H́nh ảnh trang
PDF
ePub

national agreements. The Miners' Federation, on their side, put forward a scheme, which was officially endorsed by the Trade Union Congress and the Labour Party, for the transformation of the industry from a coal-extracting into a coal-utilising industry on a basis of national ownership. It suggested that coal should be used in the first place for manufacturing electrical power on a very large scale and for producing by-products, so that the industry should not be so entirely dependent as at present on the export trade. For securing the maximum of efficiency there should be a Power and Transport Commission, consisting of six experts and a chairman, to determine the larger questions of policy in these matters, and a National Coal and Power Production Council to work in conjunction with the Power Council and to a certain extent under its direction. There would also be Provincial Councils, Pit and Works' Committees, and a Consumers' Council, which would consider wages questions conjointly with the Coal Production Council.

The great discrepancy between the views of the opposing parties did not augur well for a peaceful settlement of their differThe uncompromising attitude of the Mining Association made a painful impression even on many who, in principle, were supporters of private enterprise and opposed to nationalisation; and an attempt to create a better atmosphere was made by a prominent coal-owner, Lord Londonderry, who, "speaking," as he said, "on behalf of himself and many others," repudiated the theory that the prosperity of the mining industry depended on reducing wages or increasing hours of work. Another prominent coal-owner, Lord Henry Bentinck, also pointed out that the demand for forcing the status of the British miner down to the level of the Continental was an effective barrier to any discussion. Lord Londonderry even put forward certain alternative suggestions for reforming the industry, but these, on examination, were found to be too vague to provide a basis for discussion, and neither owners nor miners withdrew from the positions they had taken up.

While the regular payment of the subsidy-amounting on an average to about 3,000,000l. a month-was securing peace in the coal-fields, the danger of a strike on the railways was narrowly averted. The National Wages Board, after considering for several months the claims and counterclaims of the railway managers and workers, finally, in January, made an award which, while leaving untouched the pay of the men actually employed, reduced the wages of new entrants and of youths promoted to senior grades. The companies declared themselves intensely dissatisfied with the Board's decision, but loyally accepted it. The delegate conference of the National Union of Railwaymen, on January 21, rejected the award by a large majority, and asked the managers to reopen negotiations; the latter, however, refused, on the ground that no

new point had been raised which had not already been considered by the Board, and announced their intention of putting the award into force. The delegates of the N.U.R. thereupon met again (Jan. 25) to consider the alternative of accepting the award or declaring a strike. After a long discussion they decided in favour of acceptance by a small majority-41 votes against 36— and the new scale of wages came into force without further incident.

In the course of the vacation on January 15-Mr. Baldwin's position as leader of the Conservative Party was confirmed by a representative gathering at Birmingham which made him the recipient of more than fifty addresses of congratulation and appreciation from political organisations in the West Midlands. The Prime Minister, in acknowledging the presentation, took the opportunity of giving an outline of the new electricity scheme which the Government intended shortly to lay before Parliament. The leaders of the other parties received no such marks of confidence from their followers; on the contrary, they rather lost ground during the vacation. A distinct fissure appeared in the Labour Party, while the Liberal Party became still further a prey to disintegration.

The National Council of the Independent Labour Party decided unanimously, on January 11, to raise the question of a united political front with the Russian Communist Party at the next meeting of the Second International. In view of Mr. MacDonald's known opinions on the Russian International and his efforts to exorcise the spirit of Communism from the British Labour Party, this step was a distinct flouting of his authority, and marked the beginning of a breach between him and the I.L.P. which widened rapidly. That body soon afterwards drafted a programme which it entitled "Socialism in our Time,” and of which the basic proposal was a living wage for all. Mr. MacDonald criticised the scheme as Utopian, and refused to consider it as a practical programme for the Labour Party. A controversy of some asperity ensued between him and the defenders of the scheme, and the genuineness of his Socialism was called in question. He further showed his disapproval of the I.L.P. policy by declining to attend its annual conference on April 4 and 5.

The Liberal Party, rent as it was by internal dissensions, was still further weakened by the defection, on January 25, of Sir Alfred Mond, one of its ablest debaters on economic subjects, and one of Mr. Lloyd George's most trusty associates. Sir Alfred gave as his reason for going over to the Unionist Party the fact that the National Liberal Association had reintroduced on the agenda of the forthcoming Liberal Land Convention a motion reviving the policy of land nationalisation as first advocated in the Land Report and after he had secured its elimination from

Liberal policy. Other Liberals who shared Sir Alfred's sentiments preferred to wait till the Convention should have been held. There was no closing up of the ranks among those who remained, and when the party met before the opening of Parliament to elect a sessional chairman, only seventeen members voted for Mr. Lloyd George, while seven opposed him and eighteen were absent or abstained.

66

66

Owing to the dissensions of the Opposition, the opening of the new session on February 2 found the Conservative Party in a stronger position than ever. As, however, this party also contained two elements-the old" and the new "-which differed widely in their views on social legislation, the Government's programme on this subject was somewhat vague. The King's Speech opened with a reference to the British Ambassador's visit to Angora, and announced that Great Britain would send a Minister to represent her on the Preparatory Committee on Disarmament which would shortly be held at Geneva, and that invitations were being issued to the Governments of Belgium, France, Germany, and Italy to attend a conference in London to consider the possibility of securing an effective international agreement for regulating hours of labour. Among new Bills to be introduced, the place of honour was given to those dealing with Economy and Electricity. Bills were also mentioned for extending the powers of County Councils to provide small holdings, and for the marking of imported goods, while a vague promise was given to deal with the slum evil.

The debate on the Address, which lasted four days, did not reveal any dissatisfaction with the Government in the Conservative ranks. The chief objection of the Labour Party to the Government's programme was voiced in an amendment complaining that it was not calculated substantially to reduce unemployment or stimulate industry, and calling for "a fundamental reorganisation of industry on the lines of public ownership and democratic control of the essential services." Mr. Snowden, who moved the amendment, charged the Government, amid Ministerial disclaimers, with having broken its election pledges in failing to remedy unemployment, but while severely criticising the Government's shortcomings, he said little on the remedy proposed by Labour. His speech contained an unexpected compliment to Mr. Lloyd George's land policy, and was construed by many as an overture to the Liberals. In the course of the debate, however, a younger Labour speaker, Mr. Dalton, insisted on the orthodox Socialist definition of "essential services to include transport and power, electric supply, coal-mining, and banking ; and Mr. Lloyd George regretfully found that this was more than he could swallow. The proposed Labour remedy for unemployment was pooh-poohed by Unionist members, and the motion was defeated by a large majority.

The second amendment to the Address, moved by Sir J. Simon on behalf of the Liberal Party, expressed regret that the King's Speech contained no reference to educational policy calculated to remove the widespread dismay created by the issue of Circular 1,371 and Memorandum 44 by the Board of Education, particularly the proposal to substitute block grants for percentage grants. The mover charged the Government with having put forward the circular in November not in the interests of education, but merely in order to reduce expenditure. Lord Percy did not deny the imputation directly, but tried to prove that the substitution of the block for the percentage grant could be made in such a way as to reduce expenditure without checking progress. Mr. Trevelyan, the Labour ex-Minister of Education, admitted that the Minister might possibly be right, but pointed out that the opinion of local authorities was strongly against the block grant system, and Mr. Fisher, the Liberal ex-Minister, while not claiming that the percentage system was the last word in educational progress, maintained that it had given a feeling of security to the teaching profession which might be destroyed by its removal. One or two Unionist members were bold enough to say openly that the country was spending more on education than it could afford, and had no right to do so, and the amendment was eventually defeated by 284 votes to 135.

The Address having been carried, the House proceeded to the examination of a number of Supplementary Estimates, which were scrutinised with unusual care in the new zeal for economy. The keenest debate took place upon the provision of 200,000l. for the erection of steel houses in Scotland. Speaking in Stirling on January 26, the Prime Minister had informed his audience. that the Government had made all arrangements with the Scottish National Housing Company to erect 2,000 steel houses on selected sites in order to assist in remedying the appalling house shortage in Scotland. After long deliberation, the Labour Party had decided to swallow its objections to steel houses, in view of the urgent need for houses of any kind; but many of its members could not stomach the fact that half the contract had been given to Lord Weir, a notorious enemy of trade unionism. When the Vote was asked for on February 11, Mr. MacDonald pleaded with the Government to enforce on Lord Weir a fair wage contract, while some of his followers vented their indignation against that gentleman in no measured terms. The edge of their attack, however, was blunted by one of their own colleagues, Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell, who pointed out that the men actually engaged on the Weir houses were highly satisfied with their job, and who supported the Government unreservedly in its action. In the end the Vote was agreed to without a division.

This was not the last which the Government heard on the subject. On February 25, a deputation of Scottish Labour

members, introduced by Mr. Clynes and Mr. Henderson, waited on the Secretary for Scotland to obtain from him an assurance that a fair wages clause should be embodied in the contract with Messrs. Weir. Sir John Gilmour informed them that this would be done. They were still, however, not satisfied, and when the Vote came up again on the Report stage on March 3 they found cause for objection in the fact that Lord Weir, when he employed engineers to do building jobs in his steel houses, such as the erection of doors, paid them at engineers' rates, and not at builders' rates, which were substantially higher. A division was this time taken on the Vote, and 124 members voted against it.

Another Supplementary Estimate which provoked great searchings of heart, especially among Unionist members, was one of 50,000l. a year for four years for providing sports grounds for the Civil Service. The incongruity of such a proposal with the Government's professed zeal for economy struck the public with amazement. On February 19 a deputation of nearly 100 Unionist members waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to protest against the grant, not on its merits, but as being inopportune and inconsistent with the policy of national economy. Mr. Churchill defended the grant as being in accordance with the policy of making the State a good employer, and also with the practice of the State in regard to the Fighting Services. He also pointed out that the proposal had been made more than a year ago by the Prime Minister and himself without arousing any adverse criticism. Further protests were made in the course of the next few days from various sources, including the Civil Service itself, and the Government at length judged it prudent to bow to the storm. An announcement issued on February 26 pointed out that the bulk of the proposed grant would have been expended for the benefit of the Post Office servants, workmen in the dockyards and the Arsenal, and officials in the Revenue and Prison Services, whose position was not different in principle from that of soldiers, sailors, and airmen in the Fighting Services. The provision from State funds of recreation for the Army and Air Force had been recognised by successive Governments as being in accord with sound public policy, and the proposal to extend the principle to the non-military services of the Crown was one to which the Government adhered; but in view of the financial exigencies of the present juncture the Government had decided to postpone definite proposals to a more prosperous period in national affairs.

Another matter which brought Unionist members up in arms against the Government was the reported intention of Mr. Churchill to "raid" the surplus of the Road Fund, amounting to about 17,000,000l., for purposes other than the maintenance of roads. Questioned in the House of Commons on the matter, Mr. Churchill

« TrướcTiếp tục »