There were sure to be exceptions to this as to all rules, and early in the year the Federation Board was called upon to meet a class of trouble which was entirely illegal, and which arises occasionally now. Without specifying places (but dealing generally) it will suffice to say that in a few instances notices were given for advances beyond what the sliding scale gave. The employers requested the Board to meet them. This they did, and two resolutions, one dealing with the cokemen and the other with the miners at one colliery, were unanimously carried. The workmen were told that they had violated the rules of the Federation Board and sliding scale agreement. They were told (by a circular sent out by the Federation Board) that they were parties to the arrangement, and yet had given in their notices for an advance in direct contravention of its provisions. Having been parties to the scale they ought not to violate it with impunity. If this individual or lodge action were allowed it would end in disruption, and therefore it must be checked. The wisdom of that advice is obvious, and not only in that day, but for the present time. If agreements are made for men they should be adhered to. To violate them is lawlessness, which in the end is hurtful beyond the immediate act. If conditions are forced upon people it is right to repudiate, but for the last thirty-four years in this county there has been freedom and equality. RESTRICTION OF LABOUR At the Council meeting held on January 17th it was decided that there should be a restriction, and that no coal hewer should make more than 4s. 5d. or 4s. 2d. per shift, but this was never carried out in any general manner. On March 13th the Council again dealt with it, and declared all lodges unfinancial where it was not put in force. In furtherance of that resolution the Seaham Lodge put a notice on the pit heap to inform the members "that the restriction had commenced, and that a list be drawn up stating the number of tubs each man had to fill in his respective district or flat, no man to make more than the county average in any one day." To that notice the Owners' Association took objection. A letter was sent to Mr Crawford asking him whether the workmen had determined to enforce restriction, and if so, were they then acting on it. These questions Mr Crawford did not answer, but brought them before the Committee. As a result a circular was issued reviewing the whole case. They pointed out that when the Council carried it very few of the lodges put it in force, and the few who did soon left off, and that at the Council to enforce it the voting was 145 for, 126 against. They reminded the majority that "surely a minority so strong ought to have led to a reconsideration of a matter not only so vitally important, but which has at all times been found so very difficult to carry out in practice." Lodges were sending in resolutions refusing to carry out the Council resolution.