Nottinghamshire Miners' Association Meeting, Hucknall, 29th June 1916

The schism that saw the leaders of Nottinghamshire’s miners split from the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain in 1926 had its origins long before that time. On 29th June 1916, a public meeting on Hucknall Market Place to debate the merits of the Nottinghamshire Miners’ Association withdrawing from the national body or, instead, going further by entering the political sphere, opposing Liberal and Tory owners in Parliament through the Labour Party.

“MINERS’ TOPICS.

“During the past few weeks Mr. W. Askew, checkweigher, of Newstead, and Mr. H. W. Booth [pictured], late Central Labour College, have, along with other supporters, being conducting an open-air propaganda to combat the plea put forward in other quarters that the miners of the county should secede politically from the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain. As is well-known, Mr. J. G. Peacock, M.P., and Mr. G. A. Spencer have addressed meetings in favour of the adoption of the secession.

“On Thursday night [29th June 1916] Mr. Askew and Mr. Booth addressed a meeting on the Hucknall Market place with reference to this matter.

“Mr. Askew gave an account of how the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain came into the Labour Party. He read the Labour Party pledge, which Mr. Hancock had signed.

“Mr. Hancock was adopted in Mid-Derbyshire as the Labour Candidate to run on strict Labour lines, independent of the Liberal and Conservative parties. He was asked by the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain to set up Labour machinery to enable the seat to be held; this Mr. Hancock refused to do. Owing to this refusal the M.F.G.B. had dismembered him, which meant, in effect that his financial support was withdrawn.

“Dealing with the special conference which dismembered Mr. Hancock, the speaker pointed out that Mr. Spencer, who defended Mr. Hancock, said that the Notts. Miners’ Association were ignorant of the strained relations between Mr. Hancock and the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain, yet at three Council meetings previous the Notts. miners had discussed the question.

”Mr. Booth, who followed, said they were stating the case for the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain. Mr. Hancock had urged them not to waste their money on three-cornered Parliamentary contests, but to spend it on returning men on local bodies. The speaker pointed out that three-cornered contests were becoming the rule in all local elections, hence the “three-cornered” problem was not solved that way. The Miners’ Federation of Great Britain was formed out of the defeats and failures which the Miners’ Associations suffered when acting independently. They realised the futility of a single colliery or a county union fighting alone. The Coalowners’ Associations had forced them to unite. The 1912 strike had taught them that they had to join hands with railwaymen and transport workers. Just as all industrial questions could only be effectively settled by uniting and fighting nationally, so only could political problems be solved in the same national unity and strength.

“They paid 6d. per week to build up trade union organisation to fight the coalowners. They found that the majority of coalowners were Liberals. How could they logically support the men whom they were organised to fight. The miners’ political party must be distinct from either the Liberal or Conservative parties. In asking the Notts. miners to secede from the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain politically. Mr. Hancock and Mr. Spencer were disuniting and weakening the political strength of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain. In unity there was strength in disunity there was weakness, which led to defeat.”

‘Hucknall Dispatch’, 6th July 1916.