In the history of the British trade union movement, an important place is occupied by the struggle of trade unions against the Taff court decision and its consequences. This aspect of the history of the Taff affair has not been the subject of much study. In the historiography of the English workers 'and trade union movement, attention to the" Taff affair " is mainly shown when considering the process of formation of the Labour Party and the activities of the leadership of the British Congress of Trade Unions (BCTU) 1 . Meanwhile, the UK labor press has shown a revival of interest in this story in recent years in connection with the anti-union legislation of the Tories. 2
Drawing on materials that were not previously used by Soviet researchers [3] makes it possible to shed more light on the consequences of the"Taff Valley case". In the context of the Anglobur War and the world economic crisis of 1901-1903, the offensive of entrepreneurs against the British trade unions intensified. It culminated in the decisions of the courts in the "Taff case" (1900-1901), which ordered the United Society of Railway Employees to compensate the Taff Valley Railway Company for losses incurred during the strike of its workers on August 20-31, 1900. Judge Farwell's decision (30 August 1900) awarding damages to the union was rejected by the Court of Appeal on 21 November 1900, but later confirmed by the House of Lords on 22 July 1901.4

This created a most dangerous precedent for trade unions: formally, no one denied the workers ' right to strike and picket, but in fact the court decision deprived them of the opportunity to effectively use these weapons .5 "To award the workers' unions compensation for the losses caused by the strike to the capitalist gentlemen," V. I. Lenin wrote of the Taff affair, " means in reality to destroy the freedom of strikes. Judges who are lackeys to the bourgeoisie know how to nullify even the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution when it comes to the struggle between labor and capital." 6
This "legal revolution" 7 was facilitated by the anti-union campaign of the bourgeois press, led by The Times. She called for limiting the "aggressiveness" of trade unions, which allegedly weakened the position of England in the conditions of world competition, and for a decisive struggle (or even reprisal!) with them following the example of American entrepreneurs 8 . "The Times and other Conservative newspapers immediately expressed their satisfaction with the" fair Taff decision " of the House of Lords. 9 Despite the attempts of the liberal opposition to "protect" trade unions in the press and parliament, unbridled-

1 See, for example: Vinogradov V. N. The first steps of the Labor Party (1900-1905). In: Problems of British History (hereinafter-PBI), Moscow, 1973. Soviet historiography on the development of the labour movement in Great Britain before and during the First World War. В кн.: ПБИ. М. 1980; Pelling H. History of British Trade Unionism. 3- rd ed. Lnd., 1976; Prochaska A. History of the General Federation of Trade Unions, 1899 - 1980. Lnd. 1982; Hinton J. Labour and Socialism. A History of the British Labour Movement. 1867 - 1974. Brighton. 1983; etc.

2 См. AUEW Journal, 1981, N 7, p. 16; The Transport Review, 1.1, 7.V.1982; Morning Star, 14, 24.XI.1981; 10.II.1983; 2.IV.1984; Union Freedoms under Threat. Lnd. 1983, p. 20.

3 TUC Parliamentary Committee: A Report of the Picketing Case on the Taff Vale Railway; Lnd. 1900; TUC Parliamentary Committee: Amendment of the Law of Picketing and the Protection of Trade Union Funds. Lnd. 1902; TUC Parliamentary Committee and the Legal Status of Trade Unions. Lnd. 1902; The Taff Vale Case; A Guid. to the ASRS Records. Warwick. 1978; The Railway News, 11.II.1901; The Railway Review, 13.IV, 24.VIII, 7.IX.1900; 14.I.1972.

4 On December 19, 1902, the jury decided that the trade union should pay a fine. In March 1903, the Taff Company received a cheque for the sum of 23 thousand pounds sterling from the OOJS.

5 In the context of the global economic crisis, this precedent was used not only by British, but also by American and Dutch entrepreneurs (see Justice, 7. IX. 1901; 14. III., 2. V. 1903; 22. IV, 27. V., 22. VII. 1905; The Times, 10IX. 1903; The Taff Vale Case, pp. 20-21; Reports of the Proceedings of the 33rd - d-40th Annual Trades Union Congresses. Lnd. 1900-1907 (hereinafter referred to as the TUC Report): 1904 TUC Report, p. 51; 1906 TUC Report, p. 79.

6 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 12, p. 26.

7 Hutt A. British Trade Unionism. A Short History. Lnd. 1975, p. 47.

8 The Times, 26.XII.1901; 2.I.1902.

9 Ibid., 23.VII.1901; 18.XI.1901 - 16.I.1902; The Standard. 22.XI.1900; Yorkshire Post, 26.XI.1900; Newcastle Chronicle, 22.XI.1900.

page 172

The anti-union campaign continued. There were rumours that the Conservative government was planning to pass legislation that would curtail trade union rights .10
The reaction of trade unions to the decisions of the courts of 1900-1901 was not unambiguous. At first, the dramatic change in the legal status of trade unions created confusion among them. Similar sentiments were reflected in the 33rd Congress of the BCT in Huddersfield in September 1900. When the delegates learned of Farwell's decision, discussion of the convention's agenda was interrupted. Most of the delegates demanded that the Taff case be brought to the highest court in the country. This was supported by representatives of the OZHS, London, Manchester, and Sheffield unions of printing workers, and London dockworkers. The Congress unanimously adopted a resolution instructing the parliamentary committee, the executive body of the BCT, to "draw the attention of all trade unions in the country" to the court's decision, "taking into account that it affects every trade union equally" .11 In October 1900, a parliamentary committee sent out a circular to trade union leaders and members urging them to provide assistance to the PLO leading the litigation. 12 The document stressed that the very existence of trade unions was put at risk 13 .

At first, the management of the BCT, which had hoped for the annulment of the court decision in the appellate instances, limited itself to this. However, the Lords verdict and the Conservative press campaign against trade unions changed the situation, prompting trade unions that were part of the BCT and the General Federation of Trade Unions14 , as well as individual trade union members and non-union workers, to speak out more vigorously against attacks on trade unions. The workers spoke out strongly in defense of their organizations, which were created to resist, as the construction worker J. R. R. Tolkien wrote. Hutchinson, "the unchecked power of capital" 15 .

After the decision of the House of Lords in July 1901 on the "Taff Valley case", two positions were formed in the trade unions regarding the current situation and ways out of it. Rightists in the leadership of the BCT and individual trade unions tried to take advantage of the situation to strengthen their influence and weaken the position of supporters of active actions. The leaders of the old trade unions and the staunch opponents of the "new" trade unions, J. Howell, F. Evans and others, painted the future of the trade unions in gloomy colors and proclaimed "the end of trade unionism" .16 R. Bell, General Secretary of the OJSF, even considered that the Lords ' decision "will have a useful effect on strengthening the forces of Trade Unionism and subjecting them to a healthy discipline" .17 E. Brown, legal adviser of the BCT, and J. R. MacDonald, Permanent Secretary of the Workers ' Representation Committee (PKK), established in 1900, were in favor of strengthening the influence of the trade union leadership, in particular, for concentrating power in the hands of their executive committees. 18
Following their own line, the BCT leadership spent almost two years (1901-1903) trying to " fit " trade unions into the new legislative framework, although since the decision on the "Taff case" was adopted by the House of Lords, the labor movement has already begun to understand that it is not so much caused by scholastic exercises of lawyers in interpreting the previous ones laws as much as "the desire of politicians to knock the ground out from under the feet of trade unions" 19 . In contrast to the right - wing line, another line was formed-the line of active opposition of trade unions to anti-union measures. It was reinforced by the calls of the Social Democratic Federation (SDF), which in its weekly newspaper Justice spoke of the need to come out from positions independent of the bourgeois parties in favor of changing the legislation on trade unions. The SDF believed that this was the case.

10 Halevi E. History of England in the era of Imperialism, Moscow, 1937, p. 246.

11 1900 TUC Report, pp. 26, 67, 78 - 80.

12 In search of support in October-December 1900, the LGA also corresponded with the leadership of the Scottish Trade Union Congress (see The Taff Vale Case, p. 15).

13 TUC Parliamentary Committee: A Report of the Picketing Case on the Taff Vale Railway.

14 A nationwide organization created by trade unions in 1899 to provide mutual financial assistance in cases of difficulties associated with lockouts.

15 The Times, 21.XI. 20, 28.XII.1901; 8, 9, 14.1, 2.IX, 7.X.1902; 1902 TUC Report, p. 34.

16 Alcock G. W. Fifty Years of Railway Trade Unionism. Lnd. 1922, p. 311.

17 The Clarion, 27.VII.1901.

18 The Times. 4.X.1901; Bealey F., Pelling H. Labour and Politics 1900 - 1906. A History of the Labour Representation Committee. N. Y. 1958, p. 76.

19 1901 TUC Report, p. 29.

page 173

immediately take control of the workers themselves.

However, the SDF's advice in the BKT parliamentary committee was not going to be followed .20 He was in no hurry to join the independent political struggle for the restoration of trade union rights and involve the masses in it. But at the Welsh congress of the BCT in September 1901, the voices of those who did not share the views of the BCT leadership, who were guided in Parliament by the help of the Liberals, were loudly voiced. A delegate from the Union of Machinists and Crane Operators, J. Baker, expressed deep regret at the wait-and-see tactics of the parliamentary committee, which is inclined to first check the breadth of picketing allowed by law in another similar "Taff" case before taking any action .21 As well as representatives of the unions of railway workers, steelmakers, and dockworkers, J. Baker advocated the development of a new law on trade unions. The militant delegates called on the leaders of the BCT to take vigorous action and stressed that the PKK, as a workers ' party, would be able to effectively protect the interests of trade unions in Parliament22 .

Nevertheless, the right-wing line prevailed in the decisions of the Congress. In fact, the trade union leadership advised the workers to adopt the resolution of the bourgeois legalists as a standard for resolving issues related to the activities of trade unions .23 During the year leading up to the next congress, the BCT leadership consulted with prominent liberal politicians and prominent lawyers - G. Asquith, R. Reed, R. Haldane, E. Jones, and C. Dilke - to find out how to protect trade union funds from civil law suits. The result of these consultations was the "branch scheme" of trade unions developed with the participation of E. Brown and R. Haldane: provided that the strike and insurance funds existed separately, trade unions could transfer strike funds to their branches in the form of a gift or loan at a critical moment. A parliamentary committee outlined the lawyers 'recommendations in a circular addressed to all trade unions, but the unions rejected the" branch scheme "as difficult to implement. 24
At the same time, the BKT leadership tried to change the situation in which picketing was actually prohibited. Before introducing a corresponding amendment to the "Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act" of 1875 in the House of Commons, a parliamentary committee in February 1902 appealed to members of the Conservative Cabinet, but they strongly advised that the amendment should be postponed in Parliament. The trade unions learned about the progress of these negotiations from the committee's latest circular 25 .

Ordinary trade union members, and especially the most active part of them, reacted in their own way to the inertia of trade union leaders in restoring trade union freedoms. There was an increase in the responses of workers-voters to the legal difficulties of trade unions. Veterans of trade unions compared the current situation with that typical for the 60-70s of the XIX century, when there was a struggle for the legalization of unions .26 The trade unions closely followed the policy of the BCT parliamentary committee, which sought to instill in workers that they could only succeed by using liberal parliamentarians and not resorting to independent political action.

At the beginning of 1902, the BCT leadership established contacts with the Liberals in Parliament and agreed on their support for a draft resolution demanding the cancellation of the decision of the House of Lords on the "Taff case". On behalf of the trade unions, who were following the debate with great attention, Liberal W. Beaumont introduced a draft resolution in the House of Commons on May 14, 1902. Together with members of the BCT parliamentary Committee, the visitors ' gallery in Parliament that day was attended by the leaders of the WFTU, members of the executive committee of the Federation of Mineworkers, a large group of textile workers in Lancashire and

20 Justice. 3, 17.VIII, 7, 14, 21. IX, 5, 19, 26.X.1901.

21 1901 TUC Report, p. 62.

22 Ibid., pp. 35, 60 - 64; The Times, 4 - 6.IX. 1901.

23 1901 TUC Report, pp. 35 - 36, 60 - 61.

24 1902 TUC Report, pp. 38, 49; TUC Parliamentary Committee: Amendment of the Law of Picketing and the Protection of Trade Union Funds; The Taff Vale Case. pp. 14 - 15.

25 1902 TUC Report, pp. 43 - 44; TUC Parliamentary Committee: Amendment of the Law of Picketing, pp. 6, 11, 13 - 14; The Times, 7.II.1902.

26 The Parliamentary Debates, HC, HL, 4-th Series, Authorised Ed., Vols. 78 - 168, Lnd. 1892 - 1908 (далее - Parl. Deb.); Vol. 108, col. 323, 331 - 332; Vol. 122, col. 211; Vol. 134. col. 548, etc.

page 174

Representatives of trade union councils and individual trade unions in England, Scotland, and Wales 27 . Predictably, the Conservatives defeated Beaumont's draft resolution.

More and more workers were beginning to understand the need for their own political representation in Parliament. On August 31, 1902, on the eve of the opening of the 35th Congress of the BCT, this was discussed in the speeches of speakers in Hyde Park at a 10,000-strong rally organized by the London Council of Trade Unions and held under the sign of protest against the decision of the House of Lords on the "Taff case" 28 . At the 1902 congress itself in London, the leitmotif of many speeches was the demand for independent workers ' representation and the transformation of trade unions into a political force. Even the chairman of the Congress, U. Steadman said that the only salvation of the workers was to have their own party in the House of Commons. However, the Congress did not develop a clear position on the issue of restoring trade union freedoms .29
After the London congress, the BCT began a gradual shift from trying only to correct the old trade union legislation to working out new " laws that, by legalizing strike activity, would protect trade union funds from encroachments on the part of entrepreneurs. From May 1902, the BCT parliamentary committee, together with representatives of the PKK, took steps to create a special group of workers ' representatives in the House of Commons: to facilitate their relations with the BCT committee, two "parliamentary organizers" of the future Labour Party were appointed. And on December 18, 1902, a "Joint Committee" was formed with the participation of representatives of the parliamentary committee of the BKT, VFTU and PKK to draft a new law on trade Unions .30
The first bill was ready by mid-February 1903. It was discussed and approved by a special working conference called by the "Joint Committee", which recommended that trade Unionists and parliamentarians support this "Industrial Conflict Bill" .31 Conservatives in Parliament managed to whitewash the bill with amendments, and then completely remove it from discussion on the pretext that the issue requires serious study in the framework of a special royal commission on industrial conflicts.

The workers understood that the government intended to postpone the solution of the problem in any way. Moreover, when the royal commission was finally appointed, after much delay and fraud, it consisted only of representatives of entrepreneurs, bourgeois lawyers, and S. Webb, a historian of the English labor and trade union movement, whom the trade Unionists did not consider the "best representative" of their interests , 32 since he was in favor of preserving the material responsibility of trade unions. There was not a single worker in the commission. These circumstances aroused even greater indignation among the trade unions over the bourgeoisie's policy towards workers ' organizations.

On June 17, 1903, the "Joint Committee" decided to boycott the Royal Commission by trade unions. The 36th Congress of the CGT in Leicester in September 1903 unanimously supported this step, regarding the creation of the commission and its composition as "an insult to the workers by the government" .33 The congress, which was attended by delegates from 204 trade unions, marked a turning point in the attitude of the BCT to the problem of protecting trade union freedoms. Despite the opinion of a number of compromisers (J. Barnes, R. Bell), who believed that it would be wrong to return trade unions to their old positions, giving them "anti-social rights", "putting trade unions above the law", their votes did not affect the mood of the delegates, who did not want half - hearted measures.

The views of most of the participants in the congress were most clearly reflected in the speeches of representatives of railway workers (U.S.S.R. Hudson) and steelmakers (J. Hodge). Speakers pointed out that the Taff case had revealed the desire of trade union opponents to act by force, and that trade unions therefore needed to seek more substantive solutions.-

27 Ibid., Vol. 108, col. 277 - 340; 1902 TUC Report, p. 47; TUC Parliamentary Committee and the Legal Status of Trade Unions; The Times, 15. V.I 902.

28 The Times, 1.IX.1902.

29 Ibid., 2; 4.IX.1902; 1902 TUC Report, pp. 35 - 36, 39, 72 - 74, 77.

30 1903 TUC Report, pp. 47, 52; The Times, 8.I.1903.

31 The Times, 16.II.1903; Evans L. British Trade Unionism. 1850 - 1914. Lnd. 1970, pp. 52 - 53.

32 1903 TUC Report, p. 37; Parl. Deb., Vol. 122, col. 220 - 231, 248 - 249; Vol. 124, col. 1182; Vol. 142, col. 1098 - 1099.

33 1903 TUC Report, pp. 53, 71.

page 175

changes in the law, rather than a simple return to the status quo 34 . Almost unanimously (285 to 5), the congress adopted a resolution authorizing the BCT parliamentary committee to seek new legislation that could neutralize the consequences of the Taff judgment, as well as to find out the views of candidates from all political parties in parliamentary elections on this issue before promising them the support of trade unions35 .
Discussions in trade unions about ways and methods of improving their legal status continued for almost three years. The right-wing leadership of the BCT, with its attraction to a liberal labor policy, restrained the struggle of supporters of the new law on trade unions. Nevertheless, in order to restore the lost freedoms of the trade unions, the workers '"leaders" were forced, under the pressure of the growing indignation of ordinary trade unionists, to start organizing independent parliamentary activities. This circumstance, as well as the noticeable strengthening of the PKK's authority in the trade unions (which was largely facilitated by the Taff events), made it possible to hold mass extra-parliamentary demonstrations of workers in defense of the rights of trade unions and against the anti-labor policy of the conservative government from the end of 1903.

Thousands of workers ' rallies in the autumn of 1904 were held with the support of the BCT in Manchester, Dublin, Newcastle, Cardiff, Glasgow, Sheffield, Birmingham, Leeds, and London. Independent demonstrations were organised by workers in Edinburgh, Leigh and 36 other cities . The entire organized labor movement of the country gave broad support to the parliamentary measures of the BCT and the PKK .37 "Across the country, virtually every branch of any union - large or small - rose up to defend its right to exist," Sydney and Beatrice Webb wrote about the mood of the workers of that time .38
As early as 1902-1903, local workers ' election committees were formed to prepare for general elections .39 Their appearance, as well as the assistance of the BCT and PKK trade unions in organizing a "parliamentary fund" and other activities in favor of independent workers ' representation in Parliament, testified to the political activation of the masses .40 To a large extent, the rise in the militant nature of British trade unions was due to the influence of the Russian Revolution .41
With the defeat of the Tories in the 1905 general election. The determination of the trade unions to free themselves from the shackles of the Taff precedent was further strengthened. This attitude of the workers and the entire political atmosphere of that time significantly influenced the pace of passing the "Industrial Conflict Bill" in Parliament, designed to restore the rights of trade unions .42
The struggle of the British trade unions against the consequences of the "Taff affair", firstly, to a certain extent contributed to the change of bourgeois parties in power, secondly, played a significant role in the fact that the PKK received broad support from the workers and strengthened its position, and a Labor faction was formed in Parliament, and thirdly, it led to the formation of a new political party. eventually to the adoption of the Industrial Conflicts Act in 1906, which expanded the rights of trade unions and strengthened their legal position.

34 Ibid., pp. 69 - 70.

35 Ibid., pp. 67 - 71; Pelling H. Popular Politics and Society in Late Victorian Britain. Lnd. - N-Y. 1968. p. 80.

36 1905 TUC Report, p. 53 - 56.

37 См., напр., 1904 TUC Report, p. 56; 1905 TUC Report, pp. 47 - 60; 1906 TUC Report, p. 53; Parl. Deb., Vol. 154, col. 1312, 1351; Alcock G. W. Op. cit., p. 321; Griffith-Boscawen A. S. Fourteen Years in Parliament. 1892 - 1906. Lnd. 1907, pp. 330, 350 - 351; Leeson R. Strike: A Live History. Lnd. 1973, p. 30; The Labour Party Foundation Conference and Annual Conference. Reports, 1900 - 1905. Lnd. 1967, p. 109.

38 Webb S. and B. The History of Trade Unionism. Lnd. 1919, p. 604.

39 The Labour Party Foundation Conference, pp. 90 - 91.

40 Ibid., pp. 70, 97, 208; The Times, 5.IX. 1902; 1905 TUC Report, pp. 88 - 89; 1906 TUC Report, .p. 50.

41 See Chernyak E. B. The First Russian Revolution and the Labor Movement in England and Ireland. In: The First Russian Revolution of 1905-1907 and the International Revolutionary Movement, Part 2, Moscow, 1956.

42 See; International Labor Movement. Voprosy istorii i teorii [Questions of History and Theory], vol. 3, Moscow, 1978, pp. 88, 105, 117.

page 176

Permanent link to this publication: