In this essay I am going to find out "were contemporaries correct in blaming Lord Penrhyn for the lock out of 1900 – 1903" after considering all points of view and source of information and looking at what working conditions and wages were like.

Slate helped to transform Gwynedd. Port Penrhyn was opened and the railways improved because of the slate industry. Many tourist resorts opened and other industries in the area grew. These tourist resorts and the slate industry make Gwynedd what it is today. During the 19^th Century Gwynedd was the main producer of slate world-wide.

The first Lord Penrhyn was Richard Pennant who married Anna Susannah Warbuton. He had made his money in the slave trade and he bought the title ‘Baron Penrhyn of Penrhyn, Louth, Ireland’. He was the first to exploit slate in Gwynedd. The title was then passed on to his great nephew, Gorge Hay Dawkins who built Penrhyn Castle. The title was in turn passed on to his son Edward Gordon Douglas Pennant who was made Baron Penrhyn of Llandegai in 1866. He made a promise to the quarrymen in 1874. This promise was called "Mr Pennant Lloyd’s agreement". The agreement included better working conditions for the quarrymen and better wages, but when he died in 1886 and his son, George Sholto Douglas Pennant, took over he abolished this agreement and this was one of the reasons for the strike of 1900 – 1903.

Working conditions in the quarries were not good. The men often worked on a rock face attached only by a small piece of rope tied around their waist in windy and wet conditions. In these conditions accidents often occurred and rheumatism and arthritis were common. Working constantly with the slate dust often caused lung diseases although at the time quarry doctors and medical officers believed it was good for the men. This can be seen in reports by the quarry doctor and the medical officer in 1922 ‘… slate dust is neither an irritant exciting or a predisposing cause of Tuberculosis’. These are not very reliable sources, as they would almost definitely have been biased to Lord Penrhyn who employed them however there is no proof that the quarrymen believed otherwise. Hours were long with an average starting time of 7.30a.m and a finishing time of about 5.00p.m. and the men were only given seven days holidays a year. The average wage depended on your job in the quarry, but it was usually something like 4 shillings to 5 shillings a week (about 20 – 25p nowadays). With small wages, long working hours and only seven days holiday a year, was it any wonder the quarrymen wanted a union and a higher wage?

Quarrymen often lived in barracks during the week to be nearer to their work. The barracks were very primitive and were more like shelters. In wet conditions the quarrymen remained soaked to the skin for hours.

The lockout started for many reasons. One major reason was that G.D. Pennant ended the agreement made by his father – which gave the quarrymen better pay and better working conditions.

Another reason why the lockout started was because of previous disputes in 1874 and 1896-97. The dispute in 1874 occurred in both the Dinorwic quarries and Penrhyn quarries. On 18^th June 1874 the Dinorwic strike began. The strike happened because the men joined the N.W.Q.U. so Assheton-Smith (the owner of the Dinorwic quarries) gave them either the choice of working or joining the union, all the men went on strike. During the 5 weeks the strike lasted the Penrhyn quarrymen raised £206 for the families affected. The Dinorwic strike eventually ended when Assheton-Smith gave in.

On the 14^th of July 1874 Lord Penrhyn followed the example of Assheton-Smith by threatening to lock out the men if they continued to support the union. The quarrymen established a union lodge of 2200 member and on the 31^st July the men came out on strike. The dispute in was finally resolved September 1874 with the "Pennant-Lloyd agreement" and men returned to work on the 4^th of November.

Another strike started in 1896, this time about the contract system. The new contract system, started in 1879 (17 years earlier) was one under which parts of the quarry were sub-contracted to men who themselves employed a gang to do the work; this meant it was not clear how much the quarryman would get paid and he often lost out. When the dispute was ended in 1897 the quarrymen still felt bitter if not even more bitter than before and this made them all the more determined to succeed; eventually three years later the lockout began when two of the contractors were assaulted.

E.A. Young (the manager of the quarry) stopped the N.W.Q.U (North Wales Quarrymen’s Union) from collecting subscriptions in April 1900. I think this was probably the final straw for the men.

You may well ask why the quarrymen wanted a union. The quarrymen wanted a union because they wanted a minimum weekly wage of 30 shillings (about £1.50 nowadays). Not only did the quarrymen want a decent wage, but they also wanted more knowledgeable managers because managers often had never quarried in their life and they often didn’t understand the rock. A ‘bargain’ was made at the beginning of each month, this was when the unskilled quarry managers would tell the men they were to quarry a certain part of the rock. Wages were worked out by the amount of slate produced; so if a man received a piece of rock with no decent slate there was often an argument.

Another short-term cause was that 14 men were suspended for refusing to work on a Saturday. Surely this was an over reaction on Lord Penrhyn’s part?

300 dragoons (mounted soldiers) were brought in to keep watch on the men, when Lord Penrhyn feared the men were plotting something. This made the men feel cross that they weren’t trusted.

The final straw for the quarrymen was when 26 men were sacked after a contractor was assaulted, although they had not yet been proven guilty. On the day of their trial all the workers walked to Bangor and 20 out of the 26 were found not guilty. As a result all the workers were suspended for two weeks. At the end of the two weeks in November 1900 800 of the 2,800 were told there was no work for them, but the 2,000 others refused to work until the other 800 were set back on. This was the start of the lockout.

Lord Penrhyn would not give in because he believed that the quarry was his and if the men wanted to work in his quarry they should obey his rules. He also believed that he provided jobs and wages – why should he provide more? So Lord Penrhyn didn’t back down on principle, but he had never done a day of honest work or ever lived in their conditions. He never bothered to meet the quarrymen let alone talk to them and so this would be my main point of argument that contemporaries were correct in blaming him for the lockout 1900 – 1903.

By 1901 1,000 of the men had found jobs elsewhere. When Lord Penrhyn offered police protection in May 700 men went back because they could see no end to the strike and they realised that their families would soon start starving and that Lord Penrhyn was too rich. These men were considered traitors, but they believed that you should fight for a union while still at work. Finally in 1903 after 2 years of ill-feeling in Bethesda men drifted back to work, because they were suffering from T.B., starving and getting into debt.

During the time of the lock out some men worked for farmers doing odd jobs, some sung in the Bethesda Quarrymen Glee Singers to make money. Many national trade unions were behind the strikers and sent money to them. This can be seen in source B3 of the assignment booklet.

There were many consequences of the lockout. The main consequence was that the Gwynedd Slate Industry never recovered and it slowly declined. Many people living in the area moved to South Wales to the coal mines or emigrated. As a result Bethesda and the area suffered years of poverty after the lockout. Many families suffered from malnutrition and T.B.

Considering all the facts, I believe that contemporaries were right to blame Lord Penrhyn for the lockout 1900 – 1903 because he wouldn’t even provide them with a decent wage and working conditions when he made huge profits. He misjudged them that they wanted more control, he never spoke or met them and finally he blamed them (or took out on them) the fact that he had lost an election in 1868. The only possible argument I have that contemporaries were wrong in blaming Lord Penrhyn was that the quarrymen were hot-headed when they made the decision not to go back unless the other 800 got their jobs back as well. However, I can understand their stance and their support for their fellow-workers.

Who was to blame for the lockout dragging on for three years? I believe it was as much the quarrymen’s fault as Lord Penrhyn’s. I believe this because in May 1901 Lord Penrhyn offered their jobs back with police protection; although he did not offer more than this and so it was partly his fault. The 700 men were not necessarily non-union men as usually thought; but according to Mr R.H.Roberts (son and grandson of quarrymen) they could see no end to the dispute and the suffering it was causing. They believed that the best position to fight for a union was from work. Many of these men also believed that Lord Penrhyn would not live much longer and hoped that his successor would be more sympathetic. Lord Penrhyn died only four years after the end of the dispute, in 1907. So in conclusion I think the 700 men were very wise to go back to work especially since some ended up providing jobs to the men still on strike.

So overall I believe that contemporaries were right in blaming Lord Penrhyn for the lockout 1900 –1903; however I believe the men were unwise in not returning in 1901, when they gained nothing more by continuing to strike until 1903.

The Quarryman of North Wales

The Slate Industry of Llanberis,

Personal Communication, Mr R. H. Roberts, Bangor (son and grandson of quarryman)

TV programme, Dechrau Canu, Dechrau Canmol

The North Wales Quarrymen 1874-1922 by R. Merfyn Jones

The Great Strike by Jean Lindsay