10 - NOTES OF ' SLAVERY ' IN THE SCOTTISH COAL MINING INDUSTRIES
It may be disputed whether such a chapter as this is of relevance, but in justification it can be said that it involves an industry which was going on in and around CALDERPARK. It can even be taken a step further as, indeed, great uncle James McNair seems to have been involved in keeping slaves, when he was coalmaster at Greenfields.
At anecdote, which appeared as a footnote in Old Country Houses of Glasgow (1878), can highlight this point. A man called Rogers is mentioned, who had the following story to tell about ' Greenfield Coals ‘: -
" In the year 1820, the story goes, Mr. Robert Bold of Alloa was on visit to his friend, Mr. Colin Dunlop - a representative of Glasgow at Parliament - living at Clyde.
Mr. Dunlop called up one of the workers, an old man, who went by the name of Moss Nook, and bade him tell the gentleman how he came to Clyde. Moss Nook explained that he had " belonged " as a boy to McNair of Greenfield, and that Greenfield that taken a fancy to a pony of James Dunlop's father (Colin's father) and had " differed him for the beast "; and that he had been sent over, there and then, and had been at Clyde ever since. "
This must thus have taken place in the latter half of the 18th century, because we know that James McNair of Greenfield bought that property in 1759 and became coalmaster there.
Seeing such an incident in the perspective of emancipation and enlightenment, which we 20th century citizens, at least of the Western World, are taking for granted, this story does not do much to endear great uncle McNair to us. It is also strange to hear that man and beast were of similar value to their master’s and could thus be exchanged at random.
We should, perhaps, not be too critical of James McNair, because " serfdom " and/or " slavery " had been common practice in the Scottish Coalmining Industry at that time.
It was probably more a matter of fate, whether one was born into the wealthy ruling classes, or whether one had the bad fortune of belonging to the poorer classes.
What seems quite astonishing about this anecdote though is, that " enslavement " was still in practice as late as the latter half of the 18th century.
In investigating this problem more closely one finds that references to " slavery " were made as late as the 19th century, long after the OFFICIAL ACT OF THE ABOLISHMENT OF SLAVERY was passed in 1775.
The preamble to this act said that " ... many colliers and coal bearers and salters are in a state of delivery and bondage, bound to the collieries or saltworks, where they work for life, transferable with the collieries or saltworks. "
However, such an Act did not seem to have deterred coalmasters from their practices. In 1799, another Act came into force, and it was mentioned " that many colliers and coal bearers still continued in a state of bondage. "
There exists another story of a slave, from a family of slaves, which happened as late as 1842: -
A collier from Musselburgh gave evidence before the Scottish Mining Commission, that he had wrought for years as a slave, and that he, his father and his grandfather had been born slaves.
A little later still, reference has been made to a period after 1843, of a Dalkeith woman who had been a born slave.
The reasons for slavery to have existed was obviously a question of too much power, as a consequence of wealth on the one hand, and absolute powerlessness, in the form of poverty, on the other hand.
Even if he had wanted to, a collier bound to a coalmaster would neither have had the means, nor the education to transfer on his own account to some other place. The resulting inflexibility was therefore responsible for the worker and his family to be bound to one place for generations.
The following will support this statement: -
In " A HISTORY OF THE SCOTTISH COAL INDUSTRY 1700-1815 " a man " Graham " is quoted as saying " Servitude (and the nature of the work itself) made miners a caste aloof from the rest of the community.
Their narrow-isolated life lulled all ambition, killed all energy, and inured to this lot, like their fathers, they regarded it as inevitable for their children. "
" Serfdom " and " bondage " in the coal industry goes back several hundred years, and recordings of such cases were made as early as 1579.
It is probable that rich landowners, involved in " agrarian serfdom " stood model for later coalmasters. However, it seems likely that slavery (or whatever one may wish to call it) evolved simultaneously in both industries. The crux of the matter obviously was that the worker had no one behind him who could advocate his rights, so he entered work without being given a contract, and who was there to listen to any of his complaints?
The various Acts of 1775 and 1799 were, as we have learned, greatly ignored by the masters, and probably not generally known and understood among the colliers and coal bearers.
To highlight the miner's inflexibility and isolated life, the following points should be considered as well.
1. Where would the miner have gone, had he been able to go?
2. Would a move south to an English coalmine have solved or improved matters?
Relevant accounts show that emigration would not have been desirable for two reasons: -
1. The mode of life in England differed greatly from the one the Scottish miner was used to, and
2. The deeper pits in England allegedly resulted in the danger of inflammable air, i.e. a greater risk of accidents would have been at stake.
Another Act was enforced in 1842. This Act followed the Royal Commission which discovered appalling examples of child exploitation. Instances of children as young as 4 years being employed, were cited; or children working 12 hours a day alone in darkness; and of girls as young as 6 years carrying coal on their backs.
This Act prohibited the employment of women in the mines and of boys under 10. It appointed Mine Inspectors.
In conclusion, a reflection of the term " slave " or " slavery ", which has so often been used in this connection, would be inappropriate.
Economically, the collier was a victim of a kind of paternalism, strongly tinged with feudal undertones. It seems appropriate under these circumstances, that a person finding himself in this state of servitude, should be called a " slave ", this term seemed to have been in frequent use at the time.
It can be argued, however, whether one can put any refining grades on " slavery ". Some may say that the
Scottish collier was better off, than his Roman counterpart, or the contemporary American Negro slave, because he, the Scottish miner, was not as void of his rights as they were.