Abstract
In May 1926, the Trades Union Congress, the national organization of trade unions in Britain, called for a general strike in support of the Miners’ Federation dispute with employers, who sought to reduce wages and increase hours. The General Strike lasted nine days, during which time much of Britain’s transport and industrial base was shut down.1 Anticipating the large numbers of resulting relief applicants, the Stourbridge Board of Guardians held a special meeting to discuss strategies relative to the strike. The County Express reported that a “crowd of several hundred people gathered in the vicinity of the [poor law] institution” on the day of the meeting, and the board had about 900 applications for assistance. When the Reverend C.D. Banks-Gale asked how the board was going to handle applications from the men on strike, the clerk answered “that the Guardians were not dealing with the strikers at all, but with their wives and families.”2 As its minutes recorded, the Board of Guardians resolved “that the applications of strikers be considered as for, and on behalf of, the wives and children.”3 Two months later, with the General Strike over but the miners’ strike continuing, the Board of Guardians still faced “emergency circumstances.” In response to a complaint by a deputation of miners that the relief offered to strikers’ families was inadequate, the board noted that the law tied its hands.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For an introduction to the 1920s strikes, see Margaret Morris, ed., The General Strike (Harmonsdworth: Penguin Books, 1976);
Anne Perkins, A Very British Strike: 3 May–12 May 1926 (London: Macmillan, 2006);
G.A. Phillips, The General Strike: The Politics of Industrial Conflict (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1976);
and Roy Church and Quentin Outram, Strikes and Solidarity: Coalfield Conflict in Britain, 1889–1966 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
This was originally to have been a strike against wage reductions by the Triple Alliance, but on Black Friday the railway and transport workers backed out, which became a potent symbol of betrayal in the mining industry. Bill Williamson, Class, Culture, and Community: A Biographical Study of Social Change in Mining (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982), 166.
Andy Croll, “Strikers and the Right to Relief in Late Victorian Britain: The Making of the Merthyr Tydfil Judgment of 1900,” Journal of British Studies 52, no. 1 (2013): 128–52.
John Gennard, Financing Strikers (New York: Wiley, 1977), 19.
Patricia Ryan, “The Poor Law in 1926,” in The General Strike, ed. Margaret Morris (Harmonsdworth: Penguin Books, 1976), 359.
The most written about example of local government protesting harsh national relief policies is Poplar in London. See, for example, P.A. Ryan, “‘Poplarism’ 1894–1930,” in The Origins of British Social Policy, ed. Pat Thane (London: Croom Helm, 1978), 56–83.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2015 Marjorie Levine-Clark
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Levine-Clark, M. (2015). “No right to relieve a striker”: Trade Disputes and the Politics of Work and Family in the 1920s. In: Unemployment, Welfare, and Masculine Citizenship. Genders and Sexualities in History. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137393227_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137393227_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-48355-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-39322-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)