Single or Return - the official history of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association

Chapter Seventeen

• The Royal Commission on Transport;
• The General Elections of 1929 and 1931;
• The London Passenger Transport Act (1933);
• Industrial Democracy;
• The Socialist Fellowship revived;
• Women Members Campaign.

"Labour cannot again take office without a definite plan for the public ownership and control of central banking, the monetary system, and the general machinery of credit."

W. Graham LL.D. November 1931.

The Royal Commission on Transport

In August 1928 the Conservative Government appointed a Royal Commission on Transport which had as its remit:

"To take into consideration the problems arising out of the growth of road traffic and with a view to securing the employment of the available means of transport in Great Britain (including transport by sea coastwise and by ferries) to the greatest public advantage, to consider and report what measures, if any, should be adopted for their better regulation and control and, so far as is desirable in the public interest, to promote their co-ordinated working and development."1

This was a golden opportunity and the paper produced by the RCA was widely acknowledged as being superior to those submitted by the other transport unions. The Commission saw Walkden on 17th and 18th of January 1929 and he submitted a sixty paragraph strategy for the future of transport to its chairman, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen. The range and detail contained within the RCA's submission was astounding and, in due course, most of its suggestions were taken up by Transport Ministers. Walkden, like John Bromley and Charles Cramp, advocated the nationalisation of transport; he also presented a detailed plan for its operation. Walkden reiterated all the Association's well established policies which included a Ministry taking over and reorganising all modes of transport. He proposed that railways, canals and ferries should be the responsibility of a Railway Board; public road transport, including commercial lorries, would come under a Road Board which would also be entrusted with the responsibility of providing new roads and laying down regulations to govern the operations of all privately owned and state owned transport. The two Boards would each have six Commissioners, consisting of three experts and three representatives of the work force, plus a chairman. Both Boards would report to the Minister, to enable all railway and road transport services to be co-ordinated. Walkden was adamant that consumers should not be represented at this level, but that their interests would be expressed on advisory boards. The RCA envisaged such matters as wages, conditions of service, rates and fares being dealt with by semijudicial bodies, similar to the Wages Boards and Tribunals that already existed. Walkden recommended that railway pensions, one of the most important issues for RCA members, should be amalgamated into one national scheme.

In some ways it was the Association's approach to commercial development that was so exciting. Walkden reiterated its long standing demand that a Channel Tunnel be built as part of a state railway system and that this should not be allowed to fall into the hands of a private company. To develop the venture, the RCA proposed that an agreement should be formulated between the British and French State Railway Authorities.2 Walkden visualised that the collection and delivery of letters could be managed more efficiently in rural areas by developing railway stations and utilising the staff. In large towns and cities he saw the market potential for railway property and suggested that postal sorting offices be constructed on its premises, with Post Offices, writing rooms and shops of various kinds for the convenience of passengers. He advocated that spare land which the railway authorities had at their disposal should be used for commercial development, with the capital required being recovered from the rents of shops, flats and cinemas that could be built. In addition, he suggested that as much railway equipment as possible should be standardised as this would lead to considerable savings. Walkden impressed the Commission and he was closely questioned on all aspects of the paper including the RCA's proposals for trade union representation on the Boards of Management. He explained that members would be nominated by their trade union, but after their appointment to the Board they would be expected to resign as trade unionists.

Many of the recommendations contained in the interim reports from the Royal Commission were embodied in the 1930 Road Traffic Act by Herbert Morrison, as Minister of Transport, in the 1929 Labour Government. The Commission managed to produce a unanimous final report, but its members were divided on nationalisation. In a masterly contradiction it said that co-ordination would develop naturally through the play of economic forces; and that co-ordination so reached will be a better solution than coordination enforced by the creation of a huge monopoly even though it be subject to Government control.3 The Commission had failed to meet the challenge demanded by the industry and the nation.

The General Elections of 1929 and 1931

Only the MFGB (43), the TGWU and NUR (11 each) put forward more officially sponsored candidates than the RCA for the 1929 General Election. In total, no less than 47 railway workers contested the election on behalf of the Labour Party and of these, 8 were official RCA candidates. Nine others were unofficial, but, they too, received substantial grants from the Association. ASLEF sponsored John Bromley, and had two unofficial candidates; the NUR had 16 unofficial nominees. Walkden, who had originally been selected for Heywood and Radcliffe, resigned his candidature in September 1926 owing to pressure of work, but when the election was announced, he changed his mind and, at the last minute, was selected for Bristol South. Arthur Longbottom, who had been elected to Parliament the previous year, was not given official sponsorship, to his considerable displeasure.

The second Labour Government was elected on 30th May 1929 under the leadership of Ramsay MacDonald with 8,370,417 voters returning 287 Labour members to Parliament. The Conservatives won 261 seats, and the Liberals 57. With some of the major capitalist powers now in a period of relative growth working people looked to their new Government with hope - they were to be disappointed.

The RCA celebrated the election of seven of its members to Parliament, including Longbottom. There were now 20 railwaymen in the House of Commons, as opposed to 5 railway directors, but in the House of Lords the directors reigned supreme, having 23 representatives.

Table 19

Those not elected were C.N. Gallie, (Forfar); J. Aldshead, (Manchester, Rushholme); F. Anderson, (Lancaster, Stretford); F.M. Jacques, (Berkshire, Newbury); A. Moss, (Manchester, Exchange); W. Muter, (Glasgow, Pollock); W.R. Robins, (Wiltshire, Chippenham); J.A. Sparks, (Taunton) and H. Vickers, (Buckrose).

Arthur Longbottom became the Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) to G.M. Gillett MP in the Department of Overseas Trade; George Mathers was PPS to Dr. Drummond Shiels, the Under Secretary for India.

The voting record of RCA MPs in the Parliamentary session of 1929-1930 was amongst the very best and certainly a considerable improvement on that of their predecessors which varied from 41-82 per cent. A.G. Walkden is omitted from the following table as he had a prolonged illness during the greater part of the session.

Table 20

With Labour a minority in the House of Commons, many of its most cherished ideas were abandoned. Without the support of the Liberals, the Government felt compelled to retreat, and in the main, only introduced measures that had their support. Any progressive legislation passed to the Lords had to run the gauntlet of a Conservative-dominated Upper House. As the economy deteriorated the Government obstinately refused to drop the Gold Standard, thus making any possible solution to the problem more difficult. Thomas Gill defended the Government by describing its policies as Safety First,4 but timidity, and lack of resolve were its hallmarks. The Government was a failure and there was widespread disappointment at its performance.

The Wall Street crash of 1929 brought catastrophic problems for the capitalist world and from October 1929 to August 1931, the Labour Government sought to avoid the crisis that was gaining in strength. Falling prices, cuts in wages, business stagnation and escalating unemployment gradually led to its demise with bankers and industrialists attempting to dictate their own policies to the Government. In the summer of 1931, the Credit Anstaldt - one of the oldest financial institutions in Austria, collapsed. This led to a crisis in Germany, which in turn resulted in a heavy withdrawal of deposits and loss of gold reserves from Britain. As the economic crisis mounted, MacDonald prepared his plans for the introduction of a "National" Government - under his leadership. Sir Oswald Mosley broke away from the Labour Party in 1931 to form his left-wing New Party, and when this failed, he started the British Union of Fascists the following year. The ILP, which was extremely critical of Labour's policies, particularly on unemployment, also left the Labour Party.

Unemployment had risen from 1,163,000 when Labour came into power, to 2,714,359 by the summer of 1931. The activities of the National Unemployed Workers' Movement, formed under Communist leadership in 1921, gained in strength, with local, regional and national hunger marches taking place. Close links had been established between the TUC and the National Unemployed Workers' Movement in 1923, but now its actions, like those of the Minority Movement, were opposed by both the TUC and Labour Party. The unemployed had looked to the Labour Government for succour but it repeatedly refused to meet representatives from the National Unemployed Workers' Movement and pursued similar economic policies to its predecessor. In doing so it was unable to fulfil their needs.

In June 1931 a Royal Commission, which had been established in December 1930 to examine unemployment insurance, published an interim report.This proposed that benefits should be reduced, that married women and part-time workers should be disqualified from receiving benefit and that a Means Test be introduced. The Government accepted the Commission's recommendations and when the Cabinet met on 19th August 1931 it proposed economies, including wage cuts, for all government departments but no reduction in unemployment pay. That evening a TUC delegation of five, including Alexander Walkden, met the Government's Economy Committee and in a meeting lasting over six hours, heard their budget strategy.

In an attempt to get the budget through Parliament, MacDonald sought the accommodation of both Liberals and Conservatives, but the Tories demanded a 10 per cent cut in unemployment pay as the price for their support. Rumours began to circulate that Baldwin was to be brought into the Cabinet, but these were denied. MacDonald failed to persuade his colleagues to approve the Conservatives' demand although he did receive the support of Thomas and nine other Ministers. Ten others, including Arthur Henderson, George Lansbury and William Graham, refused to comply. MacDonald then proposed that a National Government be formed containing Conservatives and Liberals, as well as Labour, with Stanley Baldwin as its Deputy Prime Minister. This, too, was rejected by the Cabinet, and MacDonald brought about the downfall of his Government. The next day, the 25th August 1931, he formed a National Government with J.H. Thomas, Philip Snowden, Lord Sankey, two Liberals and four Conservatives; Baldwin became Deputy Prime Minister. The Government sank to new depths when it reduced unemployment pay by 10 per cent and then, in November 1931, introduced a Family Means Test for benefits.

This betrayal of the labour movement by MacDonald, Thomas and Snowden was not an isolated incident. Over the years their politics had moved steadily to the right. Because of the blind adulation for MacDonald, warnings from left-wing critics had been largely ignored. Certainly industrialists saw no real threat from MacDonald's politics and just after the 1926 General Strike, a correspondent in the Evening Times had written:

"The hands of MacDonald, Snowden, Thomas, Clynes and others of the group, whose position, because they did not re-echo the slogan 'Socialism in our time' was none too secure, will be considerably strengthened. Tis an ill wind that blows no good. If the storm of the general strike clears the trade union movement of revolutionary politics, shakes the ordinary member into an active interest in the affairs of his union and stabilises and strengthens the position of the Parliamentarians of the Labour Party, then roses may yet be gathered from last week's folly."5

The RCA's first reaction to the Labour Government's resignation was in an editorial written by Frederick Dalley who identified the Association with the Labour Ministers who had resigned, but refused to withold our tribute from those whose decision must have been equally bitter and may even involve their permanent separation from the Labour Movement.6 Some RCA members were not so charitable and were particularly bitter towards Philip Snowden whose dogmatic support for the Gold Standard had compounded many of Labour's problems. The adulation given to MacDonald on his election to power now rapidly vanished. Writing in the Daily Herald on 6th June 1929, Mary Agnes Hamilton MP had described MacDonald as a leader whose loyalties were incorruptible. However, Dalley received many letters condemning MacDonald, Snowden and Thomas but descriptions as Judas and traitors were editorially removed. Dalley thought Ramsay MacDonald and Philip Snowden were wrong but that their actions had been taken in good faith and in the belief that they were doing the right thing to save the British labour movement as well as the country, from disaster. Dalley's sympathy was not extended to J.H. Thomas. He respected Thomas's industrial contribution and considered him as one of the most successful trade union General Secretaries of his generation but politically, We have never seen any evidence that he is a Socialist at all, or that he has given a day's thought to the problem of how to achieve a Socialist society.7

George Ridley took a different view from Dalley. He was pleased to see the departure of MacDonald and Snowden. The movement he said, had no time for MacDonald's egotism and vanity, a constant inability to be definite about questions that need 'Yes' or 'No'; these are not the fitting characteristics of the leader of a great movement at a turning point in the world's history. Snowden's personality, he thought was one of arrogance.8 The EC approved the decision of the Labour Party to oppose the new Government and called upon the membership to prepare for a General Election.9

The National Government was Conservative in all but name, and Philip Snowden, who remained as Chancellor of the Exchequer, decided on 21st September that his first decision would be to abandon the Gold Standard. Industrialists and bankers who had maintained throughout the life of the Labour Government that such a policy was essential to the national interest, now saw its demise as the solution to Britain's problems. It was a bitter moment for Labour supporters.

With the departure of the Gold Standard the economic crisis rapidly disappeared, creating a climate for a General Election. This was held on 27th October 1931 and was preceded by a press offensive against the Labour Party on a scale previously unknown. There was open pressure and intimidation by employers, and on the eve of the poll, a false statement by the Liberal, W. Runciman, that the security of Post Office Deposits had been jeopardised by the borrowings of the Labour Government, helped to bring about a massive defeat for the Labour Party.

Twenty former Labour members stood alongside MacDonald at election time and of these, 13 were successful. Notwithstanding all the press smears Labour obtained 6,649,630 votes but its representation was reduced from 287 to 52. Of the 9 Labour women that had been elected in 1929, not one was returned to Parliament; every candidate nominated by a railway trade union was defeated. It was a major set back for the working class and capitalist interests had achieved their major objective - a Labour Government had been discredited in the eyes of millions of potential supporters. Of the Cabinet Ministers who remained loyal to the Labour Party, only George Lansbury, now the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, survived to take his place in the House of Commons. Arthur Henderson became both Secretary and Treasurer of the Labour Party.

Throughout the election campaign the membership attempted to analyse the reasons for the Labour Government's failure. Some maintained it had been too timid, others that it had failed to pursue socialist policies and had not acted sufficiently in the interests of its main supporters - the working class. In a special report prepared by the EC the RCA adopted a moderate approach and stated:

"It does not seem that the electors of the country recently withheld support because the Labour Government had not gone fast enough or far enough, but rather that they feared its election might lead to action that would be too fast and go too far for the general body of public opinion."10

MacDonald remained as Prime Minister until 1935 when the National Government awarded both Arthur Pugh and Walter Citrine knighthoods.11 This was not the first occasion when trade union leaders had been rewarded with such honours, but their acceptance from such a detested government aroused the wrath of several RCA branches and also of the North-West Divisional Council. Frederick Watkins, the Treasurer of the Association, and Frank Anderson, attempted to persuade the EC to approve a motion that the movement should not accept such rewards from the present, or indeed any other, government,12 but they failed to win its support. At the 1935 TUC, Citrine was obliged to make a lengthy defence of his decision to accept his knighthood before the matter was dropped.

The London Passenger Transport Act (1933)

To examine the origins of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, we have to return to the period of MacDonald's Labour Government of 1929-1931. Herbert Morrison as Minister of Transport, introduced the London Passenger Transport Bill to Parliament in March 1931, described by James Haworth as the one socialist measure13 produced by the Labour Government. The Bill's aim was to secure an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport in London. Such legislation had long been the objective of the RCA and Walkden participated in its Second Reading on 23rd March 1931. After the debate it was passed to a Joint Committee of 10 members from the Lords and Commons, and with Labour in a minority on the committee it had to deal with massive opposition. The committee received over 60 petitions and sat for 35 days between 28th April and 30th July 1931. The RCA, and the other two main railway unions, were particularly interested in three sections of the Bill - those dealing with the machinery for negotiating wages, protection of the staff during amalgamations, and the constitution of an Advisory Committee. Three representatives of labour were to have seats on this committee. Walkden considered this to be insufficient and attempted to have their number increased to five, to enable all the organisations with a large number of members involved to secure representation.14 This was resisted but eventually pressure from all the RCA MPs convinced the Joint Committee that increased representation would be of benefit. The RCA was also successful in winning approval for compensation in the event of dismissal, and this was achieved on the very last day of the sitting. The Joint Committee of Commons and Lords approved the Bill by 5 votes to 4, but then the Labour Government fell.

The RCA pressed MacDonald's National Government to approve the London Passenger Transport Bill and the three railway unions met the Minister of Transport, P.J. Pybus, on 7th April 1932. The subject was also raised at the 1932 TUC, when Walkden carried a resolution that expressed surprise at the protracted delay in dealing with the Passenger Transport Bill15 and urging the Government to pass the measure during the autumn session.

With great reluctance the National Government reintroduced the Bill in its original form. It did, however, seek modifications in order to meet the objections made by over 140 Tory MPs who remained strongly opposed to its approval. After many heated debates in both Houses, and with 40 Conservatives still in opposition, the Bill received its Third Reading on 14th February 1933 and it came into force on 1st July. One of the major changes that had been made by the Conservatives was in the composition of the London Passenger Transport Board. This was no longer to be the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, but of a number of trustees composed of the Chairman of the London CC; a representative of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee; the Chairman of the Committee of London Clearing Banks; the President of the Law Society and the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales. In contrast to the proposals of the railway unions the appointing trustees were not accountable to anyone. The first Chairman of the London Passenger Transport Board was Lord Ashfield, and although the Labour Party did have one representative on the Board, he was expected to cease his political connections, whereas Ashfield was permitted to retain all his financial interests and directorships.

Industrial Democracy

Both the TUC and Labour Party had been committed to a policy of "Worker Directors" for several years but this was called into question with the appointment in 1931 of Herbert Morrison as Minister of Transport. The debates that ensued within the labour and trade union movement brought sharp differences of opinion which lasted for several years and the RCA played a significant part in this political battle. Morrison, who was opposed to worker directors, advocated disinterested management, with control vested in a Board selected on grounds of ability.16 He had been able to convince Bromley, Walkden and Cramp, to drop their claim for representation on the London Passenger Transport Board, on the basis that the introduction of trade unionists would enable capitalist interests to demand similar rights. The TGWU, who had been told by Morrison that worker directors were bad Socialism, was not persuaded and at the 1932 TUC proposed that the workers in any publicly owned industry should have an adequate and direct share in the control and administration of their industry or service through their trade union representatives. Charles Cramp argued against the proposition, as did Walkden, who spoke on behalf of the General Council. Both used similar arguments; they were in favour of the proposal in principle, but the manner of application gave them cause for concern. Walkden admitted that he had earlier approached Morrison to secure Board representation but that difficulties had been envisaged and he now considered that the subject merited further thought.17 Walkden convinced the delegates, including the TGWU, and the resolution was remitted to the General Council.

George Lathan had the honour of being the first member of the RCA to be Chairman of the Labour Party and when delegates assembled for its 1932 Conference, with Lathan presiding, they were given statements of policy on a wide range of subjects, including National Planning for Transport. There was general acceptance of the policy statements, but controversy arose over the composition of the proposed National Transport Board. The NEC suggested that this should follow the Morrison view of appropriate ability,18 but this was opposed by the TGWU who sought a specific measure of trade union participation. Walkden supported the NEC's Report, as did Charles Cramp, but backing for the TGWU came from John Bromley, who had changed his view since his earlier discussion with Morrison. Eventually, it was agreed to discuss the subject under the auspices of the National Joint Committee, composed of representatives of the Labour Party and TUC, one of whom was Alexander Walkden.

When the National Joint Committee presented its Report on Public Control to the 1933 Labour Party Conference it had already seen its recommendations narrowly carried at the TUC with the Association's President, Frederick Brown Simpson,19 speaking in its support. George Lathan had the responsibility of presenting this report to the Labour Party Conference and he acknowledged that there was a strong desire that trade unionists should, by statute, be given adequate places on the Boards of Management of nationalised industries. Nevertheless, Lathan insisted that the Joint Committee still expected many problems putting this into practice and recommended that when nationalisation was introduced, further consultation should take place between the Minister and the trade unions concerned. On this occasion the TGWU gave the report its qualified approval but the National Union of General and Municipal Workers (NUGMW)20 proposed that employees of all grades and occupations should have a right in law to an effective share in the control and direction of socialised industries, and instructed the NEC to prepare plans for its implementation. Walkden attacked the proposition as he felt it would generate strife and division within the movement, but delegates carried the resolution by the narrow margin of 1,223,000 to 1,083,000.

These differences were also reflected within the politics of the RCA, but, if anything, opinion was more deeply entrenched. In May 1933, before the National Joint Council had determined its policy on public control, the RCA's Executive was arriving at its own independent conclusions and these were presented to the 1933 Conference in the form of a report. This stated:

"A National Transport Board should be single-minded and independent of all extraneous 'interests', its members being appointed on grounds of suitability and fitness for the great task of control and direction and the formulation of general policy in the public interest. The National Board should be appointed by the Minister of Transport and he should be required to select a quota of the personnel from nominations submitted by trade unions representing workers in the industry. They maintain that the workers in the industry are not an extraneous 'interest' but in fact constitute a vital and integral part of the undertaking."21

This was clearly a rebuff to Morrison and certainly went further than the General Secretary would have preferred. The debate on worker participation was the major item at the 1933 Conference and Walkden delivered the report on behalf of the EC. He denounced workers' control as Syndicalism and emphasised that employees must break their trade union links if they were appointed to the National Transport Board. The number of trade unionists on such Boards remained an open question, which the EC proposed to determine when the time arose. Opposition to this view came from a number of prominent moderates led by Jim Haworth. He had the support of Francis Jacques22 (Maidenhead); Frederick Lister (Leeds No.1); Joseph Willbery23 (Nottingham) and O. Caunt (Crewe No.3). They all believed that not less than 50 per cent of the National Transport Board should be direct representatives of those employed in the industry. W.J.P. Webber24 (who became the Association's General Secretary in 1953) also opposed Walkden and insisted that workers appointed to management boards must remain members of their union. Eventually, all the amendments were either withdrawn, or lost, in favour of the Executive's Report.

The subject was resumed the following year when, in a debate on Public Ownership and Control, the left and moderates joined forces with Joseph Willberry, George Chandler, Rowland Hill and O. Caunt attempting to secure the political territory they had failed to win in 1933. They failed once again; not, as the President explained, because he was unsympathetic to workers sharing control, but because it ought to be more clearly defined. This gave Francis Jacques the opportunity to propose that the RCA should develop its own scheme for a socialised transport industry. Jacques was on fairly safe territory, as the Labour Party had, in 1933, agreed that individual unions should develop such schemes relative to their own industry. This would normally have been carried out by the full-time officials and discussed by the EC, who would then report its findings to the membership for approval. Jacques was opposed to any such report being produced by the Executive and was extremely critical of Walkden as the General Secretary knows nothing about the subject.25. This, of course, was nonsense but delegates knew that Walkden was committed to Morrison's views. Criticism was also voiced by Haworth, who said that to some extent the RCA had become identified as an opponent of workers' control, reminding delegates of Walkden's speeches to the TUC and Labour Party Conferences. Far from happy that a committee should usurp the EC's responsibilities the President attempted to obtain conference's permission for the EC to submit its own report to the 1935 Annual Conference. This was not approved and Jim Haworth, Francis Jacques and Francis Burnley26 were elected by the delegates to represent their interests; the Executive appointed F.B. Simpson, F.C. Watkins, G.S. Lindgren and Herbert Romeril. George Lathan was appointed as secretary to the committee.

After reviewing all the appropriate decisions of the TUC, Labour Party and other authoritative reports, the committee concluded that no real attempt had been made to deal with the subject in any practical way, particularly regarding transport. In all, six meetings were held but they were unable to produce a unanimous report. Indeed it would have been astonishing if they had done so. The Majority Report, produced by the EC members, largely reiterated the same principles that had been presented to the 1933 Felixstowe Conference and broadly followed the policies adopted by the Labour Party. It supported the concept of a National Transport Board appointed by the Minister of Transport and saw it working in co-operation with similar boards in other industries. The chairman and all other members of the Board were to be appointed on the grounds of competence, but included in statute would be a provision that amongst those appointed would be nominees selected from a panel supplied by trade unions within the industry. These would not be delegates or representatives but would be expected to give full service to the Board and be released from their workplace in order to carry out their responsibilities. The Majority Report also reiterated the RCA's long held opposition to workers being on the Boards of privately owned enterprises.

The Minority Report was more comprehensive, dealing not only with the organisation required to manage the industry, but also including a financial basis for the purchase of the railways, taxation, and a machinery for resolving staff and labour questions. It proposed that the Chairman of the National Transport Board should be the Minister of Transport; relieved almost entirely of his Parliamentary duties, his primary responsibility would be the efficient operation of all transport services. The Board would consist of 24 members (exclusive of the chairman) of whom 12 would represent the work force. An allocation of seats was designed to encompass the three rail unions, the TGWU, and those in the docks, shipping, canals and craft unions. The other 12 seats were to be appointed by the Minister of Transport which would include his Under-Secretary in the House of Commons. Six members were to be selected on grounds of suitability, whilst the remaining five were to be selected by a National Economic Council. Regional Boards, with Traffic Commissioners would have a similar composition to the main Board, and there would be half yearly regional conferences, composed of representatives from trade union branches that would discuss the problems that existed within their area. When the Reports were presented to the 1935 Conference, George Lathan attacked the Minority Report for advocating Syndicalism and after a lively debate the Majority Report was approved.

The Socialist Fellowship Revived

Since 1908 the RCA Socialist Fellowship had established itself as a conference highlight for a small but dedicated minority.27 Its activities also occupied some of their leisure time. From 1908 to its first closure in 1914, and then, from 1919 to the early 1920s, the Fellowship organised meetings throughout the year, with a variety of social activities, including rambles. Its motto proclaimed, Fellowship is Life, Lack of Fellowship is Death.28 During conference week the Fellowship organised "Red Revues", and river outings were held; one such outing took place at Liverpool in 1911. Whilst on the river, members of the Socialist Fellowship noticed a large number of barefoot and poorly clothed children. Upset at what they saw, they held a collection and took over 170 youngsters to a restaurant for a meal.

After the Fellowship faded during the difficult years of the 1920s it started life anew in a small room above a public house during the Felixstowe Conference in 1933. RCA was removed from its title, no doubt because of the change of rule regarding the use of "RCA" without the Executive's permission, and it became The Socialist Fellowship. Unfortunately, as no records exist, the names of all its officers are not known, but those who participated in its activities during the 1930s included George Ridley, who recited poetry, Frederick Dalley, who sang, Frederick Watkins, John Belcher, Aubrey Ping, George Chandler, Rowland Hill, Frederick Tonge, Joseph da Palma29 and James Haworth, who was its President from 1936-1944.

The Socialist Fellowship is a unique body in the trade union movement; it has only one rule - that during its social evening the business of conference is never discussed, thus eliminating potential divisions. Although it has always been a broad organisation those on the left have been its most loyal supporters. Seen as too left-wing it was shunned by many delegates, and during the period of the Cold War it was a rare moment indeed if a full-time official of the union made an appearance. Those days have long gone, and today the Fellowship continues the traditions that started in 1908, being a social occasion, when all shades of socialist political opinion can come together for an evening of spontaneous entertainment. There have been two RCA Presidents who were also Presidents of the Fellowship - Jim Haworth and Jim Mills. One National Treasurer was also President of the Socialist Fellowship - Ernest Townend.

Women Members Campaign

The progress achieved by the RCA in recruiting women to its ranks during the First World War quickly evaporated following the Armistice. Women's membership dropped from a peak of 13,655 in 1918 to its lowest point of 2,648 in 1927. It then increased gradually, until by 1938 it reached 6,350. From then on, recruitment improved rapidly. The enrolment of women rarely matched the progress made by men who had attained 57 per cent of their potential membership in 1929 and 74 per cent by 1938.

Table 21

Such figures can never provide a full picture and they certainly mask the explosion of activity in which women participated. The progress that had been made in Scotland has already been noted; similar events were taking place in England, and, to a lesser extent in Wales. Unfortunately, the same pace of change did not take place in Ireland.

After the 1927 Women's Conference, the EC established a National Women's Organising Committee composed of N. Stewart (Glasgow NE); Miss Gladstone (Newcastle No.1); M. Hughes (Manchester No.6); M. Newbury (Burton); I. F. Moore (Swindon) and R. Frampton (South London). Its main role was to develop and organise propaganda campaigns, and many mass meetings were held. The committee produced a range of publicity material and began to develop Women's sub-committees on Divisional Councils. By 1934, its objectives were largely achieved and the committee was disbanded. Whilst women participated fully in all RCA activities, they also organised events solely for women including weekend and day schools. Such was their enthusiasm that some branches formed their own women's committees. This progress has to be balanced against the fact that many issues affecting women were treated with hostility or amusement by male colleagues, and men were invariably reluctant to give up the opportunity of attending conference so that women could go. The number of women delegates did not exceed 10 until 1939, and these generally came from large branches which had the opportunity of including a woman as one of several delegates.

It was not until 1930 that M.Warner (Galway) became the first woman delegate from Ireland; the following year, M.E. Thomas (Pontypridd No.1), was the first Welsh woman delegate; both of these came from branches which were entitled to one delegate only. A woman represented Dublin No. 2 in 1933 but women delegates from Ireland and Wales were extremely rare. By 1939, with 526 male delegates, women totalled 13, their highest number up to that time; three of these came from single delegate branches. The election of Elsie Orman as the first woman on the EC in 1930 was an incentive to others. The most prominent women's organisers in England were Rosina Frampton (South London); Margaret Hughes (Manchester No.6); Eveline Hugill30 (Leeds No.1 and North-West London); Ivy Moore (Swindon); Nell Cocker (Manchester No.3); Ursula Hughes (Manchester No.5) and Irene Burke (Liverpool No.4).

At the 1932 Conference the Kings Cross branch proposed that the Association should nominate a candidate for the TUC's Women's Group on the General Council. George Mathers gave this his support, but it was opposed by Frederick Watkins on behalf of the EC on the grounds that trade unions with a larger female membership, both in percentage and actual numbers, had a greater priority to seek such representation.

In 1928, through their contacts with BANS, the RCA discovered that women railway clerks in Holland were paid the same rate as men when doing similar duties. Nell Cocker was one of the strongest advocates of equal pay and raised the subject repeatedly. In 1935, despite Walkden's argument that the Association was not in a position to change the Women Clerks' Agreement, she succeeded in convincing delegates that the companies should be asked to apply the principle of equal pay immediately.31 The EC ignored the decision and the following year came in for sharp criticism from Nell Cocker, Rowland Hill and others for not fulfilling the instructions of conference. It was a bitter debate and Walkden, who described Cocker as a dangerous woman pointed out that a recession was hardly the appropriate time to bring women into the male clerical agreement. The majority of the 504 male delegates thought otherwise, and supported Cocker's protest. It was a remarkable victory!

Women made their first demands for a National Women's Organiser when Margaret Hughes raised the subject at the 1927 Women's National Conference. It was not taken up as a serious proposition until 1932 when, without the blessing of the Executive, it received a mere handful of votes. The subject was revived in 1938 when Ursula Hughes claimed that the RCA was the only union catering for women that did not have a Women's Officer. The President, Frederick Watkins, suggested that if she did not press the motion the EC would consider the matter, and produce a report for the following conference. This failed to satisfy Hughes, who was backed by the delegates. Advertisements were placed and the post was advertised at £300-350 p.a. but of the 6,350 women members, only 32 asked for an application form, and of these, only 14 responded; 7 were members of the Labour Party. Eventually, 2 were interviewed: M. Hillman (Swindon) and Ursula Hughes (Manchester 5). Neither was considered suitable and although some members of the EC wanted to obtain further applications (including from outside the RCA's membership) it was agreed to ask the next conference to reconsider its position.32

This provoked uproar at the 1939 Conference. There was criticism of the salary offered, and the Manchester No.3 branch deplored the fact that the Women's Officer was to be offered a salary lower than that paid to members of the head office male secretarial staff. The Railway Clearing House branch considered that the post should be filled and also suggested that if no applicant could be found, someone should be trained to fill the position. Arthur Longbottom joined the critics but when Eveline Hugill gave the Executive her support delegates were swayed and the decision not to proceed with the appointment was carried.

Chapter Seventeen - Footnotes

[1]. The Railway Service Journal April 1931.

[2]. The Railway Service Journal February 1929.

[3]. The Railway Service Journal April 1931.

[4]. The Railway Service Journal June 1930.

[5]. Evening Times 17th May 1926.

[6]. The Railway Service Journal September 1931.

[7]. The Railway Service Journal October 1931.

[8]. The Railway Service Journal November 1931.

[9]. The Railway Service Journal October 1931

[10]. The Railway Service Journal February 1932.

[11]. It was rumoured that A. G. Walkden had also been offered a knighthood but he had refused.

[12]. RCA EC Minutes 11th August 1935.

[13]. The Railway Service Journal November 1933.

[14]. House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates, 23rd March 1931 Vol 250 Col 92.

[15]. TUC Annual Report 1932.

[16]. Socialisation and Transport Chapter 10. H Morrison.

[17]. TUC Annual Report 1931.

[18]. Labour Party Annual Report 1932.

[19]. F. B. Simpson (Leeds No.1). Joined RCA 1900. President RCA 1932-1937; appointed RCA Chief Assistant Secretary 1937. Member ILP; Leeds City Councillor; first RCA member to be elected Lord Mayor. MP 1935-1939.

[20]. NUGMW formed 1924.

[21]. RCA Report on a scheme for a socialised transport service.

[22]. F. Jacques (Maidenhead) Branch secretary. Left the railway to work for the WEA in 1936.

[23]. J. Willbery (Nottingham No.1). Branch secretary. President Nottingham Trades and Labour Council 1926-1927. Elected to Beeston UDC in 1925.

[24]. Sir W. J. P. Webber CBE MA (Swansea then Central and Head Office). Joined RCA staff 1944 as the Great Western Line Secretary. General Secretary 1953-1962. Councillor Swansea Borough, Deputy Mayor 1942. Labour Party NEC 1949-1953; TUC General Council 1953-1963; ITF Management Committee 1952-1962; Director National Coal Board; Member of Court of Enquiry into 1955 newspaper strike; 1958 London Airport dispute; Northern Ireland Development Council; Royal Commission on press. Visiting Fellow, Nuffield College. Appointed Knight in 1968.

[25]. The Railway Service Journal July 1934.

[26]. F. B. Burnley (Leeds No.1). Branch Officer 1921-1947. EC 1941-1947. Labour Alderman, Leeds City Council.

[27]. Fifty members paid 10p per annum in 1919.

[28]. Forsooth, brothers, fellowship is heaven, and lack of fellowship is hell: fellowship is life, and lack of fellowship is death: and the deeds that ye do upon the earth, it is for fellowship's sake that ye do them. W. Morris The Dream of John Ball.

[29]. J. da Palma (London Receiving Offices). Branch Officer 1922-1940. Chairman Fulham Labour Party; Mayor Fulham 1939.

[30]. E. Hugill (North-West London). Joined L&Y Railway in 1916. Branch chairman, EC 1939-1945 and 1948-1953. In 1945 she was the first woman to stand for the SOC and was its chairman in 1948. Awarded TUC Gold Medallion in 1945. Four other TSSA women have been awarded the TUC Gold Medallion: Isabel Leishman (Glasgow Central) 1951, Gladys Jones (Aberavon) 1962, Betty Kent (Glasgow Buchanan House) 1969, Kay John (Swansea Docks) 1973.

[31]. The Railway Service Journal July 1935.

[32]. RCA EC Minutes 22nd January 1939.

Transport Salaried Staffs' Association Registered Head Office: Walkden House, 10 Melton Street, London, England
© 1996-2008 TSSA. All rights reserved.