4. The Years of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) 1900-1906

4.1 Introduction Before describing the years of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) it is necessary to back track and explain the way in which the TUC and its Parliamentary Committee were persuaded to ditch their decades-long love affair with the Liberal party and back the idea of creating a new party of Labour.

4.2 How the movement formed its relationship with the Liberal Party The TUC was formed in 1868, the same year that the franchise was doubled from 1 million to 2 million (still leaving another 5 million adult men without the vote). Most of this increased electorate comprised better-off working class men. Given the new electorate several Liberal candidates did express sympathy for the Trade Union case. This led the Trade Union movement and particularly the TUC to realise the potential for Parliamentary action in the latter half of the 19th century, especially via the Liberal party

The trade union movement had two concerns. The first was to improve the legislative framework within which it operated and the second was to get working men into Parliament. The law had been used without fail either to ban unions or keep their actions limited and subject to legal action if they proved too strong. Trade unions lacked corporate status and thus were without any legal validity and protection, either from fraud or claims for damages. The main aim of the trade unions and the TUC in the latter half of the 19th century was to rectify these serious restrictions.

The issue of having working men in Parliament was based on the not unreasonable point that the working class were the overwhelming majority in Britain and if the country liked to call itself a democracy it should see working men (women were not considered at this stage) in large numbers in parliament. Such MPs, it was believed, would largely support the cause of labour and the trade unions. Whilst there had been elected MPs who supported the labouring

Page 1 of 9 poor and some who supported Chartism none had been from the working class. No workingmen were returned to Parliament until 1874. Part of the problem was that, as an MP, you had to support yourself and they did not have sufficient resources. This was one factor that drove working class candidates into the arms of the waiting Liberal Party.

William Gladstone took over as leader of the Liberal Party in 1868 and led four administrations until his resignation in 1894.

He was a reformer with a special concern for oppressed peoples and Irish Home rule. He proved to be popular with the masses and the main body of the newly enfranchised working class tended to support the Liberal Party throughout the rest of the 19th century. This factor also helps explain why many trade unionists who had ambitions to stand for Parliament would opt to do so through the Liberal party. As for the wider electorate of the working class, which expanded through further suffrage reforms in the last part of the 19th century, they also became mainly attracted to the Liberal party and its promises of reforms. A significant minority, however, voted Tory, largely one supposes, out of deference to those they regarded as “born to rule”.

4.3 Factors that turned the TUC away from the Liberal Party This is a complex story that can be simplified into three main strands. In the first place was the growth of New Unionism, which was dealt with in a previous section. The new Trade Unions that bloomed towards the end of the 1880s not only brought new blood to the TUC but also introduced a new militancy and a belief in labour as an independent political force. The second factor was the revival of socialism and the creation of new organisations that spread ideas for a transformation of society. These new ideas gradually entered into the bloodstream of trade unionism and began to influence the TUC away from the Liberal party, which was seen as a party formed by and for the capitalist class. Lastly, the economic downturn that accompanied the latter quarter of the 19th century caused greater unrest and increased strife in factory, port and mine. Even the stodgy, Liberal dominated trade unions, such as those of the textile sector, the miners and engineers could not avoid the impact of this and began to change. The Engineers moved first and in a few years were transformed into a more militant, fighting organisation with new leaders like Tom Mann and . The campaign for an Eight Hour Day, spearheaded by the Gasworkers and the Engineers also began to influence the miners and others of the old school.

Page 2 of 9 The new economic climate also hardened the approach of the employers, who began to create their own associations and campaign for more restrictions on trade unions.

Taken together these three factors gradually eroded the power of the Caucus that had controlled the central executive of the TUC, the Parliamentary Committee, from its inception in 1869. fired the first shots at the TUC Annual Conference in 1887 when he accused the long time Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee and a Liberal MP, Henry Broadhurst, of opposing workers in struggle. Broadhurst was able to beat of that challenge to his authority but by 1890 had lost the fight to prevent the TUC supporting the 8 hour day and so resigned. The battle was not won but by the end of that decade the old order had finally given way.

4.4 The TUC moves to establish the Labour Representation Committee The changing mood and political disposition of the TUC was shown in the fact that resolutions in favour of widespread nationalisation were passed in the 1890s. In 1898 the President of the TUC suggested that they should adopt plans to create a political organisation for the Trade Union world. Then in 1899 at Plymouth the TUC passed its famous resolution to give effect to the earlier suggestion of their President. The resolution, which is worth quoting in full, stated,

“This Congress, having regard to its decisions in former years, and with a view to securing a better representation of the interests of Labour in the House of Commons, hereby instructs the parliamentary Committee to invite the co-operation of all the co-operative, socialistic, trade unions, and other working organisations to jointly co-operate on lines mutually agreed upon, in convening a special congress of representatives from such of the above-mentioned organisations as may be willing to take part, to devise ways and means for securing the return of an increased number of labour members to the next Parliament.”

The motion was moved by James Holmes of the Amalgamated Society of Railways Servants and seconded by James Sexton of the Dock Labourer’s Union. They were supported by Margaret Bondfield, leader of the Shop Workers union and one of the few prominent women in the trade union world. She would later become Britain’s first female cabinet member. The caucus put up a fierce opposition and on a card vote the resolution was only narrowly won, 546,000 to 434,000. This historic vote was received with wild cheering with some delegates standing on their chairs. It was agreed that a ten member committee be established for planning the new venture drawn from the TUC, the SDF, the ILP and the Fabian Society.

Page 3 of 9

The mover and seconder of the successful resolution and key supporter are shown below:

Mover, James Holmes Seconder, James Sexton Supporter, Margaret Bondfield

4.5 The Inaugural Conference of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) The provisional Committee prepared in advance a draft Constitution for a new independent federation of Trade Unions, Trades Councils and Co-operative and Socialist societies, organised apart from the TUC and invitations were issued to each of these. Therefore on February 27th and 28th 1900, 129 delegates gathered in the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street in London. The event went almost unnoticed amid the jingoistic excitement of the Boer War.

The delegates represented 41 unions with a combined membership of 545,000 members, 7 Trades Councils (mainly in the Midlands and the North of ). The ILP were represented on a membership of 13,000, the Social Democratic Federation on 9,000 and the Fabian Society on 861. The two largest unions at the conference were the Amalgamated Society of Engineers with 85,000 members and the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants with 54,000 members. The largest delegation was from the Gasworkers’ and General Labourers’ Union, led by Will Thorne. The significant absentees were most of the district organisations of the miners and most of the organised cotton textile workers. Fewer than half the membership of the TUC was represented at the founding conference of the LRC. However, this was to change dramatically over the next few years. The Cooperative Union, who had been invited to attend, was not present because

Page 4 of 9 they were ‘moving in the direction of Parliamentary representation in their own particular way’.

The ILP, led by Keir Hardie and Ramsay MacDonald, was the chief guiding force behind the scenes of the Conference. They worked closely with the trade union representatives to steer a mutually acceptable course and away from what they regarded as the extreme positions of the SDF. There were 7 resolutions put before the conference and in each case the alliance of ILP, Trade Unions and the lone Fabian defeated most of the SDF positions. Thus the attempt to restrict Labour candidatures to the working class was amended to allow middle class candidates who accepted the LRC positions. There was to be, however, control over which candidates to accept. One of the most significant votes was the defeat of the SDF resolution to commit the new party to socialism and the class war. Hardie replaced this with an amendment that read:

“….a distinct Labour group in Parliament, who shall have their own whips, and agree upon their policy, which must embrace a readiness to co-operate with any party which for the time being may be engaged in promoting legislation in the direct interests of labour, and be equally ready to associate themselves with any party in opposing measures having an opposite tendency…”

This was the most important decision and set the way for an independent Parliamentary party that would work out its programme and tactics as it went along.

The only other decision of importance was to agree to reduce the new Executive Committee from 18 to 12, at the expense of the trade unions and one Fabian representative. This meant that, although the Conference had not formally committed to socialism at this stage, socialists could easily dominate the Executive if just 2 of the 7 trade union representatives were socialist.

The new organisation could not afford a full time officer but Ramsay MacDonald agreed to become the unpaid, full-time Secretary, as he had financial resources through his wealthy wife. This was accepted and MacDonald was able to exert considerable power throughout the LRC. The first chair of the LRC was Frederick Rodgers, a Trade Unionist and bookbinder.

First Chair of LRC, Frederick Rogers First Secretary of the LRC, Ramsay MacDonald

Page 5 of 9 The long-standing rancor between the ILP and the SDF was exacerbated by the Conference. The ILP were triumphant whilst the SDF accused them of treachery to socialism, causing a complete breakdown between their two executives.

4.6 The early years of the LRC: The 1900 election, and deals with the Liberals It should be noted that, at this stage the LRC was not open to individual membership. It was a federal body and in so far as there was a local presence of the LRC it was largely through the ILP branches and Trades Councils. The SDF after less than a year’s membership decided to leave the LRC.

The first real test of the LRC on the national stage came only 7 months after its formation in the general election of October 1900. This election was called the Khaki election, as it was called in the midst of the Boer War shortly after the British Army adopted its new uniform of khaki colour (designed to blend more effectively with the South African landscape than bright red!).

Election posters for 1900 Election

The election was plainly an attempt by the Tory Party to cash in on the jingoistic atmosphere of wartime and in this it was successful. For the new Labour Party this was a severe test as they had little finance or organisation. They only managed to field 15 candidates and of those only two were successful, Keir Hardie in Merthyr Tydfil and Richard bell in Derby, both by virtue of the fact that the Liberal Party decided not to field candidates.

Although the TUC had formally backed the notion of an independent party of the labour movement many of the old leaders and rank and file were still wedded to the Liberal Party. They took the view that without some sort of deal the independent labour candidates faced an uphill struggle to win. This led to behind the scene deals and agreements, often to back moderate candidates rather than socialist ones in return for the Liberals withdrawing their candidate. However, these was not just local deals brokered by Liberal trade union leaders but also involved MacDonald and Hardie, the leaders of the LRC. In 1903 they concluded secret negotiations with the leaders of the Liberal Party to give some LRC candidates a clear run, hiding it from even their closest colleagues. This unprincipled and opportunistic approach became apparent later and was also

Page 6 of 9 reflected in the conduct of parliamentary affairs. It angered many in the ILP rank and file.

It could be argued, as no doubt it was, that as the LRC was a fledgling organisation competing for the same radical working class votes with the Liberal Party they needed to do deals so as to get a foothold in Parliament. Whilst there may be some sense in that argument the fact of the matter was that MacDonald in particular was much more comfortable with Liberals than he was with out and out socialists and the old Lib-Lab approach was still favoured by many trade union leaders. Another difficulty was that by failing to present a clear, independent voice many among the rank file became disillusioned and critical of the Parliamentary wing.

4.7 The Defection of the SDF The SDF had, from the outset been prone to a mechanical and rigid approach to its Marxism and this, in turn, led to a sectarian mentality. Having failed, at its first attempt, to get the LRC committed to a socialist programme and the idea of class war, it decided, after a year’s membership, to leave the LRC. This cut the SDF off from the main body of the organised working class and meant that they could not continue to challenge the reformism of the ILP or the lingering Liberalism of the leadership. The LRC was also the poorer for not having a vibrant Marxist wing to add depth and vigour to its deliberations. The SDF was to return to the fold some time later but was absent through the tumultuous years of growing militancy and mass strike action between 1901 and 1914.

4.8 The Years of the LRC 1900-1906 Following the election of two LRC candidates to parliament in 1900 it won a further 2 in by-elections in the next 2 years and another was returned unopposed. This brought the total independent labour representation up to 5, soon reduced back to 4 by the defection of Richard Bell to the Liberals. It was thus a small group unable to make a significant impact on parliament. It concentrated mainly on raising the issue of unemployment, which became a major problem after the Boer War. There were in addition 8 Lib-Lab MPs, who, by and large, held aloof from Hardie and his small group and followed the Liberal whip.

Membership of the LRC was boosted by trade union affiliations after the Taff Vale judgement in 1901. This arose after the Taff Vale Railway Company sought £20,000 damages against the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants for losses sustained during a strike. After an appeal the House of Lords upheld the decision in favour of the company. This ruling made effective trade unionism Impossible.

Page 7 of 9

It led to major unions moving to join the LRC, such as the AEU and the Textile workers. Altogether, over 2 years there were 127 new Trade Union affiliations and the LRC reached recorded a membership of 861,000 by 1903. The number of Trades Councils who affiliated grew from 7 to 76 in the same period.

Although the new party was growing, the principles of its organisation and policy were still only loosely defined. There was a strong tendency for unions to run their own candidates rather than support candidates for the whole labour movement. Some trade union leaders sought to exclude socialists. To try and strengthen the authority of the LRC new constitutional measures were proposed at the 1902 conference and after consultation with the unions, agreed in 1903. Thus a political fund was established to meet the expenses of parliamentary candidates and maintaining those elected. Henceforth Labour MPs must represent all Labour interests, not associate with other parties and stand by the majority decision of the Labour Group in Parliament. These measures were resisted but after a powerful speech by Hardie to the 1903 conference the new Constitution was adopted, henceforth known as the “Newcastle Programme”, as conference was held in Newcastle that year.

It is usually stated in the broad overviews of Labour’s history that it did not have a local structure until after the adoption of the new Constitution in 1918. However, its secretary, Ramsay MacDonald was endowed with the authority to set up local LRCs pledged to the election of independent Labour representatives to Parliament and municipal bodies. This certainly happened in Leeds, where a local LRC was established and after a few years was able to create Ward Branches in a number of working class districts. It is unlikely Leeds was alone in this development.

4.9 The 1906 election and transition from LRC to The Labour Party The build up to the 1906 election was marked by a growing sense of social unrest and the building of agitation for reforms that would address the terrible poverty and unemployment that had grown since 1902. Nor was this changing mood confined to Britain as was seen in the dramatic events of Russia in 1905 when a revolution challenged the hated autocracy of Russia. Similarly in Germany and France mass movements took place to demand major reforms.

In Britain agitations against the Poor Law, Unemployment, hunger and so on became regular occurrences. In late 1905 a major delegation from the East End of London sent a deputation to the Prime Minister accompanied by a

Page 8 of 9 demonstration of thousands bearing banners with such slogans as, “Workers of the World Unite”, “The Poplar Unemployed Demand the Right to Work”, and “Work for Our Men-Bread for our Children”.

The 1906 election was held against this background and saw a landslide victory for the Liberal Party on a programme of major social reforms. This election was the first real test for the LRC. They fielded 50 candidates and secured the return of 29 (shortly after increased to 30). This major advance was unexpected and took many by surprise. The LRC Conference held after this election took place in the same hall as the inaugural conference 6 years earlier, namely Farringdon Hall in London. Understandably it was an excited and triumphant conference. Little is recorded of the conference except the resolution that henceforth the party shall be called, The Labour Party. The LRC slid quietly into history.

Page 9 of 9