C—3

84

owned the mine, and the traffic of those particular owners, that would not have affected the Brunner. I only mention that as a case in point where a strike was localised. 915. Have you ever, since you joined tho union, worked alongside non-union men?— Yes, for a short time when the union first commenced. 916. But not of late years ?—No. 917. Has there been any non-union labour in connection with the Grey Valley mines?— Not during about the last twelve months. The only non-union men were such men as were mutually agreed upon between the Association and the manager, who should remain out of the union on account of their official position, or perhaps their position of certain responsibility. 918. Mr. Moody.] You mean clerks and others ?—Yes ; and in one case the top-man—that is, the lander. 919. The Chairman.] What has been the maximum population of Brunnerton, do you think? —The number on the union books is 385 previous to the stoppage. 920. How long have these men been at Brunnerton, and can you give us any idea of how the miners arrived there, if they came in large bodies together?—l do not know how they came. 921. Were there as many nine years ago, when you first began to work?— Yes, I believe so. 922. Have not the numbers increased since? — I cannot tell you, but even during the last twelve months, although the numbers of miners have not increased, the day-labourers in connection with the mines have increased. 923. What has led to that increase ?—The attraction of labour and more employment offered from tune to time. I mean, there has been employment given to outsiders when there was enough on the place. 924. Can you tell us the number of men that have lost their employment owing to changes ? You tell us about sixty-six being discharged, and some from the Brunner mine ?—When the stoppage took place the miners themselves paid the passages of tw : enty-nine men. That was when the Brunner stoppage took place. The men themselves subscribed £137 3s. to pay the passages of twenty-nine families. 925. Where did they go to ?—Most of them went to Australia. 926. Do you know where they originally came from and whether they came to this country as coal-miners?— Most of them came as coal-miners from Scotland, Yorkshire, Durham, and other places at Home. 927. Mostly from British collieries ?—Yes. 928. Mr. Moody.] Some of them came back from Australia, did they not ? —Yes ; but not half of them. 929. Mr. Brown.] What became of the other families that were out of employment?— Well, the interruption as regards the employment only lasted until April —that is, wdien the Kimberley was pumped out. The Kimberley is a portion of the Coal-pit Heath workings, the deepest part. Most of the men then found employment. 930. Does that include those who were reduced from the Brunner in December and January? —I include some of those twenty-nine who were sent away. I suppose there must have been thirty-five men at Brunnerton continuously for four months without work. 931. Was there any division of work at that time?— No. I might explain that, when I said there were sixty-six men reduced from the Brunner Mine, some of that number found employment in the Wallsend. In March, 1889, that mine stopped completely. 932. The Chairman.] In the Brunner Mine there were about two hundred men engaged underground ;in December, 1888, about sixty-six were discharged; in January, 1889, the month following, about the same number ; then the mine stopped in March ; and the last lot that left the Brunner were transferred to the Wallsend ?■—Yes. 933. Mr. Moody.] How long did the Brunner stand?— Until the 18th July. 934. The Chairman.] How many men were thrown out at Wallsend ? Is this correct: At the Brunner Mine there were about two hundred men engaged underground, about one-third Were discharged, and then followed another third in the month following ; then in March the mine stopped and all these men were thrown out of employment ; some of course went away, leaving the district altogether, twenty-nine of them assisted away, while about thirty-five remained out of employment for about four months until July?—No ; until April, because I gave as a date April, when some of the men found employment on the Kimberley works being pumped out, which had been previously under water. Shortly afterwards—that is, in May—all the men got employment. There were about thirty men thrown out of employment at Wallsend, and at Coal-pit Heath about the same number. 935. Mr. Moody.] What was the cause of that then ?—Well, the miners believed that the cause was an attempt to force a reduction, because there had been all these thirty-five men out of employment. Many of these were the same men thrown out of work again both in May at Wallsend, and again at Coal-pit Heath; and by the time the manager consented to give 4s. per ton there were-sixty men out of employment. 936. The Chairman.] You mean consented to resume 4s. per ton ?—Yes ; it might be assumed that of course these workmen were in a very bad position to resist a reduction at that time, seeing that so many of them had been out of employment for such a long period. And not only that, but the manager told any one that came about that he had plenty of employment at 3s. 6d. per ton. 937. Notwithstanding that, he agreed to the old terms ? —Yes. 938. And he did not get a reduction ?—No. 939. Were these sixty men ever taken on again? Were they all taken on at 4s. in addition to the men at the mine ?—Most of them were re-engaged at the time of the lock-out. There were fifty men at the places sharing employment. This was, of course, owing to part of the mine being flooded.