THE BRASSEY ARBITRATION, AND THE STRIKE OF 1881

THE THIRD ARTITRATION

The workmen try to get their pennies back 

At Martinmas of 1880, each branch sent in an appeal to the employers for a return of the reduction decreed by Lord Hatherton the previous year. 

The appeal of each branch was distinct and independent, and though each asked for the same thing, they gave varying reasons for it. The object of making the appeal one from each branch, instead of a united effort, was that the workmen had awakened to the danger of allowing the precedent set by the employers to become a practice — viz. that of setting all branches on the same level, and asking for a uniform reduction upon all — because they saw that the method was merely the outcome of the "selling price" principle. 

The branch form of appeal was therefore not only an effort to keep up the traditional custom of the trade that each branch should be separately dealt with, but was intended to cut the ground from underneath the employers on the question of selling prices. 

The employers, however, by refusing the branch appeals en bloc, practically made the arbitration, which necessarily followed the refusal, a general question, and each  branch, whilst giving reasons peculiar to itself why, of all others, it deserved to succeed in its appeal, vainly insisted upon its right to have a separate award.

To each branch appeal, the employers sent a separate reply, in every case refusing the request, and in some cases answering the reasons given by their workmen seriatim. 

These appeals and the replies are interesting because they practically summarise the issue between the two sides, as presented by them to the Umpire. 

There were two grounds common to all the appeals: 

(1) that trade continued to improve, and 

(2) a protest against wages being controlled by selling prices. 

There was also, in the replies of the manufacturers, one clause common to all, but vague and enigmatical : 

" The improvement of trade applies to certain markets only, and the goods have been sold at the same, and, in many instances, at less prices than were obtained in 1879, and has been of more advantage to the workmen than to the manufacturers." 

Wherein had lain the advantage to the workmen was not explained. 

The appeals of several branches alleged that they had, by altered modes of working and " count," lost all the advantages of the advance of 1872 long before the reduction of 1879. To this the employers returned a flat denial. 

The flat-pressers made one claim peculiar to them — that the reduction decreed by Lord Hatherton bore with special severity upon them, inasmuch as the reduction applied to their gross earnings, and they had not been able to reduce the wages of their attendants, whom they paid. 

To this the employers replied that it was their own fault that they had not reduced the wages of their attendants.

The references to selling prices, however, were of most interest, but the employers only permitted themselves to allude to this question in a few instances. 

Answering the hollow - ware pressers, that "the selling prices of manufacturers have not regulated the rate of wages," the employers said : 

" Workmen's wages have always been regulated, and will continue to be regulated, by selling prices. The hollow-ware pressers must know that the manufacturer cannot and does not pay a higher price for making than he can recover in his selling prices." 

Of course he could not, and did not, but the more proper way to put it would have been : "The manufacturer cannot and does not sell his goods at a lower price than he pays for them to be made." But the employers' answer really summarised their point of view of the whole question : that wages should be subsidiary to selling prices, and not that selling prices should be subsidiary to wages, and the general cost of production. 

The reply of the manufacturers to the hollow -ware pressers upon this point cannot be said to have been an answer, or to have been any contribution to a solution of the ethical problem of whether wages should be governed by selling prices. 

It was left to the turners, however, to make the most exhaustive reference to this question. In their appeal they said : 

(1) "That the general reduction awarded by Lord Hatherton was contrary to the practices of the trade ; 

(2) that we deny it is possible to equitably rule our wages by the rising and the falling of the markets, there being no clear and definite means of ascertaining or gauging such rise or fall ; 

(3) that it is unwise to attempt to regulate the rate of wages by reference to a standard which is cloudy, shifting, and elastic, there being as many differences in qualities of goods and of selling rates as there are manufacturers engaged in the production ; 

(4) that under such a scheme working potters are at the mercy of so few or so many figures as the masters choose to disclose ; 

(5) that in any trade where prices regulate wages these prices are easily ascertained in open market." 

To this series of arguments — which put the case for the workmen with great force and point — the employers returned no answer whatever.

The Brassey Arbitration (1880)

The Umpire selected was Mr Thomas Brassey, afterwards Sir Thomas, and now Lord Brassey, Governor of Victoria. 

Nothing but praise can be said of the manner in which he conducted the case ; he was patient, vigilant, full of inquiry, and soon showed a remarkable grasp of the bewildering details and technicalities which were submitted to him, connected with a trade to which he was a complete stranger.

The case of the workmen may be summarised under three heads: 

(1) increase of general trade, as shown by Government return of exports ; 

(2) individual evidence of smallness of earnings ; 

(3) protest against selling prices ruling wages. 

The figures quoted to show the increase in exports and a decrease in imports of earthenware since 1876, were not, as they could not be, disputed by the employers ; but the most interesting part of the proceedings of the arbitration — which lasted for three days — was that which referred to the question of selling prices, because, from the award of Lord Brassey, it is clear that he regarded that question as of vital consequence to the whole case.

THE SELLING-PRICE DOCTRINE
The workmen fight the selling-price doctrine 

The objection to the " selling price " argument was sympathetically listened to by the Umpire. 

He had always interested himself in industrial matters, he was the author of a valuable book on " Work and Wages " and of other publications on the industrial problem ; he had filled the office of Umpire in many industrial disputes ; he had a broad mind, and could appreciate, if not accept, the contentions of the workmen that the selling prices of the manufacturers should not govern their wages. 

The representative of the turners — whose appeal had dealt lengthily with the question — raised the definite issue. 

He revived an item of forgotten history, which has been dealt with in this narrative in its proper place, that previous to the great strike in 1836, an influential employer had written to a local newspaper " complaining of the unfair competition to which manufacturers were subjecting themselves by under-selling, and by reducing wages to meet the results of their unwise competition," and appealing to the men to combine to raise wages where they were low, so that competition in selling prices might be checked. 

In 1836, therefore, manufacturers looked to an increase in their workmen's wages as a protective measure for themselves, in order that they might maintain their selling prices, but in 1876 they had reversed the effort, and for the first time asked that wages might be lowered so that they might lower selling prices. 

In the interval of forty years, the representative of the turners contended, 

" there was nothing to show that the principle of governing wages by selling prices had any recognition," 

and he challenged the manufacturers 

"to produce any of the appeals of the workmen in 1872 in which they based their demand upon the profits of their employers, and the high selling prices which prevailed," 

a challenge which was not accepted.

The Umpire sympathises with them

Therefore, the principle invoked in 1876, which was then repudiated by the Umpire, was a new one in the trade. So much was unanswerable. 

Then came the question : Even though a new departure, is it a fair one? 

Upon this point, he argued: 

"If the idea simply means that the employers are to have the sole control of the figures — their own books — then the proposal is fallacious and one-sided. 
It has nothing workable and mutual in it. Last year employers gave us certain invoices. We do not say it was so, but by selecting the selling prices of the worst goods an argument in bad times may be easily drawn adverse to the workmen. 

It is clear that if the rule of governing wages by prices must exist, it would not be a fair one if we did not have good as well as bad prices taken and averaged to get at what should be the rate of wages. But even supposing employers say all the selling prices, good as well as bad, shall be included in the reckoning, the unwisdom of the rule so far as the employers' own interests are concerned is soon found out. 
Suppose an employer went to a great expense for new shapes and designs, and as a just reward for his enterprise he obtained a very high price for the finished goods ; having laid down the principle that selling prices shall rule wages, the workman would demand to follow. 
And if the employer said ' No, this high profit is the result of my enterprise, and I am entitled to all the margin above profit on common goods,' then the obvious reply of the workman would be, 

' I may walk with the employer in the valley, but the atmosphere of the mountain top of best trade results is held as being unsuitable to my constitution.' 

Yet, I cannot help sympathising with the employers on this point. For the man to claim a higher rate of wages for the few hours he is engaged in placing a number of plaques in a sagger because the plaques realise a large profit is nonsensical. 

But how are selling prices to guide at all if not throughout? 

The employers would be the first to resent the logical result of their own theory. If I reduce the matter to an absurdity, it is because the rule all round is absurdly impracticable. 

Besides, there is the main fact still unsettled ; what is to be the starting-point? How much wages must be proportioned to certain rates of selling prices ? As the articles are legion, the initiatory work would find enough work for the wit of all the Umpires that ever sat.

 Philadelphian lawyers would be nowhere. As a matter of fact, the standard is absolutely unreliable, It is asking that something may be measured that contracts or expands even while the rule is applied to it ; and I must affirm, in the language of the appeal, that it is unwise to make the attempt to regulate potters' wages by selling prices." 

The Umpire, though agreeing with much of the foregoing, asked what circumstance should govern the rate of wages if selling prices did not, and the representative of the turners replied : 

" The basis of the wages rate has been, as far as any basis has existed, a fair living rate for a British artisan, consideration being paid to skill, physical effort put forth, and to immeasurable loss through health being undermined." 

The rates of wages paid in various branches differed, but thirty shillings a week had been looked upon by the average potter as a fair rate below which he did not wish to fall, whilst in the higher branches the possible wages amounted to more. 

Therefore, 

"either you must take this rather loose and general idea of a skilful workman receiving from £1, 10s. to £2, 5s. a week, which, though not a scientific rate of wages, has existed hitherto, or, if the employers take the selling prices as the basis for regulating wages, they must adopt it with all its logical consequences." 

This, then, was the view presented by the workmen to the Umpire as to the question of their wages being governed by selling prices. As it would seem, the arguments by which it was supported were, if not unanswerable, at least of sufficient weight to have merited some acknowledgment from the masters ; yet it will scarcely be believed that the employers did not vouchsafe one single word of direct reply to the arguments which the workmen addressed to the Umpire upon this point. 

They studiously avoided any reference to it, but went on quoting their selected invoices, as instances of reduced selling prices, as though it were a matter of common acceptance that the decree of the Umpire should depend upon the isolated invoices of goods to which they made reference. 

They had not the excuse for this omission that the Umpire himself paid no heed to the arguments of the workmen. On the contrary, he displayed the greatest interest in all the references made to the question of selling prices throughout the inquiry, and again and again, by his comments upon the views of the workmen, gave an opening, if not a challenge, to the manufacturers to make some attempt to meet argument by argument.

"AN INSUPERABLE DIFFICULTY"
Difficulties of Arbitration

What, for instance, could more clearly show his appreciation of the workmen's views than the following remarks, made upon the third day of the arbitration : — 

" I think I shall sum up all that can be said about selling prices regulating wages, by saying that whilst they contend for the principle that wages depend upon the selling prices, the employers at the same time must admit that the application of the principle is attended with a peculiar, if not an insuperable difficulty, in the case of trade in earthenware. 

The number of articles is so great, the prices differ so considerably for the same goods made by the different makers, and supplied to different markets, that the situation differs materially from what presents itself in the iron trade, where the prices are determined publicly by negotiating on Exchange?" 

This was practically a summary of the arguments of the workmen themselves, but coming from the mouth of the Umpire himself, it is inexplicable that no attempt was made by the manufacturers to answer the arguments of their opponents, endorsed so fully by the judge called in to decide between them. But even the remarks of the Umpire just quoted, though directly addressed to the manufacturers, elicited no response.

THE EMPLOYERS' RETICENCE

One can only assume, therefore, that they were unable to answer the arguments of the workmen, and bowed to the opinion of the Umpire that "the principle was attended with a peculiar, if not an insuperable difficulty ! " And they did not endeavour to minimise that difficulty. 

On the contrary, their whole attitude at the arbitration confirmed the view of the Umpire. What was the cause of the difficulty, almost "insuperable," attending the application of the principle that selling prices should govern wages ? 

To quote the Umpire again, the difficulty was the " multitudinous number of articles," and the varying prices of each manufacturer. 

One would have expected, then, that the manufacturers would have made some attempt to minimise the difficulty by showing that definite and general information as to the effect of selling prices upon wages was available, by showing the direct relation between the two, by showing the proportion which one bore to the other, and by showing how they were interdependent, and how one reacted upon the other. 

But they did nothing of the kind. To have given such information, it is obvious that two sets of figures would have been required — viz. the total amount of wages paid, and the total value of the ware produced. 

Then the relation which one bore to the other would have been seen, and the figures would have had some value, and such information would have diminished the "difficulty" of which the Umpire had spoken. 

But what was the attitude of the manufacturers in regard to these two points ? 

Asked to give information as to the total amount of wages paid, one manufacturer said : " I cannot tell, and if I could, I would not." 

Asked as to whether, if the principle were admitted, the manufacturers would give such general information as to selling prices, as would enable some definite basis to be established, another manufacturer said : " I am not prepared to say that I would consent to any person comparing my prices with those of other manufacturers." 

This then was the position : The manufacturers asked for wages to be governed by selling prices ; the workmen argued, and the Umpire agreed, that such a course was next to impossible ; and the employers, leaving the contention unanswered, proceed to prove its absolute truth by refusing to give any information upon the two factors which alone entered in the case — wages, and selling prices. 

Anything more farcical it would be impossible to conceive, for it reduced their claim that selling prices should govern wages to absolute nonsense.

Employers refuse to give information

What, then, was their answer to the workmen's appeal for the return of " Lord Hatherton's pennies " ? 

They admitted that trade had increased, but answered that selling prices had gone down. 

They adduced no figures of any value in support of their statement, and refused to give those figures which alone could have proved their contention. 

It was left to the workmen, therefore, to endeavour to throw some light upon this vital question. The only figures available to them were those published by the Government, available to the world. 

The Umpire himself was convinced of the way in which the workmen were handicapped. " Everyone," he said, "must sympathise very much with those who advocate the cause of the workmen in the extreme difficulty to which they are subject in endeavouring to assess profits" — or ascertain selling prices. [footnote 1]

However, they did the best they could, and went to the only source, and at the same time the most reliable source, of information open to them. And the Government returns showed that in the case of exports to America, the value per package had been steadily increasing since 1868, and this they considered as prima facie evidence that selling prices had increased, and not diminished. 

It is true that the manufacturers replied that the increase in price was because the ware itself was of a higher quality, and of a more expensive kind, and though this assertion was combated by the workmen, it may well have been true. 

But surely the best answer to be made would have been to have given full and frank information as to the relation between wages and selling prices, and not to have compelled the workmen to go to the only meagre source of information open to them to combat a point raised by themselves, whilst they themselves possessed all the information which was necessary to decide a question which they said must be judged according to the knowledge which they alone held, but which they refused to impart to the judge to whom the question had been submitted. 

The workmen had done the best they could to enlighten the Umpire upon the question of selling prices so far as it related to the foreign trade, but the result was rather an inference than absolute evidence of fact. But as for the home trade, they had not even enough information at their command to enable them to draw an inference. They could merely point to the increased revenue of the country, to the steadiness of the money market, to the fact that for the third time in a century Consols stood at par, and to a good harvest, and argued that even if the employers of The Potteries had not gathered the fruits of this general prosperity, "ordinary economical laws made it a certainty" that it would ripen and blossom for them soon.

THE WORKMEN HOPEFUL

The workmen were hopeful of the result. They had proved their case, so far as it was possible for them to do so. The Umpire had refused to give separate awards for the separate branches. He said he could only consider the trade as a whole, and could not listen to the technical circumstances which variously affected the various branches. 

And so the workmen confined themselves to the general lines laid down by the Umpire, and dwelt upon the Board of Trade returns, as irresistibly proving general prosperity in the trade. 

The Umpire himself appreciated their importance. On the third day, he said : 

" The most important points are really contained in the Blue Books, and the figures that we have with respect to packages. The Blue Books give us figures not only as to the exports, but as to the import trade also. These are broad figures" — 

such as he had asked for. He admitted their importance, and they were favourable to the appeal. And, as to the question of selling prices, we have quoted his opinion upon that point — that it presented "a peculiar, if not an insuperable difficulty." And really these were the only two factors which he had said would decide the question in his mind — and his subsequent award showed that he was concerned with little else.

THE UMPIRE'S AWARD
Verdict against the men  

The workmen, therefore, had some reason for hoping that they had established their case to the satisfaction of the Umpire. 

The arbitration came to an end, and they waited for the award. It is difficult to say whether they were more disappointed or astonished by the result, for the Umpire 

" regretted the necessity which compelled him to decide against the appeal of the workmen." 

The men accepted Mr Brassey's award very sullenly. He was known to hold broad views on industrial questions, and to sympathise with the combinations and efforts of working-men, and this knowledge of his tendencies and sympathies had led to a hope which his remarks and inquiries during the progress of the arbitration had considerably strengthened — the hope of victory. 

It is not untrue to say that they were ten times more surprised at Mr Brassey's refusal to restore to them " Lord Hatherton's penny " than they were disappointed when that nobleman deprived them of it. 

The inquiry before Mr Brassey had been much more exhaustive than that before Lord Hatherton ; the workmen's case had been prepared with greater care and in greater detail, the figures they had been able to quote were more in their favour than those which they had been able to lay before Mr Brassey's predecessor, and, moreover, they had secured a sympathetic attitude on the part of the last Arbitrator towards their objection against having their wages regulated by selling prices which Lord Hatherton had been far from manifesting, and they could not understand how the verdict could have gone against them.

The employers had won a great victory. They had contended, for the second time, that wages must be governed by selling prices, and again had they succeeded in that contention. 

Their first success was not so much to boast about — Lord Hatherton had never betrayed any appreciation of the " insuperable " difficulties which that contention involved, but had wrapped himself in the ample folds of the comfortable creed that labour was a straw which must be blown about helplessly in the gusts of competition. But their second victory was much more notable, for they had forced their contention in the teeth of one who had rejected it, and who had vainly called upon them to justify it.

THE AWARD DISCUSSED

It seems to us that whatever right the workmen may have had to question a decision which they had invited, they had good ground for criticising the reasons by which it was arrived at ; and that criticism could easily have been disarmed if Mr Brassey had taken a simple course. 

We have seen that he repudiated the feasibility of applying the test of selling prices to decide wages, and yet actually invoked that test in coming to a decision ; 

we have seen that his main objection to the application of that test was not so much one of principle as the peculiar difficulties — " almost insuperable " — which such a test offered in the potting trade ; 

and we have seen that he sympathised with the workmen in the difficulties which beset them in encountering and answering that test. 

We have seen, on the other hand, that the employers made no attempt to answer the objections, or to diminish the difficulties which their repudiated doctrine offered. 

It appears, therefore, that where Mr Brassey missed the simple course to which we have referred, was in omitting to put this clear issue to the employers : 

" You say that selling prices must govern wages. Well and good. Then, if you enunciate that principle, you must supply such proven facts as alone can give it effect" 

If that course had been adopted, either the contention of the employers would have fallen to the ground, unconsidered, or would have been supported by such facts as would have enabled proper consideration to have been given to it. 

But the workmen had good ground for dissatisfaction at seeing the contention prevail, without being supported in evidence. For there could be no fairness in any method of arbitration which accepted broad and general statements, capable of proof, unsupported by that proof. 

Mr Brassey had again and again dwelt upon the difficulty of applying the rate of selling prices to wages in the pottery trade, as was done in the iron trade, because of the fact that in the latter trade, where the custom alone prevailed, the selling prices were not only ascertainable by the workmen, but as easily ascertained by them as by their employers. 

In the pottery trade, to which the same rule was desired to be applied, that information was contained only in the closed book of the employers, which they declined to open to the knowledge of the workmen whose wages had to be governed by its contents. 

If the employers insisted that they could not disclose the information at their command, then they had no right to insist that their version of it should be binding upon those against whom it was directed. It was quite possible that their version of it was unimpeachable and correct ; but, for the workmen, there was the uncomfortable alternative.

It is true, however, that Mr Brassey would have had some difficulty in giving effect to his appreciation of the inapplicability of the " selling price " doctrine to the issue, because he did not regard himself as a Court of Appeal from the decision of Lord Hatherton, but felt that, that decision having been given, he could only consider how circumstances had changed in the interval ; and, if the circumstances had not changed, he could not revoke the verdict of his predecessor by declining to apply a principle which his predecessor had accepted.

ARBITRATION BOARD DESTROYED
They are angry with Arbitration 

The workmen, however, were angry with arbitration. 

Their leaders had had some difficulty in persuading them to appeal to it for the settlement of the claim upon which Mr Brassey had just decided, but they had accepted it, though with misgiving, and now it seemed to them that the result had justified their distrust. 

It would, of course, have been wrong of them to have assailed Justice because she had decreed that they were wrong, but they directed all their anger against a system which they felt denied them justice. 

And so, one by one, the different branches sent in notices announcing their withdrawal from the Board of Arbitration. Their leaders argued with them until they had almost argued themselves out of leadership, and then accepted the position. 

But, in the course of the following year, 1881, they endeavoured to instil into their followers the conviction that arbitration was a splendid thing — if only properly carried out — and they proposed that an effort should be made to reconstruct the Board upon lines that would give an equality to the men. 

The Board broken up

The men listened sullenly, and agreed, half convinced. Conferences were hastily arranged between masters and men, but the masters showed no disposition to recreate the Board. The men had wilfully destroyed it, and must take the consequences. No doubt it would be re-constructed, but these things took time. So the masters spoke. Meanwhile, Martinmas was drawing near, and the men were determined to get their pennies back. The Board of

Arbitration was still suspended in mid-air — the men unwilling to appeal to it again, without the insertion of fresh rules in its constitution which they thought would give them a fair chance ; the masters, flushed with recent victory, well content with things as they were. 

Then Conferences were abandoned, and the months drifted on to Martinmas. The men sent in notices for a return of their " pennies," the masters returned a solid refusal, and there was no Board of Arbitration to decide between them. 

The men prepare for a strike 

The only possible result was a strike. On the eve of Martinmas, a mass meeting of potters was held. 

Their most influential leader exhorted caution, 

" and advised thorough and searching arbitration, so that all would be convinced of the justice of decisions." 

But his voice was drowned in the general clamour. Amidst the wildest enthusiasm, a resolution was passed, " That we cease work on Thursday, November 10th, unless upon the prices and wages paid before the award of Lord Hatherton." 

It was already the 9th of November, and the strike had begun. 

Meanwhile, the employers had met, and they, too, were determined. They passed a resolution pledging themselves "not to commence work at any higher price or altered terms," and added two others of even greater stringency: 

(1) "That any manufacturer having given notice of a reduction in workmen's prices, in order to bring such prices to those of other manufacturers, shall be at liberty to use means for obtaining such reductions." 

(2) "That we undertake, during the continuance of the present difficulty, not to engage each other's workmen unless such workmen present a written discharge from their late employers."

Their leaders endeavour to restrain them 
A scheme of arbitration suggested 

Four weeks passed, and the rigours of winter were upon them, before any voice was raised to call upon reason.

Then the leaders of the men, risking their popularity and influence with their followers, dared again to mention the distrusted name of arbitration. The men howled against it, and the leaders protested that they meant a different arbitration from that to which they had previously given their allegiance. 

Then a mass meeting of workmen was held, and the leaders won over the men by uttering the magic words " Sworn accountant." They still protested against the doctrine of selling prices, but felt that that principle having been affirmed by two arbitrators, they had lost ground which they could not recover. 

In the words of their leader : 

" They had now to recognise that the procedure of the Board was completely changed by the last two decisions, and they must see whether it was possible to adapt themselves to the new conditions which had been forced upon them. He advised that they should make the effort." 

They made the effort by passing the following resolution : — 

" That if the employers will consent to a sworn accountant investigating the books of manufacturers, chosen for the purpose ; and further, if some mode of regulating the relations of wages to selling prices can be agreed upon (as that is now to be the principle of the trade) this meeting is willing that the dispute shall be settled by arbitration." 

This resolution was sent to the employers. A Conference was arranged, and the two sides met.

THE STRIKE OF 1881

The employers consented to the appointment of an accountant, who should ascertain whether the nett selling prices from Martinmas 1880 to Martinmas 1881 were reduced, or otherwise, as compared with the prices ruling between 1872 and 1876, or during any one year within that period, and promising to give or refuse the advance, in accordance with the result of the investigation of the accountant, the men returning to work, meanwhile, on the old terms. 

The workmen objected to the years fixed by the employers, as they would be certain to tell against the men, inasmuch as from 1872 to 1876, and particularly at the beginning of that period, prices were higher than they had ever been in the trade. 

They suggested that if a definite period should be fixed, it should be the year when wages were advanced, previous to the Martinmas of 1872, or 1878 to 1879, the period upon which Lord Hatherton determined the reduction — and the latter period was urged by the workmen's leaders as offering the fairest basis of comparison. 

But the greatest divergence between the proposals of the men and the suggestion of the employers lay in this

That the men had suggested the appointment of an accountant, " as part of the machinery of the Board," and responsible to the Umpire, whilst the masters had proposed, or assumed, that the entire issue should be left to the accountant alone. 

Strange to say, nothing appears to have been said as to who should select the material upon which the accountant should proceed, or what and how many firms should be chosen as examples ; but probably the workmen appreciated this omission in the following reason, given by the leaders of the men, why the proposals of the employers could not be accepted : 

" That besides being deprived of an Umpire to settle the dispute, the workmen would be able to advance no reasons, and deal with no fac ts, but must simply allow the accountant to deal with the figures derived by him from the employers." 

The employers hesitated to consent to submit the case to the arbitration of an Umpire, and meanwhile asked the men to define exactly what they meant by asking that a sworn accountant should be allowed to investigate any statements " adduced in evidence." 

Then the men met again, and said that they meant 

" that the inquiry before the Umpire and the accountant instructed by him be not restricted to any particular year, but that evidence be allowed to be tendered or called for to enable the present selling prices, the present prices for labour, and the present cost of materials to be compared with any former year on which evidence is accessible, bearing upon the present conditions of the trade.

Further, that evidence be allowed upon any questions relating to the modes of working in the different branches concerned in the arbitration, or of any alteration in those modes of working which have any influence upon the amount of work to be performed for the same or for different rates of payment But that no inquiry shall be made into the business returns of any particular firm, or into the profits or losses of such firms." 

The last sentence of the statement was designed to conciliate the susceptibilities of those manufacturers who feared that an investigation into those circumstances which they had insisted should govern the dispute, should extend to a revelation of their individual business position, and indicated that all that the workmen desired was such information as, according to the contention of the employers themselves, was necessary to decide the issue.

DEFEAT OF THE MEN

The employers, however, refused to submit the case to an Umpire ; they restricted their concessions to the investigations of an accountant, and they threw the responsibility upon the workmen, " who had broken up the Board." 

The leaders of the workmen had already cried on their behalf a loud peccavi, had pointed out that the men had distrusted arbitration, because they had felt it had not given them a fair chance, and now they were prepared to submit their case to an extemporised arbitration, conducted under the same rules as those which had governed the Board, with the exception of the advantages which they felt an accountant's investigation would give them. 

But the employers remained obdurate, and repeated, " It was you who broke up the Board." And so several more weeks passed by. 

But the workmen were not only fighting the ranks of the employers. The Russians boast of their General Fevrier ; the employers had on their side the persuasion of December. It was because they had felt that in the termination of the trade year at Martinmas they had to encounter not only the determination of their masters, but the allied help of November and the impending winter, that the potters had in times gone by tried, without success, to change the termination of the trade year to the more propitious days of summer ; and it was because they were now experiencing the disadvantages and the hardships which that period imposed upon them, that they had during this strike of 1881 proclaimed one of their terms of surrender to be the change from Martinmas to Midsummer. 

But that was merely protesting against superior armament whilst the war was in progress. A cheerless Christmas had passed, and another year was on their thresholds ; they did not wish it to enter to see their empty cupboards, and so they returned to work — defeated.