recognition of the Union, but when the strike occurred they refused to deal with the Association as represanting the men, or even to deal with the men in a body. They demanded that the men should return to their work and forward individually any complaints to headquarters through the usual channels. Thus the question of the recognition of the Union became an issue in the strike. It was not persisted in by the men, however, for under the advice of Mr. Haldane it was waived when the strike had been in progress for a fortnight. Still the men continued to act together, although there were numerous defections from their ranks. The efforts made by the companies' officials to deal with the men individually and to induce them to return to their employment succeeded only partially.
The Views and Proceedings of the Men on Strike.—Throughout the controversy prior to the strike, and during the whole of its course, the men insisted that their leading grievance was the excessive amount of overtime, and proposed, with a view to check this, that wages as for time and a quarter should be paid for overtime.[1] The railway managers affected to treat the whole question as one involving a demand for increased wages.[2] The men warmly repudiated this, and there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of their desire to reduce the number of the hours of work, rather than to increase wages.[3] The men again and again, before and during the strike, pleaded for arbitration; but this was consistently refused by the companies.[4]
The men on strike engaged extensively in 'picketing.' It is probable, indeed, that but for the successful 'picketing' of Sunday evening, 21st December, the strike would have altogether collapsed. Men were accosted on their way to duty on Sunday evening, were told that a strike had taken place, and large numbers were promptly induced to join the ranks of the strikers. It has not been alleged that on this particular evening 'picketing' went beyond 'giving information.' There is no doubt that intimidation was carried on at a later period to a considerable extent. It would, however, be quite unfair to regard intimidation as the normal incident of 'picketing' in the Scottish strike.[5] Considerable allowance must be made for excitement during a crisis of this kind, for the tendency of all crises to bring out turbulent elements, and for habitual want of urbanity in the 'giving of information' by the same men to each other even under normal conditions. There were a few outrages of a more or less serious character, but these cannot fairly be charged either against the leaders or against the general body of the man.
The Settlement.—Ultimately a compromise was arrived at. The men returned to their employment on the assurance that deputations would be received by the directors, and that the grievances of the various grades would be discussed without delay. A month after the close of the strike, the G. and S. W. Railway granted the principle of a sixty-hour week with other important concessions particularly as regards the 'booking' system. At the moment of writing, the conferences between the men and the directors of the North British
- ↑ Circular letter to companies, 10th September, 1890.
- ↑ Circular to staff N. B. R. Co., 15th November, 1890.
- ↑ This question is discussed at length. The Scottish Railway Strike, pp. 28 et seq.
- ↑ Ibid. p. 10.
- ↑ The statement made in the House of Lords (6th March, 1891) by Lord Wemyss that the condition of matters amounted to a 'state of siege' is quite an axnggention. There is here no intention of minimizing the guilt of outrage of this description. The graver the outrage, the graver the import of the question we are now putting. Why were the people so deeply moved?
