^{page 58 note 1} Much of the history of the keelmen in the eighteenth century is recounted in three articles by J. M. Fewster in Durham University Journal, New Series, Vol. XIX. Three keelmen and a boy manned each keel, which was supplied by the coal-fitter of the particular colliery for which the keelmen worked on an annual bond.

^{page 58 note 2} Quoted in Sykes, , Local Records, Vol. 1, p. 115.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 3} Para. XIX of the Act, quoted in Bell Collection, Vol. XIII, p. 558. North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers (hereafter cited as Mining Institute). The off-putter was an employee of the coal-owner who supervised the loading of coal into keels from the stocks at the staiths on the river banks, whence it had been brought by waggonway from the pit head.

^{page 59 note 1} Atkinson, F., The Great Northern Coalfield (Durham, 1966), p. 58.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 2} Durham University Journal, New Series, Vol. XXIV.

^{page 59 note 3} This account and any future unacknowledged references have been taken from several bundles of uncatalogued papers on the keelmen in Newcastle City Archives.

^{page 60 note 1} The keelmen were paid on piece rates for each keel of coal delivered at Shields and, therefore, were not paid if they were prevented from sailing down the Tyne as a result of bad weather conditions.

^{page 60 note 2} Consisting of representatives of colliery owners and the fitters or middlemen who were responsible for selling the coal and who employed the keelmen. Mining Institute, Easton Papers, Vol. IV.

^{page 60 note 3} A letter dd. 3 Oct. from Wm. Chapman, a coal-owner to Nathaniel Clayton, a coal-owner and town clerk of Newcastle upon Tyne, showed that the coal committee disagreed that wages had not been raised since 1710.

^{page 61 note 1} Since the keelmen were bound to their employers for one year, to strike was to break the agreement and they were, therefore, liable to legal action. Warrants for the arrest of at least 73 keelmen were issued on this ground during the strike.

^{page 63 note 1} Concern over the offering of protection was obviously limited. The draft notice offered a reward of 50 guineas for the conviction of anyone hindering a keelman in the discharge of his duty. Reflexion led to the substitution of 20 guineas and in its final form no mention at all was made of this.

^{page 64 note 1} Newcastle Advertizer, 11 Nov. 1809. At least sixteen had been committed by this time.

^{page 64 note 2} A chaldron was approximately equal to 53 cwt.

^{page 65 note 1} It had been customary at the time of making the bond for the ensuing year for the keelmen to receive binding money as an attraction to sign the bond.

^{page 65 note 2} J. M. Fewster must have been unaware of this document when he wrote of the 1809 strike: “It is not known whether the keelmen gained the increase in wages they had demanded.” Op. cit., NS, XXIV.

^{page 65 note 3} Cf. George, M. D., “Combination Laws Reconsidered”, in: Economic History, I (1927).Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 1} By contrast, on the Wear, where the keelmen were being made redundant much more rapidly as a result of the shipping of coal by spout, there was a serious strike in 1815 during which many spouts were destroyed, the total value of the damage being estimated at £6,000. Sykes, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 89.

^{page 66 note 2} Mining Institute, ZB20, Miscellaneous Papers of the Coal Trade, handbill, headed “Keelmen”, dd. 18 Aug. 1812.

^{page 66 note 3} The drop was attached to a staith and by means of pulleys enabled colliery waggons to be lowered over the hold of a vessel and the coal to be dropped directly in. Because of the shorter distance which the coal had to fall it was less broken and, therefore, more saleable in the market. It should not be thought, as some writing on the keelmen has suggested, that spouts and drops could only be used with colliers. They were in fact used below bridge to load coal into keels to be taken to the ships which could not come upstream because of their too great draught.

^{page 66 note 4} For an account of “Tyneside Discontents and Peterloo”, see the article by DrMcCord, N., Northern History, Vol. II, 1967.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 5} Address of the Reformers of Fawdon to their Brothers and Pitmen, , Keelmen and other Labourers of the Tyne and Wear (Newcastle, 1819), copy in Mining Institute, Bell Collection, Vol. XI, pp. 83–90.Google Scholar Address to the Pitmen, , Keelmen and other Labouring Classes employed on the Tyne and the Wear (Durham, 14 10, 1819)Google Scholar, an answer from the side of the established order. It is noticeable that these were not directed specifically at the Tyneside keelmen, but at the major labouring groups on both rivers.

^{page 67 note 1} Copy in Public Record Office, HO 42/196.

^{page 67 note 2} Newcastle Courant, 2 Oct. 1819.

^{page 67 note 3} The keelmen's fund had been in debt to the following extent in the preceding years: 1815 £47–13/–; 1816 £98–1/5; 1817 £161–19/10; 1818 £101–2/5.

^{page 68 note 1} Northumberland Record Office, Minutes Joint Cttee. of the Coal Trade of the Tyne and Wear, 1819: PRO, HO 42/196.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 2} Newcastle Courant, 2 Oct. 1819.

^{page 68 note 3} PRO, HO 42/196.

^{page 68 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 69 note 1} Ibid., On 2 Oct. the Durham County Advertizer had claimed that the keelmen had deliberately timed their strike for a moment when there were a large number of ships awaiting cargoes of coal, thereby causing maximum dislocation in the coal trade.

^{page 69 note 2} According to Reed's letters to the Home Office (6 and 9 Oct.) the keelmen decided to remain on strike until after the eleventh, the day when the Newcastle reform meeting to consider the Peterloo affair was to be held. This is hardly credible in the light of all the contemporary statements that the keelmen, as a body, took no part in the meeting. It would seem more likely that the keelmen remained on strike in the hope of obtaining a better settlement.

^{page 69 note 3} PRO, HO 42/196, Joseph Bulmer to Lord Sidmouth, 8 Oct. 1819.

^{page 70 note 1} Ibid., Fairles to Sidmouth, 12 Oct. 1819.

^{page 70 note 2} Newcastle Chronicle, 16 Oct. 1819.

^{page 70 note 3} PRO, HO 42/196.

^{page 70 note 4} The detail of the events is confused and conflicting and this account has been compiled from that in Reed's letter to Sidmouth (PRO, HO 42/197, 17 Oct. 1819) and accounts by the keelmen who were manning the keels taken to Shields (Keelmen's Papers, Newcastle City Archives). These informants all came under attack during the affair and on this count their reports are possibly exaggerated.

^{page 71 note 1} PRO, HO 42/196, Bulmer to Sidmouth, 15 Oct. 1819.

^{page 71 note 2} Tyne Mercury, 19 Oct. 1819.

^{page 72 note 1} PRO, HO 41/5, 19 Oct. 1819.

^{page 73 note 1} Ibid., 42/196.

^{page 73 note 2} Ibid., 42/197.

^{page 73 note 3} That such forces could be used effectively was seen during the seamen's strike of 1815, when in one straightforward action the magistrates, making use of a military and naval force, took control of Shields harbour and crushed the strike. See the article on the strike by DrMcCord, N. in the Economic History Review, Vol. XXI, No 1.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 1} Newcastle Chronicle, 30 Oct. 1819. The MS original of the agreement, signed by Thomas Clennell and Joshua Donkin, dd. 20 Oct. 1819, is in Mining Institute, Miscellaneous Deposits, ZA 19.

^{page 75 note 1} I deal with the subsequent history of the keelmen in an article which is to be published in the 1968 issue of Northern History.