This strike commenced about the middle of April 1869, and arose out of the conditions contained in the "Bond" of that year, which was brought out as usual in the month of March, when the hewers were told that, owing to the depressed condition of trade, there would have to be a considerable reduction in prices. In one instance the score price was reduced from 7s. to 5s. 10d., and the yard price from 1s. to 8d. There was no opposition offered at the time, as the men were willing to give the lower rate a fair trial. Afterwards they found they were not able to make a fair day's wage. They worked on until the 18th of May, when after going into the pit they all came out, and held a meeting on the green, and appointed a deputation of six to wait upon the manager and Mr Stobart. No concession being made the report was given, when the men declared it was impossible to maintain their families, and resolved that they would not resume work until the previous prices were paid. It is not part of my purpose to enter into all the phases of the strike, but one thing I will set forth, as it shows the method adopted to break the ranks of the workmen. The manager of the colliery was a man well-known in the North of England Coal Trade, Mr R. Heckles. He, believing there was great power in the beer jug, when the strike had continued for a fortnight sent six notes for fifty men each to get a quart of ale per man. These were placed before a meeting of 250 men. "On the offer of the beer being announced the men replied that the notes were to be sent back, as the day had gone by when the men were to be bought with beer, but that beef and bread would be better, and a resolution was carried not to resume work except at last year's prices." The breaking of the bond brought the workmen into collision with the law, and four of them were summoned to appear at the Sunderland Court, on the 21st of June 1869. They were charged under the Masters and Servants Act. One of the cases, that of Thomas Fenwick, was taken. The magistrates were told they could impose a fine of £20, or commit to prison for three months. The defence was conducted by Mr Roberts, the "Pitmen's Attorney-General." The Bench decided that the defendant should give sureties of £20 to return to work, or be committed to prison for one month. Mr Roberts took objection, and pointed out that there was no attesting witness to the signing of the contract, and asked for a case to the Queen's Bench on the point. On that being raised the case was adjourned for a fortnight.