H́nh ảnh trang
PDF
ePub

own initiative, but with the acquiescence of the miners, it sent a deputation to the Prime Minister to ask him to renew his efforts at mediation; while at the same time Mr. Pugh, who was still acting as its president in the absence of the newly elected president from England, sent a long letter to The Times urging the need of a settlement on the basis of the Commission's report. The Prime Minister on October 26 informed the Trade Union representatives that he could not take any further steps in conjunction with the Trade Union Council unless he knew that that body was authorised to speak on behalf of the Miners' Federation. The Council accordingly consulted the Miners' Executive on October 29. The latter body would not give a definite answer on its own responsibility, and after much parleying, in the course of which members of the Council again interviewed Mr. Churchill (Mr. Baldwin being out of town), it undertook to summon a Delegate Conference in the following week and to submit to its judgment the proposals for a settlement suggested by the Council.

Meanwhile, on October 25, Parliament had met for the third time during the recess for the purpose of continuing the Emergency Regulations. The Government abstained from making any statement regarding the coal stoppage, and for this it was severely taken to task by Mr. Clynes, who was leading the Opposition, Mr. MacDonald having been ordered abroad for a rest. Mr. Clynes further pointed out that there was a genuine desire for accommodation on the part of the miners' leaders, and that influential appeals for intervention had been made, not from the Labour side only, in the country, and he asked why the Government had not responded-why it had not even put a stop to profiteering in coal. Mr. Lloyd George, who followed, again espoused the miners' cause, and attacked the Government more vigorously than the Labour spokesman, and he urged the Government to go back to the Churchill terms and insist on a settlement which they themselves regarded as fair and honourable.

Mr. Baldwin, in a speech which was heard with impatience by Labour members, adopted a more detached attitude than ever. He admitted that the latest proposals of the miners broke new ground, but he regretted that they afforded no basis for Government intervention, as they did not embrace the question of hours, and it was impossible to leave this out of the discussion, since from 80,000 to 100,000 men were now actually working more than seven hours a day. The Government had no further proposals to make, and was not going to mock people with the suggestion that it had any. The dispute was an industrial one, and must be settled by the parties to it. The one thing about which he was clear at the moment was that so long as the affairs of the industry had to be negotiated by the persons who had conducted the negotiations this time, there was not much hope of a settle

ment,

Later in the debate the Minister of Mines expressed the Government's view in a way which left no doubt of its bias in favour of the owners. If Labour members, he said, really wanted a settlement, it was open to them to urge provisional settlements in the districts. The dispute could be settled in a few days if the Miners' Federation would allow the local leaders to act independently. He denied that this would mean the destruction of the Miners' Federation; matters would merely revert to the condition which existed before 1921. With regard to coal prices, he explained that no control had so far been set. up, because this would involve an expense and a dislocation of trade which it was not worth while incurring if, as they hoped, the dispute would soon be settled. Meanwhile the Government had arrested the rise in coal prices, and the possibility of having to impose some drastic form of control was being kept in mind.

In the course of the debate, reference was made to the action of the Chief Constable of Staffordshire in prohibiting Mr. Cook from addressing meetings in that county during the preceding week-end. The Home Secretary explained that he had given permission under the Emergency Regulations to Chief Constables in mining counties to prohibit, on their own responsibility, meetings which they had reason to apprehend might conduce to a breach of the peace, and he quoted from a speech made by Mr. Cook in the same district two months previously a bitter attack on the police which he thought justified the precaution taken by the Chief Constable on the present occasion. He was promptly asked why he had not arrested Mr. Cook, as the speech quoted appeared to come under the Emergency Regulations, and he could only reply that it was, indeed, difficult to justify the nonprosecution of Mr. Cook while men in lesser positions were being prosecuted; the truth being, of course, that the Government, wiser than the "yellow Press," were well aware how inadvisable it would be to make a martyr of the miners' secretary.

On the next day (October 26), the House of Commons continued the Emergency Regulations, after the Home Secretary had satisfied the majority of the House (but not the Labour Party) that they were not being administered tyranically. A great part of the sitting was taken up with the discussion of a personal matter in which the House considered its own credit to be deeply involved. A Unionist member drew attention to the fact that a fortnight previously a Labour member, Dr. Salter, in addressing a temperance meeting, had stated in the course of his remarks that he had seen members of Parliament of all parties drunk in the House, not on one, but on many occasions, and he moved that the speech was a gross libel on the members of the House, and a grave breach of its privileges. Dr. Salter, who was first heard, refused to retract or modify his statement, and when he had withdrawn, in order to allow the motion to be discussed,

Mr. T. P. O'Connor, the "father of the House," and the Prime Minister bore witness to the great improvement which had taken place in the drinking habits of the House within their own experience, and censured Dr. Salter for refusing to express regret for his statement, which was calculated to give the outside world an entirely wrong impression. Some Labour members were in favour of having the matter brought before a Committee of Privileges, where Dr. Salter could name the offending members, but after the inadvisability of this step had been clearly exposed by Mr. Lloyd George, the proposal was not pressed, and in the end the House gave itself a certificate of sobriety by carrying the motion

nem. con.

The question of laying an embargo on the movement of imported coal was considered on November 2 by a Conference which was attended by representatives of all trade unions connected with the transport industry, with the significant exception of the Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. The meeting did not actually reject the proposal of the miners, but took an equivalent step by adjourning the discussion in order to report to the General Council of the trade unions.

On the next day (November 3) the Conference of trade union executives called by the Council considered the more important question of imposing a levy on trade unionists on behalf of the unemployed miners. About 800 delegates were present, and after hearing statements from Mr. Cook and Mr. Richardson on the position of the miners, the Conference by an overwhelming majority passed a resolution congratulating the miners on their magnificent fight, and pledging each executive represented at the Conference to call for a special contribution of not less than a penny a day from every one of its members who was at work until the dispute should be settled. The General Council immediately forwarded the resolution to all the unions, at the same time emphasising the extreme urgency of the need for financial assistance, in order that the miners might be able to resist "the inequitable terms of settlement which the coal-owners sought to enforce."

Although the levy obtained by the miners from the trade unions was only voluntary, it was granted without any conditions, and so represented a triumph for their stubbornness in continuing the struggle after the Labour Party Conference had practically given them the hint to abandon it. Nor did their success stop here. The Mediation Committee of the Trade Union Council, after arranging with the miners on a joint policy, requested the Government to take steps to reopen negotiations, and Mr. Baldwin, going back on his previous statement, consented to meet the miners' leaders without first requiring that there should have been a general return to work throughout the coal-fields. The miners' leaders on their side received authorisation from a Delegate Con

ference which sat in London on November 4 and 5 to reopen negotiations on the basis of the lines approved by the Trade Union Council, and on the latter date met a Cabinet Committee presided over by Mr. Baldwin.

[ocr errors]

On November 6 the Mines Department addressed to the miners' delegates a letter containing the general principles which the Government understood the owners to be willing to follow in negotiating district settlements. After a couple of days of discussion between the Cabinet and the miners' representatives, these proposals, according to a statement of Mr. Cook, were considerably amended," but the question of hours proved a stumbling-block which could not readily be surmounted. The delegates themselves were not blind to the necessity of making concessions on the subject, but they did not venture to do so without further authorisation. Accordingly on November 9 a halt was called in the negotiations to enable them to consult a Delegate Conference which met on the next day. Mr. Smith, who presided, told the Conference that the Executive in their interviews with the Government had gone as far as they believed they were authorised to go by the last Conference, and now came for fresh instructions. Mr. Cook gave a full report of the interviews with the Government, showing where the difficulties had arisen. The Conference had to choose between breaking off the negotiations and continuing them with the certainty that they could lead to nothing if not to surrender. After long and searching discussion they adopted the latter course, and on the afternoon of November 11 unanimously passed a resolution giving the Executive a free hand.

In his annual speech at the Guildhall banquet on November 9, the Prime Minister painted in strong colours the contrast between the international and the home situation. In the international situation he could see little but good. He laid stress on the great improvement which had taken place in the condition of many European nations since the last Imperial Conference in 1923, and dwelt approvingly on the fact (which he took for granted) that France, Germany, Italy, and England were working together for reconstruction and reconciliation. He even maintained that the prestige of the League of Nations had been increased-a statement with which many supporters of that body would have found it difficult to agree. He admitted that the situation in China gave ground for anxiety, but was able to set against this the fact that in India both political parties seemed disposed to abandon the policy of non-co-operation. On home affairs he said little, but enough to show that he was closely observing the tendencies of the time. He confessed that the events of the preceding few months must be to them a source of humiliation, and he characterised the general strike as a stain on the annals of England, and the coal stoppage as another monument to human

folly, which had plunged the country into vast losses, and would leave behind a heritage of bitter memories of wasted strife and suffering. Still, he did not hold with those who prophesied the early decline of Britain. They had seen many peaceful revolutions in the country, and they would see many more. There were signs that they were passing through a second industrial revolution, and the turmoil of new and undigested ideas was bound to beget misunderstanding and hardship in their midst.

CHAPTER V.

END OF THE COAL STOPPAGE.

PARLIAMENT reassembled on November 9, mainly for the purpose of completing the legislation which had been initiated in the spring and summer. The chief Bills which awaited its consideration were the Electricity Bill, the Merchandise Marks Bill, and the Judicial Proceedings Bill. The Money-lenders' Bill had dropped out of the programme, and the Factory Bill, in spite of the definite pledge given by the Government in the spring, was postponed till the coming year.

The House of Commons immediately proceeded to the consideration of the Report stage of the Electricity Bill. Obstructive tactics were employed by a group of Conservative members who had shown their hostility to the Bill in Committee on account of its alleged leanings to nationalisation, but the Government was firm, and refused to make any concessions. In moving the third reading on November 12, the Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, Lieut.-Col. Moore Brabazon, explained once more the main purpose of the Bill which had been obscured under a mass of technical details. The Bill dealt only with the generative, and not with the distributive side of electricity, and its main provision was to establish a Board which would build a grid of intercommunicating lines between the various generating stations of the country. This would have the effect of bringing all stations more or less up to the level of efficiency of the best, and would result in an ultimate cheapening of current to the consumer. According to an amendment introduced since the second reading, the actual scheme would be prepared, not by the Board itself, but by the Electricity Commissioners, who would submit them to the Board. The rejection of the Bill was moved from the Labour side on the ground that it perpetuated the existence of private ownership in a service which ought to be owned and controlled by the community, but the Government, as usual, obtained a substantial majority.

The Cabinet's plan, announced in July, of making broad

« TrướcTiếp tục »