed employers ? No difference. (Hear, hear.) Had Mr Morgan not withdrawn his charge of cowardice some very hard things would have had to be said that day. He (Mr Onions) claimed to possess as much moral courage in dealing with these matters as Mr Morgan had, though he would not perhaps be so loud in his demonstration of it, and be claimed to be just as conscientious in the views he advocated. He asked the conference to declare that they had throughout acted in accordance with the opinions of the great; majority of workmen in that coalfield. Mr DAVID MORGAN, in reply, said that Mr Richards had admitted that the employers did ask for 12 inonths, and that thay all understood it would be so. It was not he but Mr Riohards that had dragged Sir Wm. Thomas Lewis's name into the discussion, and all he had done was to answer Mr Richards. He had not denied the powers of the workmen's representatives to recommend anything, but he did deny they had tbe power to pledge themselves to the employers in London that they would do so. He admitted that the employers did keep them an hour and a half waiting, but they were all well aware of this waiting business, which was meant purely in order to kill time. (Laughter.) Mr Onions had made a good deal of capital of the 10 to 1 phrase, but there was a possibility that the ten were wrong and the one right. (Laughter.) The analogy between his conduct and that of the assumed employer was not fair. He (Mr Morgan) had not refused to go on with the old agreement what he had declined was i -Ho anything different to the old agreement. MABON, M.P., then proceeded to reply in Welsh, remarkmg that the unpleasantness between them had been reduced to a very small compass indeed, and that Mr Morgan bad with- drawn the bitterness attached to the ch&rge of cowards. He declared that his colleagues during the whole of these transactions had not been at alt animated by a spirit of fear, but rather by a spirit of courage, charity, and patience, and it was that spirit that was at the root of their whole conduct as to the pledge. There was not a word about a pledge in the agreement itself. All that it con- tained was a declaration of a unanimous agree- ment on both sides to recommend a certain course. The great difference between them and Mr Morgan was not one of principle but of degree. There was no principle sacrificed. It was the length of the agreement that was in dispute. The Scale agreement in any event could not have been renewed for less than 12 months, and even if they were pleased to carry out the recommendation of the 10, it meant simply a period of 18 months.The resolution of the last conference in Cardiff was to send them back to the employers to make the best arrangement they could, and if this did not appear clearly on the ballot paper, then it was the fault of the ballot paper, and had he been present at the conference when the ballot paper was drawn up ha would certainly have objected to its terms. Mr Philip George had at the conference of the workmen's representatives the day following objected to the wording on the ballot paper, and he (the speaker) on that occasion ruled him out of order as being too late. Now, after all the storm and battle, they had to en- counter what had been graphically described as a mere capful I of wind. Mr Morgan had admitted that they were conscientious. That was all that they asked the conference to say. They had been conscientious; and in that conscientiousness they believed they had saved South Wales from a strike that they had saved the miners from being pushed back to a scale of 7% per cent.; and that they had saved half a million of people from suffering pangs of hunger. They had been animated in this battle net by a spirit of fear, but by a spirit of courage, love, and patience and they were resolved to stand or fall by the decision of the workmen as to their conduct in London. (Loud and prolonged cheers.) The Conference then adjourned for luncheon. AFTERNOON PROCEEDINGS. On resuming after the adjournment, The CHAIRMAN said they had m the earlier part of the day discussed the matter generally, and he did not think they could say much more on the subject. He now called for a resolution which might be discussed. Mr W. BRAOE asked if a vote of thanks would be sufficient ? The CHAIRMAN replied that it should rather be a vote of confidence, and as to whether they should approve the recommendation. Mr BRACE asked if that meant that if the con- ference carried such a resolution it would pledge them to acoept the recommendation ? The CHAIRMAN said it would. Mr EVANS, Blaina, said if they excepted such resolution they would approve of the agreement and the aotion the representatives took, granting the employers further time than six months' notice. On behalf of 3,000 Blaina workmen he protested against that, and moved as an amend- ment that the Scale should be understood simply as it was before, and that they should be at perfect liberty to give notice on October 1st. He believed it was sufficient for the employers to gain a moral victory without at the same time scoring off the workmen's representatives. (Hear, hear.) He believed that if the delegates who were at the last conference gave candid expres- sion to their opinions they would say it never entered into their minds that the employers would ask for a further extension of the time of notice, or they would not have voted on the question in the way they did. He failed to see why they should give notice in and then with- draw it for the purpose of giving longer life to a Scale they did not believe in. (Hear, hear.) Mr J. BRITTON (Penrhiw), said the workmen generally bad not had a fair opportunity of dis- cussing the matter, and he considered that if they at present passed a resolution upon it, they would be doing the men an injustice. Mr JENKINS (Rhondda), after speaking in sup- port of the agreement oome co. said he believed Mr Morgan was rather hasty. They had been talking about organisation, but they were no bet- ter now in that respect than they were years ago. In the course of further discussion, Mr A. TIB- BITT said there was a large majority in favour of the soale, and it had been put in the hands of the representatives to do the best they could in the way of arranging terms. The masters had taken advantage of the disorganised state of the men, and he did not think the representatives of the men could have arrived at a better decision under the circumstances. He hoped the organisa- tion of miners in South Wales and Monmouth- shtre would be made an organisation in reality. (Hear, hear.) Mr RVANS, Blaina, explained, in reply, that Mr Brace said his amendment was to disapprove of the recommendation of the representatives, inas- much as it granted to the employers a longer period for giving notices for the termination of the scale than they would have been entitled to under the Sliding Scale agreement. He did not think it would be right to say whether they approved or disapproved of the action of the representatives, because he believed they acted conscientiously in what they did. The CHAIRMAN said the motion was approval of what the representatives had done, and if they chose they could separate the question of their conduct, for their conduct had been discussed. Mr BRACE and others thought the two questions should be separated, and several delegates objected to that course, ou the ground that if they carried the motion tor approval of the recommendation they would approve of the conduct of the representatives. Mr JOHN THOMAS, Ebbw Val, moved :— That this conference, after hearing the report of the negotiations of the Sliding Ncale Joint Committee, is of opmion that the 10 representatives wbo agreed to recommend that the Scale should exist 12 months before giving notice acted in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the workmen and with the approval of this conference. Mr JOHN JENKINS seconded. Mr BRACE objected to a recommendation binding the conference or the general body of workmen in South Wales and Monmouthshire. Until the men had been balloted upon this recom- mendation no one had a right to express anything but his individual opinion. (Hear, hear.) One of the most important arguments used at last conterence as to why they should continue the present agreement was that the circumstances bad changed since the notice had bsen given, and that they were in an unfavourable position for going into conflict with the employers. If that argument held good within six months it would hold good for 18 months, and iu that time something might turn up to enable them to get what they wanted. Even if they did not accept the recommendation the scale would oontinue, the only difference being that it would terminate sooner. If he thought they were not going to get into any better position than they occupied now he would prefer an agreement signed for 18 years instead of 18 months. It was because he believed they had very nearly touched bottom and could not get anything very much worse than they now had, that he wished their bands to be free and be thought it would be unwise to bind themselves to any term which would prevent them taking advautage of any circumstances that came in their way. (Hear, hear.) It appeared to him Mr Morgan's action was the right course, as the ballot was taken on the question of continuation of the present scale and the withdrawal of the notices on both sides. They had nothing to do with the question of confidence in the represen- tatives, it was the recommendation tbey had to deal with, and before it was passed it should go before the men, for gthere was plenty of time yet for that to be done. (Hear, hear.) He suggested that it be referred to the men for ballot, as to whether they would accept the recommendation of the committee to bind them- selves for 12 months, or confine themselves to six months' notice. An Aberdare Delegate proposed a resolution to carry out Mr Brace's suggestion, and discus- sion was resumed as to the action of the com- mittee, delegates from Dawlais and elsewhere saying they had been SENT TO SUPPORT WHAT THXY HAD DONE, and others stating that the men had not an oppor- tunity of fully cOlIsideriu the matter. Mr ALVHKD ONIONS (xptaiued that when the committee decided to recommend to the confer- ence that they should not givo notice for twelve months no one thought of it being a vote of con- fidence, but tbey were forced into the position by the interview Mr David Morgan had with a reporter appearing in the Press. Mr Morgan used the obnoxious epithet that the committee were cowards. Although Mr Morgan had'par- tially withdrawn the word, they felt it very much, and they bad written to the newspapers stating that they were prepared to submit their conduct to that conference. Originally they had no thought of making tbe matter a vote of confidence. Mr BRACE: Why do you do it now there is no necessity ? Mr MORGAN explained that he never ielt nor intended to convey that the other members of the committee were cowards, such as being dishonest men. He had already admitted that he could have adopted a better word for expressing what he intended to say. He held that the right way of dealing with the recommendation was to send it to the people who decided the other issue. The CHAIRMAN I don't know where we are coming to. I am sorry to have heard Mr Morgan making this statement now. I will appeal to him if on the Friday I did not ask him, when he was in his calmer moments, that he meant it, and he said, "Yes"? ("Oh.") Mr MORGAN: That you were dishonest? The CHAIRMAN: That we were cowards. Mr MORGAN: Yes, I did say so on Friday. (Laughter.) The CHAIRMAN That was on the day after the meeting. (To Mr Ben Davies, who was clapping his hands:) You may clap, but we are not cowards (Applause.) Mr DAVIES I clapped for his courage in saying what he did. The CHAIRMAN: If Mr Morgan withdraws the word" cowaril "I am willing to accept that as an apology. Until that is done and you confide in us, I am no more a representative on the Sliding Scale Committee. (Hear, hear.) Mr MORGAN I say distinctly I will not with- draw more than I have already done. The CHAIRMAN Very well. Mr MORGAN I have done what I thought to be honest and just in dealing with the subject. The discussion of the subject on the agenda was resumed, "a Tredegar Delegate, who, along with his colleagues, represented 3,000 men, said they were sent to support the aotion of the committee, believing that they had done their best in the circumstances, and that they had not acted as if they thought they had plenary powers. There had been A LOT OF TALK ABOUT ORGANISATION, but it seemed to him they were spending time aud money in squabbling with each other instead of getting it. (Hear, hear.) Mr G. LITTLR moved as an amendment:— That the whole question of accepting or rejecting the recommendation to bind the workmen not to give notice to terminate the Sliding Scale agreement for 12 months be relegated to the workmen for consideration and ballot. Another Delegate seconded. Mr EVANS, Blaina, reminded the chairman of his amendment. The vote was then taken as between the motion to approve the action of the committee and their recommendation, and the amendment to disap- prove, when THE MOTION WAS CARRIED by 55 as against 14 given for the amendment. The amendment to relegate the question to the collieries as to accepting the recommendation was defeated by 52 votes to 25. THE HAULIERS' REQUEST. The Secretary (Mr Lewis Miles) submitted a request from the Hauliers' Union that they should have a direct representative on the Sliding Scale Committee, and that the representative should be their agent, Mr Morgan Thomas. He added that a reply had been sent by the commit- tee stating that inasmuch as there was to be a redistribution of seats, the matter would be laid before the conference. The CHAIRMAN said there was a precedent in the appointment at one time of a representative of the enginemen and stokers, bub the question was whether it would be wise to accede to this request as the present members represented that class. Several delegates spoke on the subject, some advocating that the request be granted and others that it be not. A Roadman from the Albion Colliery said some of the men there disapproved of the action of the Hauliers' Union in asking for a special representative, but if one were appointed they hoped he would also represent the others. Mr THOS. RICHARDS pointed out that there were a number of districts, and which was to be represented ? That was a difficulty he did not think could be overcome. He did not see why they should allow one man to represent the whole coalfield while they could get men to represent the various districts. Besides, there were members of the committee who possessed a knowledge of the hauliers and the other branches of the trade. He did not see why they should distinguish between one class of labour and another at any colliery. Mr Thomas's ambition was to level op, but the last place in the world to secure that was on the Sliding Scale Committee. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He would advise the hauliers to level up as much as they could, but to do it quietly, and not make a lot of noise about it. If the hauliers wished for a representative on the Sliding Scale Committee, the allocations would be made shortly, when they would have an opportunity of nominating a man to represent the district in which they were strongest; and he was inclined to move that the request be not granted. An Aberdare Haulier said that with the exception of one pit the hauliers throughout the district were not in favour of class representa- tion. A Blaina Delegate advocated the granting of the request. Mr BD DAVIES said that the remarks with reference to new agents of hauliers were not applicable to him, for the Albion hauliers and wagemen, after having been connected with tbe Hauliers' Union for a short time, had seen the errors of class or sectional organisation, and had acted accordingly. Mr DAVID MORGAN desired to correct a certain statement which had appeared in the Press, alleging that he had in London BLAKED SIB WILLIAM THOMA3 LEWIS for having great sympathy with hauliers. This was not true. He had blamed Sir William for not acting straight towards the hauliers. Sir William admitted being the author of the letter sent by Mr Dalziel to the hauliers. In that letter Sir William commenced by expressing sympathy with the hauliers, and ended by dis- approving their appeal, and he (the speaker) blamed Sir William for his vagueness. He did not in London express either bis sympathy or his disapproval of the hauliers in any shape or form; but he had always upon the Sliding Scale and elsewhere done all he could in favour of the hauliers. He did not, however, believe that that Conference should admit class representation upon the Sliding Scale Board in any shape or form. Mr T. RICHARDS, while expressing sympathy with the hauliers and admitting that their standards ought to be raised, said it was only possible to do so by a strongUnionandgoingabout the business in a proper manner. He had certainly no intention of urging the hauliers to continue their present methods. MABON invited someone to move a resolution. The employers, in their letter to the hauliers, had suggested the possibility of increasing the number of seats on the committee from 11 to 12, but; at the same time disapproved of the idea of class repre- sentation. No one, however, had any distinct notion as to how this question was to be dealt with. The Lower Duffryn Delegate said that the resolution passed in that colliery was that they should not split from the colliers. A Merthyr Vale Delegate, on behalf of 2,000 workmeu, said he was authorised to move that the hauliers be granted a seat on the Sliding Scale Committee. The Ferndale Delegate, representing 3,000 workmen, said he was similarly instructed. The Tredegar Representative said that in that colliery they quite approved of hauliers being represented, but not separately as a class. He moved that they be allowed a representative, but to be elected just as the other representatives were at present. Mr TIBBOTT seconded. MABON pointed out that in order to carry out the suggestions thrown out it would be necessary to rearrange the seats. This should be clearly understood. Mr YBBHAKNE, Abertillery, moved that there should be a redistribution of seats, the scheme to be drawn out in time for the election next July, and the hauliers would then stand the same chance as any other class of having their repre- sentative elected. Mr JOHN THOMAS, Ebbw Vale, said that if the hauliers' representative was elected by any mode other than by ballot it would be class representation, and all of them would agree that such a precedent would be a very bad one. He suggested that they should pass a resolution sympathising with the request of the hauliers, but pointing out that there was no other way of getting a hauliers' representative on the Scale except by bringing out a candidate at the next election. Mr ALF. ONIONS agreed. If they were going to retain the present system of electing repre- sentatives it seemed to him that the only way that hauliers could be represented directly by one of their class was by bringing out a candidate in one of the districts and securing his election. He was nearly ashamed of the way industrial matters were being now conducted in South Wales and Monmouthshire. They knew not who would pop up on the morrow to claim to be a responsible leader, if he had only a dozen or a score of men to follow him. The hauliers had now exactly the same chance as the colliers of being repre- sented, for they participated in the ballot. An argument used in the present discussion was that they should give the hauliers a representative in order to keep them quiet. Well, if they were going to be frightened into giving people seats on the Sliding Scale Committee they should be frightened every week, for they might, depend upon it some- body or otbr would continually threaten to give thelu trouble unless they were lven an office- (loud cheers)—and the result would be that instead of having real genuine representatives upon the Sliding Scale Committee, they would have men who would be THERE MERELY FOB THE SAKE Of THE OFFIOB. (Laughter.) He was not speaking of any in- dividual, but on tbe important question of principle. Unless they were careful in these matters they would find themselves in endless difficulties. Let them pass a resolution disap- proving of class representation, and then refer the whole question of division of seats to the Sliding Scale Committee, who would report to a future Conference. A Haulier: We will relieve you of your difficulties by withdrawing our request. MABON: You cannot do that. The matter is now before tb," Conference. A Haulier I have been authorised by the Executive Committee to withdraw the request. Mr MOGG, of Mountain Ash, moved that the Confereuee should not recognise the principle of class representatation on the Sliding Scale Committee. The CHAIRMAN then pub the motion to the vote as follows :— That this Conference expresses sympathy with the hauliers, and also that something should be done with a view of meeting their request; and that the questtop of finding out how tbey can be represented, and where, be relegated to the workmen's section of the Sliding* Scale Committee. Unon a division, 64 voted for this resolution, which was thereupon declared carried, Mabon pointing out that the question could not be finally settled until another Conference was convened to consider whab report might be presented on the subject by the Sliding Scale representatives. A haulier from the audience said sympathy would not be of much good to them, wheu Mr EVANS (Blaina), who is also a haulier, said that if the hauliers followed the sams tactics aa they did in 1893 they would find that the colliers would put up their backs against tbem. In the course of a subsequent discussion, MABON admitted that there was a necessity for redistribution of seats on the Scale Committee. He promised, on behalf of his colleagues, that the resolution just passed would have their serious consideration. An Abercarn Delegate gave notice of motion for the next Conference with reference to the extra turn granted to night wagemen, and after this the proceedings terminated with thanks to the chairman and vice-chairman.

MR BEN DAVIES ANT"THE HAULIERS'…

THE TINPLATE TRADE.

SOUTH WALES TRADE.

THE HIRE SYSTEM.

WILLING'S PRESS GUIDE.

The Liquor Traffic. ------

:SWANSEA PAUPERS AND THEIR…

ARCHDEACON HOWELL.

Advertising

HAVERFORDWEST POLICEMEN CHARGED…

NORTH'S NAVIGATION COLLIERIES,…

ISUICIDE AT LLANELLY.

FIFTY~YEARS' SERVICE.

[No title]

ITHE OPEN COUNclief I

Advertising