THE ERA OF ARBITRATION

THE generation with which we now have to deal was one that witnessed a revolution in the attitude of public opinion towards Trades Unionism, and this change soon induced a corresponding attitude in Parliament. Whilst the potters had remained for fourteen or fifteen years comparatively disunited and helpless, Trades Unions had sprung up in connection with every trade of importance in the country, and the growth of the liberal spirit in politics had brought the claims of labour to the front. 

It may therefore be well to endeavour, briefly, to give some idea of the relation of the legislature to industrial movements at the period at which we have now arrived, when the potters once more became united.

THE LAW AND THE UNIONIST
Trades Unions and the Legislature
Their general growth

In the last year of the past century was passed the last law which aimed directly at the suppression of workmen's Unions, and all subsequent legislation on the subject has been in the direction of removing the restraints which formerly existed.

The Act of 1800, however, was very severe in its provisions, and assured the punishment of any workmen who combined in any form to secure an advance in wages, and left no loophole for the most peaceful action which they might take. 

The 1824 act

In 1824 the first blow was struck by Parliament at the fetters which had for so long restricted the independent action of the English working-man, and the Act of that year swept away an accumulation of five centuries of unwholesome and repressive legislation. 

But Parliament immediately repented of its action, and decided to "hasten slowly," for in the following year the Act of 1824 was repealed. The repealing Act freed from penal consequences any workmen taking part in a meeting held for settling the amount of wages to be received, or the hours of work to be followed, by those actually present at the meeting ; but provided for the prosecution, and the imprisonment on conviction, of those workmen who " molested " or " obstructed " other workmen not in an organisation, or who imposed fines for disobedience to any order made by a Union upon those who were members of it. 

These provisions left to the judges a wide discretion as to what really constituted " molestation " or " obstruction," and as the preamble of the Act itself spoke of the combinations which the Act of 1824 had legalised as being "injurious to trade and commerce, and dangerous to the tranquillity of the country, and especially prejudicial to the interests of all concerned in them," the judges believed that they were interpreting the Act in sympathy with its spirit and intention by according a liberal application to the provisions against "molestation" or "obstruction." 

Hence a crop of decisions followed which were contradictory in effect, and left the actual position of Trades Unionists in a state of great uncertainty. It was held, for instance, that although a strike could not itself be pronounced illegal, yet any combination of workmen which brought a strike about was a conspiracy ; and the judge-made law which followed from the Act of 1825 practically deprived that Act of the protective value which it was intended, or believed, to possess. 

In 1859, therefore, Parliament again interfered, and a short Act was passed which was designed to put a stop to the idiosyncratic decisions of the judges by declaring that those workmen who pursued their objects "peaceably, and in a reasonable manner," should not be held guilty of obstruction within the meaning of the previous Act ; and this was the state of the law upon the question at the time at which we have arrived.

THE FETTERS BROKEN

Still, though Trades Unions were no longer conspiracies, in virtue of the special enactments made on their behalf, the common law still refused to regard them as completely legal associations, inasmuch as they were held to be in restraint of trade. 

Their funds might be stolen by unscrupulous members with impunity, for the law did not recognise their right to the possessions of property ; and just as to-day it does not regard a bet as a contract which can be enforced, so Trades Unions were then outlawed. However, they grew in number and extent, and disposed of vast funds. 

Strikes and lock-outs were almost daily occurrences, and a period of continuous friction between employers and employed had left little sympathy in the public mind with workmen's Unions. 

The result of the inquiry into the outrages committed by Trades Unionists in Sheffield and other places then led one portion of the public to wonder, as an historian of the reign expresses it, " whether the laws of the land and the attitude of society were not in some measure responsible " for the excesses of some members of a large class, whose even innocent proceedings were regarded with aversion ; and to ask whether the repression of these associations of working-men, engendering secrecy and all the faults which sprang from it, should not give place to a more enlightened toleration of their pacific purposes : and even that larger section of the voting public which still held Trades Unions in abhorrence felt that the day had gone by when the legislature could safely afford to give only a partial and grudging recognition to a movement which had become an essential part of the social life of the working-classes of the country. [footnote 1] 

And so, to travel a few years beyond the time at which we have arrived, began that ameliorative legislation which ended in 1875 with the full and final recognition of the complete legality of Trades Unions, and the establishment of the principle that no combination of men should be held guilty of an act which would not be criminal on the part of a single individual. [footnote 2] 

Some excuse is needed for even a brief reference to facts of such common knowledge, but to recall them serves as a convenient landmark in the narrative.

"THE POTTERIES EXAMINER"
Revival of Unionism in the Potteries 

It is in the earlier years of this activity and agitation that the tale of the potters' Unions must be resumed. 

No definite date can be assigned at which the spirit of Unionism again asserted itself amongst them. In two or three branches, as we have seen, Unions were continued even after the downfall of 1849, and these Unions simply grew, and with them other branches began to unite. 

In 1854 a new periodical, called The Potter, had been commenced. It was a poor production in comparison with its vigorous predecessor, The Potters' Examiner , and the difference between the two was illustrative of the difference in the spirit of the workmen at the two periods. 

The Potter had not endeavoured to promote any propaganda, and had merely been called into existence by the faithful few who still kept in the bond of Union despite the indifference of the main body of potters. 

The Potters' Examiner (1863)

In 1863, however, the latter began to feel the influence of the general activity, and the dying Potter was merged in a more ambitious organ, called The Potteries Examiner. It was a very creditable production, and, though conducted in the interests of the working potters, it fulfilled the ordinary functions of a newspaper, dealt with questions of politics, art, and literature, and reflected in short the general life of the day. It therefore occupied a much higher place than its predecessor, which had paid no regard to any subjects unconnected with the potting industry, and its influence was proportionately higher.

The Unions grew as Branches. They were quite separate and independent concerns, and there was no general organisation. The Branch system was not cultivated by design, but by the accident of some branches having preserved their Unions through all the dark days when Unionism had been in disrepute, whilst other branches were only just beginning to re-unite ; and there was, therefore, no general or simultaneous movement such as would have called forth a general organisation. 

It was a matter of gradual growth, and in 1865 the various branches felt themselves strong enough to once more attempt a battle with their employers on the old question of annual hiring.

THE END OF ANNUAL HIRING
 The lock-out of 1865

Trade was just recovering from the depression which had followed upon the American Civil War, and the potters felt that a prosperous time for their employers was for them an opportune one. 

At the Martinmas of 1865, all the branches which were united refused to renew their engagements upon the old hiring agreement. The employers locked them out, and matters remained at a dead-lock for several weeks. 

the Oven-men hold out

Then one branch after another gave in, and the employers already regarded themselves as victorious. They had, however, made their calculations without a due regard to the determination of one branch which still held out This was the Union of Oven-men. 

Their branch was one of those which had gathered up the fragments after 1849, and kept a Union more or less alive ever since, and now it was remarkably strong. Of every ten oven-men engaged in the trade, nine were now members of the Union. 

The employers were powerless. Every other branch might return to work, but production was impossible without the completing process of firing the ware which those branches made, and there were no oven-men to do the firing. 

The last of Annual Hiring

So the employers had to confess themselves beaten. 

A conference was held between the employers and the representatives of the workmen, at which it was agreed that, for that year at any rate, the custom of an annual hiring should be suspended ; that the system of a month's notice should be substituted, enabling a workman to leave his employer, or the latter to discharge his workman, upon such notice being given, but that prices, as fixed at that Martinmas, were not capable of revision or alteration until the completion of the year. 

This was all that the workmen had contended for, and the oven - men were justly proud of a victory for the whole body, mainly obtained by their own determination, which had made a breach in the custom of annual hiring.

As it turned out, it finally abolished that custom ; for though, in the following year, an attempt was made by the employers to revive it, the workmen were not inclined to tolerate a retrogression, and the attempt was not seriously persisted in. 

Moreover, a year later, in 1867, the Master and Servants Act was passed, and as this placed employers and workmen on an equality for the first time in the matter of contracts, the annual hiring system would most probably not have survived a condition of affairs which no longer would have allowed it to be supported and enforced by the imprisonment of the men who broke it. 

From 1863, therefore, the custom of the trade became that of a month's notice to terminate employment, but Martinmas was still held in reverence as being the period when all prices were fixed for the ensuing year.

THE ERA OF ARBITRATION

The period with which we are now dealing will ever be memorable in the history of the potting trade on account of the establishment of a permanent Board of Arbitration. 

The principle of arbitration in trade disputes was, of course, not new. It had been acted upon in the potting trade so long ago as 1834, when the Committee of Conciliation was established to deal with a series of minor disputes, but the Committee was dissolved because all the decisions went in favour of the workmen ; and whether the victories went only to the most deserving side, or whether other less obvious causes accounted for the good fortune of the men, the masters, as we have seen, soon lost their respect for a process by which they always found themselves on the losing side. 

Since that day (for the Betley Conference, which formulated the terms of settlement of the strike of 1836, can hardly be spoken of as an Arbitration Court), the principle of arbitration had never been invoked in the settlement of any dispute in the potting trade until 1867. What was, however, entirely novel in the movement, as far as The Potteries was concerned, was the fact that the Board of Arbitration now set up was intended to be a permanent tribunal, dealing with all disputes, great and small, in the trade, by the decisions of which both sides agreed to be bound.

These permanent Courts of Arbitration, however, were not new to England, and were of still older foundation in France and other countries. 

The Conseils des Prud'hommes had their origin in France so long ago as 1285, but it was not until the days of the first Napoleon that they were efficiently constituted. The main objects kept in view in the establishment of these Courts were : — 

First, to provide a tribunal composed of those competent, by experience, to deal with the matters that had to. be decided ; 

second, to insure confidence in the Court on the part of the litigants, by equality of representatives ; 

and, third, to make the conciliation and mutual satisfaction of the litigants the paramount object. 

The last object was perhaps best provided for by the fact that no professional practitioners of the law were allowed to take part in the proceedings of the Courts, and the satisfactory working of the system may be judged by the fact that ninety per cent, of the cases brought before the Councils were settled. 

These Councils were judicial in character — that is to say, the decisions given by them were binding, in law, upon the parties concerned, and the attendance of either master or man was enforced in pretty much the same manner as the attendance of a defendant is compelled in the Police Courts of England to-day. 

The matters and disputes with which the Courts were empowered to deal practically embraced every possible cause of difference between master and servant, save one — and that the most important. They had no power to make any decree affecting the rates of wages to be paid. It often happened, however, that disputes upon that ground were referred, by mutual consent, to the consideration of the Councils, and either their recommendations were adopted, or the suggestions made led to the parties themselves coming to a satisfactory agreement.

PARLIAMENT AND ARBITRATION
 Industrial Arbitration 

In regard to legislative attempts to adjust differences between masters and workmen, France was much ahead of England, for it was not until 1824 that the question of the establishment of Courts of Arbitration was seriously considered by the English Parliament [footnote 3] In that year an Act was passed which, briefly stated, enabled an aggrieved master or workman to go before a justice of the peace, and submit the case to his decision. 

This step, however, could only be taken when both sides agreed to have their dispute settled in this manner ; and if one party to the dispute held aloof from this mode of settlement, the machinery and process necessary to compel his attendance, and to make the decision legally binding, were cumbrous in the extreme. 

The Act was never taken advantage of by either side, and the workmen at any rate looked with the greatest distrust upon the impartiality of the ordinary magistrate. 

Moreover, the Act of 1824 provided "That nothing contained in the Act should authorise any justice of the peace to establish a rate of wages at which the workmen should in future be paid, unless with the mutual consent of both master and workmen." That consent was never forthcoming, and the Act of 1824 therefore practically remained inoperative. 

In 1867 another Act was passed, authorising the appointment of Courts of Conciliation under the Act, which should be duly licensed and registered, and whose decisions should be binding, but could only be enforced by an application to the justice of the peace of the district. 

The same objectionable element which had rendered the Act of 1824 useless was thus revived in the Act of 1867, and the predictions made at the time, that the Act of 1867 would be as useless as its predecessor, on account of the preservation of the interference of a magistrate, have since been justified. 

The essential difference between the two Acts was that the first one was compulsory, and the later one permissive. That is to say, the Act of 1824 did provide, though in a cumbrous and roundabout fashion, for the compulsory settlement of disputes ; whereas the Act of 1867 merely gave masters and workmen power to form themselves into Councils of Conciliation — if they cared to do so. 

This, however, was merely conceding to them a power which they might voluntarily exercise, for there was nothing to prevent masters and workmen forming Arbitration Councils, and agreeing to the awards made, without any reference to the Act of 1867 at all. 

Counseils des Prud'hommes (Fr. Labour Court)

The Act was confessedly modelled upon the Counseils des Prud'hommes of France, but its promoters missed altogether what was regarded as the supreme virtue and purpose of the French system. The Counseils des Prud'hommes were composed of masters and men, who dealt with disputes in their own trade, and not only enforced their awards, but compelled the investigation of all disputes, whether one party to the dispute desired investigation or not. 

They were, in a word, judicial in character, but composed of experts. The Act of 1867 made the submission of disputes to arbitration dependent upon the mutual agreement of masters and workmen, for Councils of Arbitration under the Act were only possible where and when both sides agreed to form these Councils, and only after the formation of these Councils was arbitration possible ; and, furthermore, the awards could only be effective by invoking the interference of a magistrate. 

The intention of the promoters of the Act was therefore singularly ineffective in their endeavour to approximate to the working of the Counseils of Prud' hommes, and it may here be said at once that England yet waits for legislative enactment that will establish similar machinery to that which France has long enjoyed in regard to the settlement of industrial disputes by competent and expert tribunals, acting under judicial powers. 

Whilst the English legislature was tinkering with the subject, and considering the propriety of conceding to Courts of Arbitration the full and final power of settling their disputes, the manufacturers and workmen of Nottingham, to quote an author of 1867 on the subject, [footnote 4] 

"had the wit to see that it was not necessary to go to France" (as was suggested in Parliament), "to inquire into the working of a principle which recommended itself by its simplicity to the common-sense of mankind." 

In 1861 they formed a Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to settle all disputes in the hosiery trade established in that town. It is needless to dwell upon the history of the Nottingham effort, except to say that it was the forerunner of all permanent Boards of Arbitration, and that it was productive of unmixed good to both employers and workmen. More important to this narrative, however, is the fact that it was the Nottingham Board of Arbitration, and the intercourse which existed between its founder and president, Mr Mundella, and Mr William Owen, the founder of The Potteries Board of Arbitration, that led to the establishment of the latter organisation.

THE POTTERS BOARD
The Potteries Board of Arbitration (1868)

In 1867 and the following year, the editor of The Potteries Examiner, wrote frequent articles upon the subject of arbitration, urging the consideration of the establishment of a Board of Arbitration upon the attention of masters and men. The matter was formally brought before the various lodges of the workmen, and the proposal was made to the manufacturers that they should meet the men in conference, and talk over the scheme. 

The manufacturers submitted the proposal to their official body, the Chamber of Commerce, and that organisation at once expressed its sympathy with the idea, and appointed a Committee from amongst them to meet a deputation of the workmen.

ITS CONSTITUTION

The meeting took place, was thoroughly cordial in character, and a code of rules was at once drawn up, to be submitted to the main body of men and to the Chamber of Commerce. 

Amongst the workmen not a single dissentient voice was heard, and three-fourths of the manufacturers of the district gave the movement their hearty support. 

Further Conferences took place between the masters and men, and in July 1868 The Potteries Board of Arbitration and Conciliation came into existence. The spirit of its rules was almost entirely those of the Nottingham Board. 

The objects of the Board was stated to be 

"to arbitrate upon any questions that may be referred to it from time to time by manufacturers or operatives, and by conciliatory means to interpose its influence to put an end to any disputes." 

The Board consisted of an equal number of both sides — ten employers and ten workmen — and out of this number four of each side were elected to serve as a Committee of Inquiry. 

This Committee really formed a Court of First Instance. Any dispute which came before the Board for settlement was first of all investigated by the Committee of Inquiry, which used its influence to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties, but had no power to make an award if their efforts to conciliate proved unsuccessful. 

In the latter case, the dispute was submitted to the whole Board, a majority of votes decided the issue, and the issue was binding and final. If, however, the voting was equal — that is to say in effect, if the manufacturers voted unanimously for their own side, and the workmen pursued a similar course — the adjudication of a referee was sought, and his decision upon the case was absolutely final. The whole procedure was therefore simplicity itself, and no less fair than simple.

Here was an organisation created which, in theory, made anything like a serious conflict between masters and men impossible. 

There was no limit imposed as to what disputes were eligible for decision. Whatever may be said of the wisdom of excluding any decision as to wages from the power of a Board or Court appointed by the legislature, and possessing judicial ability to enforce their awards, there can be no question that to exclude from the scope of a Board of Arbitration voluntarily created, and trusting to the honour of the litigants for the effectiveness of its awards, any decision upon the most prolific source of disputes — the question of wages — would have been to deprive the Board of its most effective opportunity for doing good. 

Both masters and men loyally obeyed the decisions of the tribunal they had themselves created, and though at the time of its creation the conviction was expressed, by the workmen at any rate, that perfection would only be reached when Courts of Conciliation were entrusted with the power of enforcing their own decisions, the obedience of both sides to the awards made against them was the strongest argument against the necessity of that for which the workmen hoped — and to this day, perhaps, continue to hope. [footnote 5]

The organisation started under the most favourable auspices. The manufacturers felt that the time had gone by when they could cavil at the Unions of their men, and the operatives hailed the new Board as promising to be an effective barrier against the necessity which had in times past been reluctantly forced upon them as their only weapon — and one that they well knew to be two-edged — that of strikes.

THE BOARD AT WORK

"GOOD-FROM-OVEN" AGAIN

The new Board had a very busy time at its commencement. 

The first case with which it had to deal had reference to that perennial cause of dispute — the system of good - from - oven. The dispute only concerned, directly, one manufactory ; but it was felt that the decision would have a wider effect than that upon the parties to the issue. The question raised was not that of good-from-oven as a principle, but turned upon what were the usages of the trade in regard to the payment under the system, the principle of good-from-oven being admitted as a common basis. 

The Board was unable to come to a decision upon the case, and the matter was submitted to the Umpire. He merely had to decide what particular usages were in vogue at the manufactory concerned, and his decision, which was adverse to the workmen, in no way concerned the general principle of good-from-oven.

Before the case had been remitted to the Umpire, however, a discussion had been raised by the operative members of the Board upon the general question. Some of the workmen suggested that the Board should consider the advisability of abolishing good-from- oven altogether, as the system gave rise to endless disputes, and all these disputes would entail a great consumption of time by the Board ; but it was felt by some of their own section that the proposal was too sweeping to be likely meet with the approval of the employers, and it was not pressed. 

A manufacturer, however, proposed that "the question should be postponed for the present, but that the Board should hereafter draw up rules to regulate the system or decide whether the workmen should be paid good-from oven, or good-from-hand," and the proposition was agreed to by the manufacturers present.

"Good-from-oven" before the Board

After the decision of the Umpire in the case referred to, a special meeting of the Arbitration Board was held to consider the question of good-from-oven. 

There was great diversity of opinion amongst the employers, but it was generally conceded by them that in dealing with the system of good-from-oven, the principle that a workman should be paid for all ware which was damaged through causes beyond his control, should be admitted and acted upon. 

A manufacturer, Mr Francis Wedgwood — a descendant of the great Josiah Wedgwood — proposed 

"That each section of the Board shall bring before their constituents the question of good-from-oven and good-from-hand, so that these questions may be discussed, and a set of regulations prepared by both sides, to be produced for discussion at the next quarterly meeting." 

This resolution was carried, and the operatives at once set about the task of framing a set of rules under which the system should be worked. In suggesting these Rules, they acted upon the principle, acknowledged by the manufacturers, 

" That the workman be paid for all ware which is spoiled through causes that do not come under his control, or that cannot be traced to his bad workmanship ; but that no payment should be made for work which could be proved to be the fault of the workman." 

The proposals of the manufacturers, however, did not contemplate anything like the same "indulgences" in regard to damaged ware as those which were comprised in the workmen's suggestions. 

Employers proposal - damaged before firing or after firing

Only a few out of the many possible causes by accidents to the ware were provided for, and a curious distinction was made between ware damaged by the oven-men before firing and after firing. 

The manufacturers proposed that if ware was damaged by the oven-men when drawing it out of the oven, already fired, the workmen who made it should be paid for it, but that if the oven-men damaged the ware— even though they had received it faultless from the maker— in placing it in the oven, the man who made the ware should not be paid for it. 

It was obviously a purely fanciful and arbitrary distinction, and struck at the root of the "governing principle" which had been already admitted by the manufacturers as a fair basis upon which each side should proceed to draw up its suggestions for the working of the system. 

The operative members of the Board submitted the manufacturers' proposals to the various committees of the branches, and these proposals were received with surprise and disapprobation. Then a meeting of the Board was held at which the workmen were to hear the opinion of the manufacturers upon the proposals submitted to them by the operatives. 

The manufacturers plainly said that they could not entertain the proposals of the men, and were only prepared to offer to the men the original proposals which had already been made. 

The President of the Board, a manufacturer, said that the employers 

"could not admit the principle that all ware spoiled that was not due to the workmen's fault should be paid for."

This was in effect, an admission of what the workmen had said : that the proposals submitted by the masters were at variance with the generally accepted principle ; and this was not denied by the manufacturers.

ATTEMPTS TO ARBITRATE
"good-from-hand" proposed

The truth seems to be that in consenting to the framing of the Rules upon the principle referred to, the manufacturers had not quite realised what the effect and consequence of that principle would be, and now saw that it meant little else than an acceptance of the system of good-from-hand. 

The " principle " had been skillfully worded by the workmen, and threw the whole burden of proof against the workman upon the master. 

For all ware that came from the hand of the workman, that workman would be entitled, prima facie, to be paid for : but 

" no payment should be made for work which could be proved to be the fault of the workman." 

If this were granted, it would be merely a question of quibbling about terms, but good-from-hand would be a reality. 

The workman hitherto had been compelled to wait until the ovens were " drawn " before his wages were paid, and the wages he received were based upon what had survived the process of firing, and all the accidents to which it was liable before and after that process. 

Under the governing principle so lightly accepted by the masters, all that would have been reversed, and the workman would be able to claim his wages as soon as his work was done, and if the master objected to pay for certain of the ware which was damaged, with him would rest the proof that it was the workman who had damaged it, or who had turned it out from his workshop in a faulty condition. 

All this was clearly seen by the manufacturers, however, when they had approached the task of framing their regulations under the "governing principle," and hence that principle was abandoned by them. 

They even urged that the Board was acting beyond its constitution in taking any notice of the question at all, for the Rules of the Board only provided for action by the Board when a dispute was submitted to them, and, they said, there was then no dispute upon the good-from-oven question at any manufactory. 

If this were a valid objection, it should have been taken at the time of the first proposal being made, but, as we have seen, the resolutions that had been passed which brought the question before the Board had been passed at the instance of manufacturers themselves. And, upon the broader question, it was a mere quibble to speak of there being no dispute upon the good-from-oven question. 

It was one of the main grounds of dispute in the strike of 1836, and it had remained a ground of dispute ever since, and had caused more friction and discontent in the trade than any other incident, custom, or circumstance connected with it, saving only the direct question of wages itself. 

In proposing to deal with the question of good-from-oven, and to settle once for all a uniform practice in regard to the way of carrying it out, both employers and workmen were to be congratulated upon an attempt to at once remove grounds of discontent then existing, and lessen the possibility of future conflict ; 

but the employers were depriving themselves of all credit for their part in that proposal, and were, moreover, urging an objection which came too late in the day, in contending that the question could not be considered until an actual case of conflict had arisen. 

The workmen asked : " Do you then wish us to strike before you will consider the danger we can now avert ? "

And the employers naively answered that " they did not recommend a dispute." 

The meeting was fruitless of result. The men complained that the agreement had not been carried out. They had expected that each side would have submitted its interpretation of the common principle, and that in the words of their Secretary, the Board would " reason out, not as partisans, but as honest arbitrators," a middle course between the two interpretations. 

The employers, however, had submitted suggestions which were not inspired by the governing principle, and had returned a simple non possumus to the proposals of the workmen admittedly based upon it. 

The manufacturers, however, expressed the opinion " that they had met the workmen in a very liberal spirit," and refused to consider any compromise. And so terminated the first stage of this first "constitutional" effort to remove the longstanding grievance of the system of good-from-oven. 

The meeting referred to had, by chance, taken place upon the first anniversary of the formation of the Board, and it separated upon the understanding that each side would elect its representatives for he ensuing year. 

It was not an auspicious termination of the first year's work ; and it is not to be wondered at that there was, on the part of both masters and men, some consideration of how the new movement promised to serve their respective interests. 

The men were keenly disappointed at the result of their first encounter of any moment — one, too, that had not depended for its result upon the verdict of an impartial person who had been called in by both sides to adjust a dispute, but which had furnished an opportunity for the display of those qualities of mutual forbearance and goodwill which its very existence presumed to be present, and upon which its successful working depended. The employers, on the other hand, had experienced something of the possibilities of a new regime which recognised an equality of their workmen with themselves to which they had never before been accustomed — a system which placed both masters and men on an equal height, and asked justice to decide between them. 

It is therefore to the credit of both sides that the second year of the existence of the Board was entered upon with a determination to bring its constitution nearer to perfection.

PERFECTING ARBITRATION

The workmen had discovered an incompleteness in its Rules, and they proposed certain alterations. 

In the main, the masters accepted them, and where they made modifications, the workmen were in entire agreement. 

The Rules provided for the extension of the scope of the Board — designed by the workmen to popularise arbitration amongst their class, and by the manufacturers to make all members of their own rank more disposed to join in the movement. 

Both sides felt it a weakness to their own interests, no less than to the cause of arbitration, to have any important portion of their body holding aloof from the movement, and the revised Rules greatly extended the scope of the Board in this respect. 

One important Rule now introduced provided : 

" That the leading principles of the Board should be the continuance of work pending any dispute " — 

the value and propriety of which is sufficiently obvious to only need mention. 

The workmen, whilst debating the proposed new Rules, suggested that the Board should immediately proceed to draw up a code of rules, or "usages," for the trade — either to consolidate existing usages, and to bring about a state of uniformity in regard to them, or to agree upon such a code as appeared just and desirable to the Board.

The workmen dwelt upon the importance of such a step in the potting trade, because the various interpretations which had existed amongst masters and men as to the "unwritten laws" of the trade had caused many differences ; and other Boards of Arbitration, as their first step, had proceeded to define the rules and customs of the trade with which they were connected. 

The employers received the suggestion cordially, and a Committee of the Board representing each side, was appointed to draft the Trade Rules.

STILL "GOOD-FROM-OVEN"

The Committee held many sittings, but found the pons asinorum of the problem to be that Rule which would concern the question of good - from - oven — now revived again. 

The Rule proposed by the workmen in regard to it was a resuscitation of the " governing principle," and read as follows : — 

" That workmen be paid for all ware which is spoiled through causes that do not come under their control, or that cannot be traced to bad workmanship, but that no payment be made for bad work which can be proved to be bad by the fault of the workmen." 

After very lengthy discussion, this Rule was agreed to, and the Board proceeded to affirm : 

" That the Committee of the Board of Arbitration should proceed with its labours in drawing up Trade Rules, and that it should take the Rule already agreed to as its guide in any other Rule it might frame on the good-from-oven question."

The workmen were greatly elated at this victory, and spoke of the Rule now agreed to as one that " took the sting " out of the grievance of good-from-oven ; and, in fact, they did not conceal the opinion that it carried them, in theory, to the attainment of good-from-hand. They regarded it as practically putting an end to a long-standing quarrel, which had involved, in their words, "an injury to the trade and a curse to the workmen" from days long before the strike of 1836.

The Board had now been established three years, and the Trade Rules agreed upon had come into force at Martinmas 1871. Various arbitrations — legacies of minor disputes occurring at that Martinmas— took place during the year, and these were satisfactorily settled. 

At a quarterly meeting of the Board, held in the middle of the year 1872, a discussion arose as to the manner in which the fifth Trade Rule— that relating to the "good-from-oven " question — was being carried out by the manufacturers. 

The manufacturers then said that they did not interpret the Rule as protecting the workmen from any losses caused to the ware before it was in the hands of the biscuit-oven-men, or even before the ware was fired. 

The workmen contested this interpretation, for which they claimed that the Rule gave no justification, as it contemplated no limitation or condition except that of the ware being damaged through the fault of those who made it. 

The discussion, however, though conducted with much heat and spirit by both sides, was mainly an academic one, as the point involved had not arisen in connection with any actual dispute. Still, the incident foreshadowed a complete disagreement as to the whole question of good-from-oven, as modified by that Rule.

Six weeks before Martinmas of that year, 1872, the operatives gave notice of their intention to propose that two of the Trade Usages agreed upon a year before should be altered. 

The first alteration proposed was in respect to the termination of the trade year, to abolish the institution of Martinmas, and to substitute for the 11th of November the first Monday in August. The proposal was not one of great importance, but the consideration which led to it was that, inasmuch as the trade was always unsettled in August on account of that being a period of summer holiday, it would be as well to take that unsettled time as a fit occasion for the termination of the trade year, instead of further unsettling the trade three months later on. 

The second alteration was in regard to the fifth Rule, and proposed that that Rule should be abolished, and that for it should be substituted the following : — " That the principle of payment for work done in the flat-pressers and hollow-ware pressers branches " (the two branches which worked good-from-oven) "shall be the same as in the throwing, turning, and handling departments — viz. good-from-hand."

THE BOARD IN DANGER
Constitutional effort to abolish it 
Opposition of the employers

The manufacturers instantly arose against the proposal, and contended that the question of good-from-oven having been settled by the Trade Rules, it was no longer capable of being arbitrated upon ; and they threatened to break up the Board if the workmen persisted in their proposal. 

The latter replied, pointing out that the Trade Rules, of which the Rule in question was the fifth, provided for 

" the right of either party to appeal to the Board to change any Trade Usage at Martinmas," 

and declined to withdraw from their position. The gauntlet was therefore thrown down and accepted, and upon the result of the next meeting of the Board its future existence apparently depended.

Workmen's continued efforts to alter "trade usages" 

It may seem strange that the workmen should, within a year of its adoption, seek to change a Rule of the trade which they had then hailed with so much satisfaction, and as affording an apparently lasting settlement of a feud which had endured so long. 

They averred, however, that a year's experience of the working of the Rule had convinced them that it was easily to be evaded by the employers, and was constantly so evaded, to such an extent as to deprive it, in practice, of all that it promised in theory. 

The case of the operatives, against the Rule, was briefly this : 

That whereas the Rule threw upon the employer the burden of proof against his workmen, that the ware he (the employer) declined to pay for was bad through the fault of the workmen, the Rule had been applied in an exactly contrary way — that the employer had assumed, or asserted, that so much of the ware was bad, and had stopped a corresponding amount out of the workmen's wages, leaving the workmen to prove, to the master's satisfaction, that the master was wrong. 

That process was a somewhat exacting one from the workmen, for " proof to the master's satisfaction" was a matter of some difficulty. 

The workmen recalled the Rule under which the system was governed: 

"That no payment be made for work which can be proved to be the fault of the workmen"— 

and asked, unanswerably: 

"If the workman, then, was expected to pick up his ware, and point to every speck and flaw upon it, and endeavour to convince his employer that those specks and flaws were the result of his bad workmanship, and such as, under the Rule, disentitled him to be paid for it?" 

There surely could not be a better example of the reductio ad absurdam in argument. 

Obviously, the burden of proof was thrown upon the employer. Then, if that were so, it was the employer upon whom rested the onus of taking his case before the Board of Arbitration in case of dispute with his workmen as to what ware should not be paid for. 

But, said the workman, the master took the law into his own hands, exercised his own judgment, and left the matter there. 

But the workman could appeal to the Board if he felt himself aggrieved? Certainly, but such appeal would be a tacit acknowledgment of the right of the employers to interpret the Rule as they were doing, for his appeal would be to the Board to say that such ware was not spoiled through his fault, whereas it was for the master to establish his case against his workman. 

But then the workmen could make a general appeal to the Board to say that the Rule was being generally misapplied, and asking for an authoritative declaration to that effect ? So they might ; but if the Rule had been misinterpreted, had they any reason to believe that an "authoritative declaration" in their favour would be any more respected ? — for it could only amount to a declaration that the Rule meant what it said.

A FORTY YEARS' GRIEVANCE
The Board of Arbitration in danger 

But the workmen had made up their minds to a final abolition of the system. They had struggled against it for forty years, and never once had the employers answered the argument that it was a system capable of the grossest abuses, and one that could not be defended on grounds of justice. 

And at last, a year before, they had succeeded, as they hoped, in putting an end to any possibility of abuse by framing a Rule which, if observed, would adequately protect the workmen. 

But they had seen that Rule violated and reduced to nullity, and now they were determined that the whole system should go, root and branch, for it seemed to them that so long as the principle that there should be any supervision of the workman's work after it had left his hands was admitted, that principle served as the foundation for a superstructure of qualifications and limitations which reduced any Rule based upon it to ineffectiveness. 

And it is certain that their determination was stronger because of the mortification they felt at the disappointment of their hopes a year before. That, then, was the question as it appeared to the workmen, upon which they insisted that the Board should arbitrate.

Against that view of the workmen, what was the answer of the employers? 

Well, there was absolutely no answer, in so far as the ethics of the case were concerned. They took their stand upon the point of order that it was a chose jugée finally determined, and not to be set aside except in the miraculous contingency of a mutual agreement, in which the Umpire should take no part. 

It seems pretty clear that the manufacturers believed that in assenting to the fifth Trade Rule they had settled once and for ever the question of good-from-oven. 

It is equally clear that although the workmen were satisfied with the fifth Rule, and most probably would have remained so if it had been satisfactorily carried our, they had not regarded the adoption of that Rule as finally locking the door on the question if it were not satisfactorily carried out. Unless, therefore, the workmen could be supposed to be contending for what they already possessed, one may justly assume that the employers had disregarded the Rule as to good-from-oven.

The day of the meeting..

The day of the meeting came. The operatives had insisted upon the presence of the Umpire, [footnote 6] as provided for in case of a dispute. 

The employers, however, refusing to treat the question as a dispute, but as a fundamental part of the Board's Constitution, declined to allow him to take any active part in the proceedings, although acquiescing in his presence. 

He had expressed his willingness to attend, and his readiness 

" to do anything in his power which threatened not only the existence of the Board, but also the peace of the district," 

but declaring that he would not give any opinion upon the question in dispute as his duties were in abeyance " between the settlement of one case and the discussions of another." 

The Umpire was therefore a passive spectator of the whole proceedings, and, under such circumstances, the meeting was destined to be fruitless of any agreement, as both sides were equally resolved upon the justice of their cause, and their determination to uphold it. 

It was not an occasion when arguments were of avail, and when the vote was taken it only showed that the ten manufacturers were of one opinion and the ten operatives of another. The meeting then broke up, and the fate of the Board of Arbitration hung in the balance.

"LOCK-OUT BY THE MASTERS"

Martinmas was drawing perilously near, and the position became critical. 

On each side notices had been given for an alteration in the prices — on the part of some of the manufacturers for a reduction of wages, and on the part of certain operatives in various branches for an advance. 

The workmen, however, now announced that unless the employers would consent to the question of good-from-oven being arbitrated upon, they would not consent to arbitration in the cases where notices of a reduction in wages had been served upon them. 

Thereupon, the manufacturers who were members of the Board at once " locked out " their men. They were amongst the most influential, and employed the greatest number of hands. Those branches which were not affected by the question of good-from-oven had expressed their willingness to arbitrate as to wages, but the manufacturers then refused to consider even their case until the demand of the other branches for arbitration upon good-from-oven was withdrawn.

The situation then appeared to be an absolute dead-lock, and there seems little doubt that matters would have developed to a serious extent, and that the Board of Arbitration would have been, for the time at any rate, dissolved, but for a fortunate circumstance. 

Since the abortive meeting of the Board upon the fifth Rule to which we have just referred, another meeting had taken place to decide one of the appeals of which notice had been given — an appeal, in this instance, from the flat-pressers employed at a particular firm for an advance. 

The Umpire was present, sitting as arbitrator ; but the hearing of the case was not completed, and the Board adjourned. Since the adjournment the general situation had grown more serious, as just explained, by the masters locking out their men. 

The Board, however, met again, as arranged, to conclude the hearing upon the case partly heard, and this gave an opportunity for the whole question of the fifth Rule being unfolded, this time before the Umpire sitting in his official capacity, de novo. 

The employers urged that they would not have taken the trouble to have conferred upon the Trade Rules agreed upon if they had thought the operatives intended to endeavour to alter them the following year — an argument which was of weight as going to prove the belief of the employers in the permanent character of the Trade Rules adopted.

THE LIMITS OF ARBITRATION

They, however, weakened their case by saying that whilst they were prepared to arbitrate upon other trade usages, they would not consent to arbitrate upon the usage of good-from-oven. 

The distinction was obviously an inconsistency, for either their argument as to the permanent character of the Trade Rules applied to all, or to none. 

The workmen, on the other hand, added to the strength of their arguments by referring to a decision of the Umpire upon a case heard three months previously, in reference to a dispute concerning wages. 

He had then said : 

" I must express the reluctance with which I have performed the duty of making this award. I believe that our Board may be usefully employed in the amicable settlement of disputes arising out of the non-fulfilment of agreements, or out of the misunderstanding of the terms of such agreements, out of the breach of one of the Board's Trade Rules, or of some recognised custom of the trade, or in the definition and interpretation of these Rules and customs ; and in such matters I willingly discharge, to the best of my ability, the duty of giving a final decision. 
But I am not so sure that it is wise for our Board to attempt to fix the rate of wages, which must depend upon so many and constantly varying circumstances, and cannot be regulated by the decisions of a Board, however influential." 

The operatives now recalled this pronouncement, and argued that if the view of the employers were to be upheld — that trade usages could not be arbitrated upon ; and, on the other hand, if the view of the Umpire were accepted — that the Board should not consider the question of wages — there would absolutely remain no justification or reason for the existence of the Board at all. 

Finally, after prolonged discussion, the employers agreed to abide by the decision of the Umpire as to whether the fifth Rule was one upon which arbitration was permissible — a course which the operatives had urged without avail at the previous meeting upon the question, and to which they now renewed their consent.

AFTER FORTY YEARS
" Good-from-oven" re-affirmed

The Umpire then announced that his decision would be in favour of the employers' view, holding that 

"the employers were right in their contention that the question of good-from-oven cannot, under the present Rules of the Board, be the subject of arbitration."

With this decision the operatives were forced to be content. They loyally submitted to it ; the lock-out was withdrawn, the cross appeals of employers and employed were arbitrated upon, and the Board went on as before.

Perhaps no further excuse is needed for having entered so fully into this controversy than the fact that it was the last chapter in the long struggle upon good-from-oven. 

The question has never since been raised as a direct issue, and the practice of the trade remains to this day substantially the same as that which led to the agitation for the repeal of the fifth Trade Rule.