H́nh ảnh trang
PDF
ePub

Agreements were also made by the transport workers, dockers, and printers with their employers, and work was generally resumed on May 17. As far as the general public was concerned, the country had, apart from the coal stoppage, practically returned to its normal condition before the end of that day.

66

Thus ended the first attempt in the history of England to use: the weapon of a general strike. The attempt was so disastrous to those who made it that the moral drawn generally by responsible leaders of labour was never again." The trade unions came out of the struggle impoverished and humiliated, doubtful whether they would much longer be able to maintain their exceptional privileges against a Government attack. They consoled themselves with the thought that they had given a wonderful demonstration of working class solidarity, but this did not save them from being bitterly reproached by the miners for leaving them in the lurch. The organisers of the strike were undoubtedly quite sincere when they disclaimed any intention of acting unconstitutionally or illegally seizing power. But this very attitude doomed them to failure, since, as was generally recognised on the Continent, a general strike was useless unless it had a definitely political object. The attempt, in fact, while regarded by the: rank and file as a general strike intended to coerce the Government, was conducted by the leaders as a purely sympathetic strike in aid of the miners on the part of certain classes of workers. It thus fell between two stools, and wasted the resources of the workers without securing them any advantage.

Contrary to general anticipation, the strike passed off with comparatively few manifestations of disorder. The one town in which rioting occurred on any considerable scale was Glasgow, where it was found necessary to make over two hundred arrests. The overwhelming majority of the strikers loyally obeyed the injunctions of their leaders to observe the law, and such outrages as were committed were largely the work of irresponsible hooligans. This was a feature of the strike on which Englishmen could look back with considerable pride, and in which they found some consolation for its many bitter memories.

Answering a question in Parliament on May 17, Mr. Churchill expressed the opinion that the direct cost of the strike to the Government for extra police, civil constabulary, and similar charges had not been more than 750,000l., and he saw no reason at the moment for imposing additional taxation. The net cost of the British Gazette he estimated at about 10,000l. For the indirect loss to trade he did not venture to give any figure, but Mr. Runciman, speaking in the House a few days later, computed this to have been in the neighbourhood of 30,000,000l.-an estimate which was generally accepted. General satisfaction was caused by the fact that the strike had exercised no adverse influence on British currency; the pound, in fact, had slightly

appreciated in relation to the dollar, in contrast with the franc, which, in the same period, had fallen heavily. This gratifying phenomenon was ascribed in part to the confidence which the British nation had inspired abroad by its orderly conduct during the strike and by the resourcefulness it had shown in coping with an abnormal situation.

CHAPTER III.

THE COAL STOPPAGE.

THE cessation of the general strike made no immediate difference to the situation in the coal-fields. The Miners' Federation did not regard itself as bound in any way by the decisions of the Trade Union Council, and Mr. Smith and Mr. Cook scorned to follow the example of their colleagues on that body. In their speeches at this juncture they summed up their policy in the slogan, not a cent off the pay, not a minute on the day," and in adopting this attitude they could still count on the firm support of the vast majority of members of the Miners' Federation, whose resolution not to accept the owners' terms was totally unshaken by the defection of their comrades in the other unions.

66

The owners, on their side, were equally obstinate, and the Premier was at this time of the opinion, as he informed Parliament, that the two parties would never come together if left to themselves. In order, therefore, to procure a resumption of work in the coal-fields, so necessary in the interests of the national economy, he once more intervened, and on May 14 addressed to Mr. Evan Williams and Mr. Herbert Smith a letter containing proposals which, in the opinion of the Government, could provide a reasonable basis for the settlement of the dispute in the industry. The letter enumerated a number of measures, based on the Coal Commission's Report, which the Government intended to introduce immediately if the other parties agreed, and offered the industry a grant of 3,000,000l. to be used primarily in aid of wages during the period that a national wages board with an independent chairman was framing a new national wages agreement. The Government proposed that, pending the decision of the wages board, the miners should accept a reduction in minimum wages, other than subsistence rates, in all districts, the amount of the reduction to be decided in forthcoming negotiations. In view of the far-reaching character of his proposals, the Premier stated that he did not expect an immediate reply.

No less than a week, in fact, elapsed before an answer was received from either side. At length, on May 20, the miners made their reply. They stated that they were largely in agreement with the legislative and administrative proposals set forth by the

Premier, but they were unable to accept his suggestions for a reduction in the miners' wages, and they further objected to the proposal that a board with an independent chairman should be empowered to abolish the national minimum and enforce variable minima throughout the districts. They concluded by stating that in their opinion the Prime Minister, in making these proposals, was not honouring the pledge given in his broadcast. message of May 8, "not to lower the standard of living of the miners or of any other section of the workers."

The reply of the coal-owners was even more adverse. On May 21 they issued a long statement which showed their attitude to be substantially the same as it had been when they gave evidence before the Coal Commission. They claimed that the British coal industry, taken as a whole, compared favourably in point of efficiency with that of any other country, and asserted that the Premier's proposals would not be helpful in securing for it increased productiveness. It would, they said, be impossible to continue the conduct of the industry under private enterprise unless it was accorded the same freedom from political interference as was enjoyed by other industries, and they once more advocated the restoration of the eight-hours day as the one method for saving the miners from drastic reductions of wages.

Finding itself thus flouted on both sides, the Government resolved to make no more efforts at mediation till it should be called for. To the Owners' Association Mr. Baldwin wrote a letter defending the Government against the charge of "political interference" in the affairs of the coal industry, and rebuking the owners for their inadequate appreciation both of some of his proposals and of the gravity of the existing situation. He deplored the uncompromising attitude indicated in their statement, but did not urge them to change it. To the Miners' Federation he wrote that so long as that body refused to consider any alteration in wages or hours, and in the absence of any practical proposals from their side, he did not see that any useful purpose would be served by his meeting them, but he would hold himself available for further discussion so soon as they were willing to modify their attitude. His offer having been rejected, the Government no longer considered itself bound by its terms, and in particular, in view of the drain on the country's resources caused by the strike and the coal stoppage, it would be unable to hold open the offer of any further subsidy beyond the end of the current month, i.e., for more than another ten days.

Within the miners' camp itself influential voices were, during this interval, raised in favour of making some concession in the matter either of wages or of hours, but they fell on deaf ears. In the Labour weekly, the New Leader, of May 29, Mr. F. Varley, M.P., a member of the Executive of the Miners' Federation, advocated that work should be resumed forthwith by the miners

on a national minimum percentage of 25 per cent. on 1914 rates instead of the existing 33 per cent., conditionally upon the owners and the Government making similar concessions. Mr. Cook immediately issued a rejoinder stating that the policy enunciated by their president represented the unanimous opinion of the rank and file of the coal-fields, ascertained after district and national conferences, and that Mr. Varley was misleading the public and the Government in suggesting that the miners were prepared to accept lower wages-a view borne out by the fact that the miners of Mr. Varley's own district of Nottingham rejected his proposals. About the same time, Mr. Frank Hodges, the ex-Secretary of the Miners' Federation, and Secretary of the Miners' International, issued a statement in which he advised the miners to accept longer hours, but he received a similar rebuff from the inflexible Mr. Cook. On May 31 the public learned from the Press that the Executive Committee of the Northumberland Miners' Association was in favour of a resumption of negotiations "for securing the best terms possible of a national settlement on the lines of the Coal Commission's Report." This was hailed in many quarters as the first sign of a break-away among the miners from the uncompromising attitude of Mr. Smith and Mr. Cook; but such hopes were, in a few days, shown to be illusory by the result of a ballot of the Northumberland miners themselves, which was decisively against the proposal. The vast body of the miners had, in fact, by this time made up their minds that nothing short of starvation would induce them to yield an iota on any one of their three conditions for resuming work: no reduction of wages, no lengthening of hours, and a national settlement of district minima ; and the Premier's offer of a subsidy made no difference to their determination. However unreasonable the policy of Mr. Smith and Mr. Cook may have appeared to those who argued with them -and they themselves did not deny that, without a reduction. of wages, numbers of pits would have to be closed down, and hundreds of thousands of miners would be thrown out of workthere could be little doubt that in refusing to make concessions they were interpreting correctly the general feeling of the mining population at this time.

On May 17 and 18 the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a visit from M. Raoul Péret, the French Minister of Finance, and discussed with him the agreement which he had made with his predecessor, M. Caillaux, in the previous summer. The conversations thus initiated were continued for some time by the experts of the British and French Treasuries, but they led to no definite result, and the Caillaux agreement was left standing nominally, without any immediate prospect of being honoured on the side of France.

In the intervals between discussing the strike, Parliament had made progress with the Budget proposals, and the votes for the

various Departments were through the Committee of Supply by May 19. On the Vote for the Board of Trade strong complaints were made by the Opposition of the secrecy in which evidence given before Safeguarding of Industries committees was shrouded, but the President of the Board refused to make any concessions. On the Vote for the Ministry of Health, Mr. Lansbury moved. a reduction in the Vote as a protest against the Government's treatment of necessitous areas, but he was unable to stir the Minister to any change of policy.

The Finance Bill came up for its second reading on May 19. Mr. Graham, who moved its rejection on behalf of the Labour Party, said that they did not object to the proposed alteration of the basis of income tax from the three years' average to the income of one year, but he complained that no steps were taken to stop tax evasion, which was estimated by the Royal Commission on Income Tax at 5 to 10 millions a year, and that farmers were not taxed up to the level of their profits, like other people—a fact which was admitted by the Government spokesman, but justified on the ground that the agricultural industry was already fully taxed, if not overtaxed. The debate produced from Mr. Runciman, the leader of the Radical group, a remarkable declaration of faith in the recuperative powers of the country, and its ability to make good the losses of the general strike as it had made good the losses of the coal stoppage in 1921.

Coming, as it did, from an acknowledged authority on commercial affairs and an opponent of the Government, this speech made a great impression. Somewhat perversely, Mr. Churchill, on this occasion, assumed the rôle of pessimist, and gloomily reminded the House that the coal stoppage was still with them, and that the outlook was grave. Two or three weeks' stoppage, he said, was recoverable, eight or ten weeks would make a deep mark on the livelihood of the whole people, while twelve or fourteen weeks would probably mean a year and a half or two years of hard times for the country. Anything, however, was better than allowing their industries to get on to an uneconomic basis, and permitting an industry which masters and men had allowed to get into such a tangle to quarter itself indefinitely on the general taxpayer.

The criticism of the Bill was not pressed with vigour, and the amendment for rejection was defeated by 324 votes to 117.

As soon as Parliament reassembled after the Whitsuntide recess, on June 1, the Labour Party attempted to impel the Government once more to enter the arena of the coal dispute. Mr. MacDonald, in opening a debate on the subject, criticised the Premier's aloofness as playing into the hands of the coalowners, and urged him to keep open the offer of a 3,000,0001. subsidy which had lapsed the previous evening. He also pressed the Government to formulate, without delay, proposals for the

« TrướcTiếp tục »