In the History of Trade Unionism, p. 46, we described the Hatters as holding in 1772, 1775, and 1777, "congresses" of delegates from all parts of the
country. Further examination of the evidence (House of Commons Journals, vol. xxxvi. ; Place MS. 27,799–68; Committee on Artisans and Machinery) inclines us to believe that these " congresses," like another in 1816, comprised only delegates from the various workshops in London. We can discover no instance during the eighteenth century of a Trade Union gathering made up of delegates from the local clubs throughout the country. But though the con- gresses of the Hatters probably represented only the London workmen, their " bye-laws " were apparently adopted by the clubs elsewhere, and came thus to be of national scope. Similar instances of national regulation by the principal centre of a trade may be seen in the "resolutions" addressed "to the Wool- staplers of England" by the London Society of Woolstaplers, and in the " articles to be observed by the Journeymen Papermakers throughout England," formulated at a meeting of the trade at large held at Maidstone. In the loose alliances of the local clubs in each trade, the chief trade centre often acted, in fiict, as the "governing branch."
12 Trade Union Structure
clubs to adopt or amend the " articles " of their association. A "deputation" from nine local societies of Carpenters met thus in London in 1827 to form the Friendly Society of Operative House Carpenters and Joiners, and similar meetings were annually held to revise the rules and adjust the finances of this federation. It would have been a natural development for such a representative congress to appoint a standing committee and executive ofificers to act on behalf of the whole trade. But when between 1824 and 1840 the great national societies of that generation settled down into their constitutions, the congress of elected representatives either found no place at all, or else was called together only at long intervals and for strictly limited purposes. In no case do we see it acting as a permanent supreme assembly. The Trade Union met the needs of expanding democracy by some remarkable experiments in constitution-making.
"C^^'The first step in the transition from the loose alliance of separate local clubs into a national organisation was the appointment of a seat of government or " governing branch.". The members residing in one town were charged with the responsibility of conducting the current business of the whole society, as well as that of their own branch. The branch ofificers and the branch committee of this town accord- ingly became the central authority.' Herft again the Ip aHing i dea was not so much to_ get a gover nment that wa iu-rpprp-
' In some of the more elaborate Trade Union constitutions formulated between 1820 and 1834 we find a hierarchy of authorities, none of them elected by the society as a whole, but each responsible for a definite part of the common admini- stration. Thus The Rules and Articles to be observed by the Journeymen Paper- makers m 1823 provide "that there shall be five Grand Divisions throughout England where all money shall be lodged, that when wanted may be sent to any part where emergency may require." These " Grand Divisions " were the branches in the five principal centres of the trade, each being given jurisdiction over all the mills in the counties round about it. Above them all stood " No. i Grand Division " (Maidstone), which was empowered to determine business ot too serious a nature to be left to any other Grand Division. This geographical hierarchy is interesting as having apparently furnished the model for most of the constitutions of the period, notably of the Owenite societies of 1833–1834, including the Builders' Union and the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union ifself.
Primitive Democracy 13
sentative of the socie ty as to make e ach sectio n take its turn at the privileges ami bu rdens~of~admin istratioa The seat of government was accordingly always changed at short) intervals, often by rotation. Thus the Steam-Engine Makers' rules of 1826 provide that " the central branch of the society shall be held alternately at the different branches of this society, according as they stand on the books, commencing with Branch No. i, and tihe secretary of the central branch shall, after the accounts of the former year have been balanced, send the books to the next central branch of the society." ^ In other cases the seat of government was periodically deter- mined by vote of the whole body of members, who appear usually to have been strongly biassed in favor of shifting it from town to town. The reason appears in this statement by one of the lodges of the Ironfounders : " What, we ask, has been the history of nearly every trade society in this respect ? Why, that when any branch or section of it has possessed the governing power too long, it has become care- less of the society's interests, tried to assume irresponsible powers, and invariably by its remissness opened wide the doors of peculation, jobbery, and fraud." *
The institution of a " governing branch " had the advantagQ of being the cheapest machinery of central administration^ that could be devised. By it the national union secured, its executive committee, at no greater expense than a small local society.^ And so long as the function of the national
The same geographical hierarchy was a feature of the constitution of the Southern Amicable Society of Woolstaplers until the last revision of rules in 1892. In only one case has a similar hierarchy survived. The United Society of Brushmakers, established in the eighteenth century, is still divided into geographical divisions governed by the six head towns, with London as the centre of communication. The branches in the West Riding, for instance, are governed by the Leeds com- mittee, and when in 1892 the Sheffield branch had a strike, this was managed by the secretary of the Leeds branch.
I Rule 19 ; rules of 1826 as reprinted in the Annual Report for 1837.
' Address of the Bristol branch of the Friendly Society of Ironfounders to the members at large (in Annual Report for 1849).
' Both the idea of rotation of office, and that of a local governing branch, can be traced to the network of village sick-clubs which existed all over England in the eighteenth century. In 1824 these clubs were described by a hostile critic as " under the management of the ordinary members who succeed to the several offices
14 Trade Union Structure
executive was confined to that of a centre of communication between practically autonomous local branches, no alteration in the machinery was necessary. The duties of the secretary, like those of his committee, were not beyond the competence of ordinary artisans working at their trade and devoting only their evenings to their official business. But with the multir plication of branches and the formation of a central fund, the secretarial work of a national union presently absorbed the whole time of a single officer, to whom, therefore, a salary jjad to be assigned. As the salary came from the common fund, the right of appointment passed, without question, from the branch , rneeting to " the voices " of the whole body of members. ( Thus the general secretary was singled out for a unique positiofi : alone among the officers of the union he was elected by the whole body of members. \ Meanwhile the supreme authority continued to be " the TOfees." Every pro-, position not covered by the original " articles," together with all questions of 'peace and war, was submitted to the votes of the members.^ But this was not all. Each branch, in
in rotation ; frequently without being qualified either by ability, independence, or impartiality for the due discharge of their respective offices ; or under the control of a standing committee, composed of the most active and often the least eligible members residing near i he place of meeting."—The Constitution cf Friendly Societies upon Legal and Scientific Principles, by Rev. John Thomas Becher (2nd edition, London,