- Email: [email protected]
The struggle for market power: Industrial relations in the British coal industry, 1800–1840
REVIEWS
483
omissions in terms of coverage. By overtly adopting a material based approach, several industries receive scant attention. This is particularly true of brewing, wine making and the food industries, but the coverage of coin production, weapons and such mundane but essential products as farm implements is much less than one might have expected. Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, Lo.lldon
TIM UNWIN
JAMESA. JAFFE, The Struggle for Market Power: Industrial Relations in the British Coal Industry, 1800-1840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Pp xi + 228. &30.00) This book is a very welcome addition to the literature on industrial relations in the early part of the industrialization of Britain. The author is essentially concerned to illustrate the struggle for market power between labour and ownership in the North eastern coalfield during the first part of the nineteenth century. His central thesis is that the fundamental struggle between labour union and capital was over control of the market not over control of the labour process. Control of the market in the coal industry was expressed in terms of wage bargaining over piece rates, hours of work, fines, child labour and mobility of labour. But Jaffe does not restrict his analysis to shop floor relationships between labour and capital. In the first three chapters he examines in some detail the impact of the market on the finance and structure of the industry. In chapter four its impact on mining families and communities is considered. Ch.apters five and six provide challenging insights and re-interpretations of the relationships between religious ideology, union leadership and the mass of the mining labour force. In chapters seven and eight, Jaffe uses an analysis of Thomas Hepburn’s union during the strikes of 1831 and 1832 to show how the struggle to control the market shaped the context and character of class relations in the coal industry in the early industrial period. Throughout the book the reader is presented with a series of challenging propositions and re-interpretations of previously accepted assumptions. For instance, the author is clearly correct to underline that the North-East coal industry in the eighteenth century does not fit the pre-industrialization model of Franklin Mendel and others. The North-East coal industry, during the period of handicraft production was not pre-industrial, but was characterized by large units of production, it was highly capitalized, technically sophisticated, with a large workforce. In chapter two, the author makes it clear that through the Vend, or producers’ cartel, the North-East coal owners preferred to aim for the greatest possible profit per unit of sale rather than achieving higher total profit at some larger level output with its additional unknown costs. Chapter three analyses management labour relations. Whilst the discussion of the important role of the colliery viewer as a key actor in the “structured antagonism” Jaffe does make the interesting point that in collieries, unlike mills and factories management could not exercise direct control on the shop floor, i.e. the coal face. In response, management relied on frequent revisions of piece rates which were required because of unforeseen changes in the geology of the coal measures. In this way piece rates for production and fines for stone were employed to secure the volume and quality of production. In addition, management controlled the workforce through the provision of tied housing, with tenure contingent upon employment at the owner’s colliery. In chapter six the author provides a convincing argument to contradict the traditional historical view that religion was one of the principal forces acting to accustom the expanding new working classes to the disciplines of industrialization. Evangelism, in
484
REVIEWS
the form of Methodism, particularly primitive Methodism, was the religion of a distinct minority in the North-East coalfield and Jaffe contends, in a coherent and well documented argument that its connection to the early labour movement was both pragmatic and short-lived. Finally, in chapter seven the author presents a very clear argument to demonstrate that Hepburn’s union was trying to control the terms of the market relations between labour and capital, through the defence of workplace bargaining, control of labour movement and restrictions upon output. The union was not concerned with political reform such as the reform of the franchise, nor did it seek the destruction of capitalism or the dispossession of capitalists. Rather was it concerned to see established a set of equitable market conditions. Criticisms of this book are few. In chapter four the author stresses how weak were the community ties in the new east Durham boom towns developed after 1820. And yet, certainly by 1851, over 80 per cent of the households in these villages were inhabited by nuclear families; multiple occupation of houses was uncommon, lodging houses were few, and the male sex-ratio can be explained by the residence of young, single male lodgers within the houses of nuclear families. As the birthplaces of these lodgers was frequently the same as the head of household, it seems likely that information networks existed which meant that community ties were created very rapidly in these new settlements. In chapter six Jaffe lambasts the established church in Durham in terms of institutional inertia and unwillingness to minister to the needs of the rapidly growing mining population in large multi-township parishes. Whilst not wishing to contest this thesis, it should be mentioned that the Church of England did, through a series of Orders in Council from the 1820s subdivide many large Durham parishes into smaller parochial and chapelry units with new churches built to accommodate the rapid population growth associated with the opening of new mines in former rural areas. It is also somewhat surprising that the author did not use the evidence of Matthias Dunn’s journal in the analysis of the defeat of Hepburn’s union during the 1832 strike. This journal, which is referred to elsewhere in the book, throws much light on o~wnership-labour relationships during the strike, as well as containing equally illuminating comments on inter-owner negotiations and disputes. Finally-a plea from a geographer. The book has no maps and only limited graphical illustrations. This is a pity, as much of the text is locationally very specific. These criticisms, however do not seriously detract from a valuable contribution to the history of industrial relations which should be found in the library of all institutions of higher education. Newcastle upon Tlwze Polytechnic
MIKE SILL
LINDA CLARKE, Building Capitalism: Historical Change and the Labour Process in the Production of the Built Environment (London: Routledge, 1992. Pp. xv+ 316. g65.00 and gl9.99 paperback) Our knowledge of development processes in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century London has been shaped primarily by studies of great estates and great builders. Consider, for example, Donald Olsen’s account of “town planning” on the Bedford and Foundling Hospital estates, Town planning in London (New Haven 1964), or Hermione Hobhouse’s biography of Thomas &bitt (London 1971) both elegant narratives, unencumbered by theory. Clarke is interested in the same period but her motivation is very different, her chosen estates less rigorously controlled, and her principal players less heroically depicted. This is an ambitious book, addressing major questions about urbanization and the transition from feudalism to capitalism, gradually broadening out from a case study of one small estate in north London-Lord Somers’
483
omissions in terms of coverage. By overtly adopting a material based approach, several industries receive scant attention. This is particularly true of brewing, wine making and the food industries, but the coverage of coin production, weapons and such mundane but essential products as farm implements is much less than one might have expected. Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, Lo.lldon
TIM UNWIN
JAMESA. JAFFE, The Struggle for Market Power: Industrial Relations in the British Coal Industry, 1800-1840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Pp xi + 228. &30.00) This book is a very welcome addition to the literature on industrial relations in the early part of the industrialization of Britain. The author is essentially concerned to illustrate the struggle for market power between labour and ownership in the North eastern coalfield during the first part of the nineteenth century. His central thesis is that the fundamental struggle between labour union and capital was over control of the market not over control of the labour process. Control of the market in the coal industry was expressed in terms of wage bargaining over piece rates, hours of work, fines, child labour and mobility of labour. But Jaffe does not restrict his analysis to shop floor relationships between labour and capital. In the first three chapters he examines in some detail the impact of the market on the finance and structure of the industry. In chapter four its impact on mining families and communities is considered. Ch.apters five and six provide challenging insights and re-interpretations of the relationships between religious ideology, union leadership and the mass of the mining labour force. In chapters seven and eight, Jaffe uses an analysis of Thomas Hepburn’s union during the strikes of 1831 and 1832 to show how the struggle to control the market shaped the context and character of class relations in the coal industry in the early industrial period. Throughout the book the reader is presented with a series of challenging propositions and re-interpretations of previously accepted assumptions. For instance, the author is clearly correct to underline that the North-East coal industry in the eighteenth century does not fit the pre-industrialization model of Franklin Mendel and others. The North-East coal industry, during the period of handicraft production was not pre-industrial, but was characterized by large units of production, it was highly capitalized, technically sophisticated, with a large workforce. In chapter two, the author makes it clear that through the Vend, or producers’ cartel, the North-East coal owners preferred to aim for the greatest possible profit per unit of sale rather than achieving higher total profit at some larger level output with its additional unknown costs. Chapter three analyses management labour relations. Whilst the discussion of the important role of the colliery viewer as a key actor in the “structured antagonism” Jaffe does make the interesting point that in collieries, unlike mills and factories management could not exercise direct control on the shop floor, i.e. the coal face. In response, management relied on frequent revisions of piece rates which were required because of unforeseen changes in the geology of the coal measures. In this way piece rates for production and fines for stone were employed to secure the volume and quality of production. In addition, management controlled the workforce through the provision of tied housing, with tenure contingent upon employment at the owner’s colliery. In chapter six the author provides a convincing argument to contradict the traditional historical view that religion was one of the principal forces acting to accustom the expanding new working classes to the disciplines of industrialization. Evangelism, in
484
REVIEWS
the form of Methodism, particularly primitive Methodism, was the religion of a distinct minority in the North-East coalfield and Jaffe contends, in a coherent and well documented argument that its connection to the early labour movement was both pragmatic and short-lived. Finally, in chapter seven the author presents a very clear argument to demonstrate that Hepburn’s union was trying to control the terms of the market relations between labour and capital, through the defence of workplace bargaining, control of labour movement and restrictions upon output. The union was not concerned with political reform such as the reform of the franchise, nor did it seek the destruction of capitalism or the dispossession of capitalists. Rather was it concerned to see established a set of equitable market conditions. Criticisms of this book are few. In chapter four the author stresses how weak were the community ties in the new east Durham boom towns developed after 1820. And yet, certainly by 1851, over 80 per cent of the households in these villages were inhabited by nuclear families; multiple occupation of houses was uncommon, lodging houses were few, and the male sex-ratio can be explained by the residence of young, single male lodgers within the houses of nuclear families. As the birthplaces of these lodgers was frequently the same as the head of household, it seems likely that information networks existed which meant that community ties were created very rapidly in these new settlements. In chapter six Jaffe lambasts the established church in Durham in terms of institutional inertia and unwillingness to minister to the needs of the rapidly growing mining population in large multi-township parishes. Whilst not wishing to contest this thesis, it should be mentioned that the Church of England did, through a series of Orders in Council from the 1820s subdivide many large Durham parishes into smaller parochial and chapelry units with new churches built to accommodate the rapid population growth associated with the opening of new mines in former rural areas. It is also somewhat surprising that the author did not use the evidence of Matthias Dunn’s journal in the analysis of the defeat of Hepburn’s union during the 1832 strike. This journal, which is referred to elsewhere in the book, throws much light on o~wnership-labour relationships during the strike, as well as containing equally illuminating comments on inter-owner negotiations and disputes. Finally-a plea from a geographer. The book has no maps and only limited graphical illustrations. This is a pity, as much of the text is locationally very specific. These criticisms, however do not seriously detract from a valuable contribution to the history of industrial relations which should be found in the library of all institutions of higher education. Newcastle upon Tlwze Polytechnic
MIKE SILL
LINDA CLARKE, Building Capitalism: Historical Change and the Labour Process in the Production of the Built Environment (London: Routledge, 1992. Pp. xv+ 316. g65.00 and gl9.99 paperback) Our knowledge of development processes in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century London has been shaped primarily by studies of great estates and great builders. Consider, for example, Donald Olsen’s account of “town planning” on the Bedford and Foundling Hospital estates, Town planning in London (New Haven 1964), or Hermione Hobhouse’s biography of Thomas &bitt (London 1971) both elegant narratives, unencumbered by theory. Clarke is interested in the same period but her motivation is very different, her chosen estates less rigorously controlled, and her principal players less heroically depicted. This is an ambitious book, addressing major questions about urbanization and the transition from feudalism to capitalism, gradually broadening out from a case study of one small estate in north London-Lord Somers’