Miners' Strike 1920s Style
Document of the Month - May
Although major industrial disputes can arise over
national issues and may be authorised by union
organisations at a national level, much of the physical
action and the outcomes of that action take place at a
local level. Effects of industrial action vary from one
locality to the next, as does the policing put in place to
maintain civil order in the face of such disputes.
At the end of the General Strike (May 1926) the coal
miners initially decided to remain on strike. This
decision, coupled with the importance of the industry to
the British Economy led to both employers and local
authorities taking the disruption very seriously. This
letter dated 25 June 1926 is asking for advice regarding
the possibility of being able to call in support from the
army if he felt the police were unable to protect the mines
and keep order during the dispute. He specifically cites
collieries in Fife as being potential trouble spots.
Scottish Office
York Buildings
Queen Street
Edinburgh
25
th June 1926
Dear Lamb
I have informed the Sheriff of Lanarkshire of the effect
of the discussion in our conference here yesterday on the
subject of the guarding of pits.
The Sheriff of Fife who was not able to attend the
conference yesterday came here yesterday afternoon and
discussed the matter with the Solicitor General and myself.
As regards temporary constables he welcomes the decision to
increase the limit from 50% to 75% with the prospect of a
further increase if required. In a grave emergency he would
require the fullest possible number both of temporary
constables and of men lent by other forces. As between
those two expedients, if the situation does not call for
both, he would prefer to raise his temporary constables to
75% before actually drawing on the lending forces. This is
cheaper from the standpoint of the borrowing county because
it has to meet the pay of the constables in either event,
but has smaller charges for transport, housing and feeding
in the case of temporary constables raised locally as
compared with regular constables brought from another
force. The Sheriff realises that from the standpoint of the
Government's purse borrowing of regular constables from
another force is likely to be the cheaper course, because
although the Government pays its share of the special costs
of transport, feeding and housing it escapes the additional
burden for wages which occurs if the aggregate number of
policemen in Scotland is increased by the appointment of
temporary constables. I told Fenton that in view of the
importance of protective measures I did not think that the
Government would wish to press the course of borrowing
regular constables from other forces in preference to the
raising of temporary constables locally. Perhaps you could
confirm or correct this. I had some correspondence on this
point recently with Hogg. It was raised by Macphail who
also prefers to raise the number of temporary constables
before calling on men from other forces which in his case
would be rather distant forces such as Argyll and Ross and
Cromarty.
Under the customary agreements between borrowing and
lending forces the latter are apparently freed from any
financial burden, with one exception. That exception is
that if, say, the City of Aberdeen appoints temporary
constables to take the place of men lent to Fife it will
have to provide uniforms for the temporary constables
unless Fife is to be saddled with this charge. Fenton
thinks that this may be a point of difficulty in
negotiating loans of constables. We discussed the question
whether it is really necessary that temporary constables
appointed in a non-mining force should be in uniform. I am
disposed to think that the Chief Constable of the lending
force may at least be given a discretion in this respect.
The temporary constable could have a baton, armlet etc
generally similar to the equipment of the Specials. In
practice some of the temporary constables may be special
constables employed whole time. Perhaps you could let me
know your views on this point. If we can agree to encourage
a relaxation on this point in the non-mining forces, it may
oil the wheels considerably. Of course, in the Mining areas
Chief Constables are not likely to suggest that uniforms
should be dispensed with. In the non-mining forces we shall
encourage the employment of special constables in place of
men lent to mining forces. This may be cheaper for the
lending forces and may also assist the negotiations for
loans.
Sheriff Fenton says that the Fifeshire police are fully
alive to the matter of mobility. The Chief Constable has
arranged for charabancs for moving his reserves etc. Col
Lindsay's Mobile Specials provide their own cars.
On the subject of the use of troops in support of the
guarding of pits the Solicitor General put to Fenton the
two alternatives (1) placing troops inside the pits in the
event of foreseen attack, (2) bringing the supporting
troops within striking distance (which we interpret as
being usually something less than a mile) in that event.
Fenton was not aware that the other Sheriffs favoured the
former course, and the Solicitor General was very careful
to emphasise the advantages of the latter course. Fenton's
opinion was that
theoretically course (2) is right on the ground that
it is generally desirable to keep troops out of the area of
conflict for as long as possible.
Practically, however, he thinks it will be better to
have the troops supporting the police inside the pits
because if this course be followed there is less likelihood
of "dirty work", that is violence by the mob and the use of
weapons by the troops. He thinks that the "moral" effect of
having troops (1) inside the pit and (2) on the flank of
the mob and within say 500 yards is about equal; but the
force which can exercise an adequate moral effect can, he
thinks, be smaller if placed inside the pit. His conclusion
was clearly in favour of placing the troops inside the pit.
Independently therefore and in spite of the Solicitor's
influence to the contrary Fenton arrives at the same
conclusion as the other Sheriffs as reported in my letter
yesterday.
Another set of questions was raised in this discussion.
We understand the intention to be that in the event of
threatened trouble at Pits parties of troops would be
brought from the centres such as Bathgate or Dalkeith in
which the main bodies would be located to convenient points
within striking distance of a mile or less from the
threatened pit or pits. For convenience let me refer to
Bathgate as point "A", the place within striking distance
as point "B" and the pit itself as point "C". Fenton raised
the question as to who would ask for and authorise the
bringing of the troops from A to B. I think it is clear
upon our past practice and on the view taken by the Lord
Advocate that the removal of a party of troops from A to C
ie the pit itself for the purpose of guarding the pits
before any trouble actually occurred should not be done on
a "requisition" by the Sheriff under the King's
Regulations. It would be an act authorised by the
Government ie the GOC in C acting in co-operation with the
Minister in Charge here. This was the course which was
followed in the case of the placing of guards on the
explosives concentration points. The Sheriff would usually
be consulted in view of his responsibility but his
"requisition" under the King's Regulations would not be
required or be appropriate in this case and if he objected
to the placing of the guard at the given point his
objection would not prevail against the view of the
Minister and the GOC in C.
The question thus arises whether the moving of the
troops from A (say Dalkeith) to B (the point within
striking distance of the pit) should be done as a
Government act on the responsibility alone of the GOV and
the Minister or whether it should be done on a formal
requisition by the Sheriff - it being understood that the
troops are being placed at B as a precautionary measure
before any riot has occurred and even before any crowd has
appeared on the scene. A practical illustration may be a
warning today that a crowd is to gather tomorrow and the
moving of troops to B tonight or in the early hours
tomorrow, as an anticipatory measure. The question arises
whether such movement from A to B is to proceed on a formal
"requisition" by the Sheriff. There is much to be said for
the view that this case is closely analogous to the
movement of men into the pit itself and therefore should
not be done on a formal "requisition". If the "striking
distance" principle should be finally adopted in spite of
the views expressed by the conference yesterday as reported
in my letter of the 24
th it would be important to have a perfectly
clear understanding on the question whether a formal
requisition is to be required or not. The Officers in
Command of troops have serious responsibilities and I think
it very likely that if an actual case occurred the military
authorities here would suggest that a formal requisition
should be given in order that the Officer in Command of the
troops may have any protective effect that it carries -
unless a clear understanding had been reached with the GOC
in C that a formal requisition would not be given in the
circumstances figured. This would involve a clear
understanding between the Minister here and the GOC in C
and the latter might also require to have a clear
understanding with the War Office on the point.
There is another reason why a formal requisition for
such movement to a point B (striking distance) may be
considered inappropriate save in the event of riot. The
movement of the troops is precautionary and would take
place as a rule a considerable time before the apprehended
trouble., Under the conditions which we contemplate the
threat against a particular pit may continue for several
days and may become practically permanent if the pit is
close to a hot district, as many of them are. In these
circumstances the troops when once moved to the pit itself
or within striking distance of it may have to be retained
there for several days or possibly for the duration of the
coal stoppage. This situation may arise at a considerable
number of pits even in one county. If, therefore, such
movement can be effected on the formal requisition of a
Sheriff there is a risk that such requisitions will be
issued in numerous instances with the result that a number
of parties of troops may be attached to particular pits for
considerable periods. This division of the troops may be
essential in the circumstances prevailing. But with the
same thing going on in several countries it is obvious that
the Military authorities may be embarrassed by the
multiplicity of demands unless the latter are controlled.
It is the function of the Minister in charge here to
determine, in consultation with the Naval and Military
authorities, the priority of demands on the aggregate
forces available and to decide which of them ought to be
met. This control by the Minister would be defeated if the
matter were left to the formal requisition of the Sheriff.
It is true that the Military authorities could decline to
honour the Sheriff's requisition. This however would be a
very undesirable procedure. It seems much better that the
matter should be adjusted
abante by the Minister in co-operation with the GOC
and in consultation so far as appropriate with the Sheriffs
as was done in 1921. There is therefore I think a strong
argument for ruling out the Sheriff's requisition in the
case of such movements either to the pits themselves or to
points in the vicinity of the pits save in the case of riot
contemplated by the King's Regulations. As I have said,
however, it will be desirable to have a clear understanding
upon the subject both with the Military Authorities and
with the Sheriffs.
I should be glad to be favoured with your views on the
matter.
Yours
Documents of the Month in 2003
January
A gift from a
child queen
February
A
frozen dinner to remember
March
Fate
summons the Maid of Norway
April
A
military guide to nose blowing
Documents of the Month in 2002
May
Treaty of Perpetual Peace
June
Register of Sasines
July
Architectural sketch of seaside shelter
August
The shirt with a message in Hindustani
September
Letter to Charles II in 1664
October
18th century map of Africa
November
Murder in Appin 1752
December
Plight of the
orphaned bairn
News Archive