went on to announce that it had no intention for the present of either preventing Russian money from reaching the miners or denouncing the trade agreement with Russia. This was a bitter disappointment to the "Die-Hards," and to placate them the Home Secretary had to promise a day for the free discussion of the subject.

66

The Prime Minister, at this juncture, in addressing a large Unionist gathering in Wiltshire on June 12, harked back to the general strike, and pointed its moral in characteristic fashion for the benefit of trade unionists. He professed to see in trade unionism as originally constituted a genuine product of the British democratic spirit, but he lamented its corruption during the last few years by the "alien and foreign heresy " of class warfare and the pursuit of political power. This, he considered, rendered a general strike sooner or later inevitable; if it had not come in my time," he said, "it would have come in that of my successor.” The old constitutional attitude of keeping promises made collectively was being largely abandoned; in the eyes of some of its leaders the trade union organisation was an instrument, not for bettering the economic conditions of the workers, but for destroying the system of private enterprise, and their propaganda preached only hatred and envy. Of the leaders who assented to the strike he had no doubt that there were some who did so with reluctance and in the hope that somehow or other the consequences of their action would be avoided; but there were others who, to judge by their speeches in the past, regarded any such attempt as a chance of bringing off what was called the Social Revolution. And it was certain that, however much the general strike might be called industrial, the results were political and social. He thought that the majority of the strikers also in their innermost hearts felt that what was at stake was not merely the solidarity of labour or sympathy with the miners, but the safety of the State; and this was the secret of their exemplary behaviour. This, to him, was the great lesson of the strike-that the British people was not going to throw over Parliament to set up divine right either of the capitalist or the trade unionist, and they were not going to bow down to a dictatorship of either.

Immediately after delivering this speech, Mr. Baldwin made a concession to the coal-owners which did not inspire confidence in his determination or ability to resist the dictation of capital. When the Vote for the Mines Department was brought up on June 15, he informed the House that in a few days he would lay before it a measure for suspending the Seven-Hours Day Act. By a skilful use of quotations from the Coal Commission's Report, he tried to make it appear that this step was taken in the interests of the miners themselves. The Report had said that disaster was impending over the industry unless working costs were reduced, and that, if the present working hours were retained, this could

only be brought about by a revision of the wages rates fixed in 1924. To those who had studied the Report, continued Mr. Baldwin, it was clear that if wage reductions were to be made on existing hours, they would in many parts of the country have to be on a scale which no one would like to see. For that reason the Government had come to the conclusion that the return to a longer working day was necessary. He had felt more than a month before that the easiest way to reopen negotiations was by raising the question of hours, because this would permit of safeguarding the existing wage over the greater part of the country, a matter to which he attached very great value. He had refrained from bringing the suggestion before the House hitherto from fear that the coal-owners would abuse the advantage thus given them in the negotiations. Now, however, he had received positive assurances from the owners that, on the basis of the eighthours day, in certain districts producing approximately half the total output of the country the men would be offered a continuance of their existing wages for July, August, and September, and that over more than half the rest of the country the reduction asked would be materially less than the 10 per cent. contained in the offer already made. After this preliminary period, wages would be based on the ascertained proceeds of the industry. Meanwhile the Government would press on with its reorganisation legislation, and would try to carry out those recommendations of the Commission which were likely to have an immediate effect on the industry.

The Premier's proposals, though set forth in his most persuasive manner, made a painful impression on the Labour benches. Mr. Hartshorn, who was the first Labour spokesman on this occasion, asserted that the Prime Minister's speech had enormously increased the gravity of the situation, and added to its difficulties. Mr. Hartshorn maintained that there could be no cure for the ills of the mining industry until it was unified, that is, placed under common ownership, not necessarily State ownership. Until this was done and until machinery had been created to prevent undercutting and underselling, it was not fair to ask the miners to make any sacrifice to enable the coal-owners to have more coal to dispose of in the same way as before. He was therefore disappointed to hear from the Premier that legislation on the question of unification or amalgamation was not to come into effect for three years. If the Prime Minister had correctly indicated the lines on which the Government intended to proceed, then he regretted to say that he did not see the end of the stoppage. The leaders were not going to call off the strike on the strength of the speech to which they had just listened, whether at the end of three months or of six months, and the men would not give up either. Mr. Hartshorn's opinion was endorsed by other Labour speakers in the debate, and Mr. MacDonald, who did

not take part in the debate, issued a statement deploring Mr. Baldwin's speech as "most disastrous," and declaring that most of the legislation foreshadowed would be fought inch by inch by the Labour Party.

Before proceeding with its legislation on hours, the Government took up the Bill for reorganising the coal industry-the Mining Industry Bill, as it was called-of which the Premier had given notice on June 10. In moving the second reading on June 23, the Minister of Mines, Colonel Lane-Fox, did not attempt to hide the fact that certain important recommendations of the Commission were omitted from the Bill, but said that this did not mean that the Government was not going to deal in turn with all the recommendations which would have any effect in helping the mining industry. The present Bill was only a first instalment, but still he thought that it might give considerable assistance to the industry. This view was derided by the Labour members, who declared the Bill to be a sham, since it left the initiative in the hands of the coal-owners. A Labour amendment pressed for a comprehensive policy of unification under public ownership and control, and criticised the omission from the Bill of provisions for the transfer of minerals to the State, the establishment of selling agencies, and the municipal sale of coal. Mr. Hartshorn, who moved the amendment, again made a powerful impression on the Government supporters by his temperate but firm statement of the miners' case, and he repeated in more definite terms the suggestion he had thrown out in his previous speech for a round-table Conference of members from all sides of the House. The Government received the proposal with favour, and declared itself ready to meet Mr. Hartshorn, provided he was authorised to speak on behalf of the miners; but as he could not give this assurance, the suggestion proved abortive. The amendment was rejected by 336 votes to 147, and the Bill was read a second time and soon after became law.

In announcing the Eight-Hours Bill on June 15, the Premier had informed the House that the second reading would not be taken till June 28. The interval allowed the miners due time to reflect on the contents of the Premier's speech, but, as Mr. Hartshorn had prophesied, they proved impervious to his suggestions. The threat of an eight-hours day did not frighten the leaders into offering any concessions; but it did make them realise more clearly the danger of isolation, and so led unexpectedly to a certain rapprochement between them and the Trade Union Council, with whom they had been at feud since the end of the general strike. They had a little while before, in conjunction with the Council, fixed June 25 as the date for a Conference which was to discuss the action of the Congress in calling off the general strike. Had the Conference been held, it would undoubtedly have been made the occasion for some plain speaking which would greatly have

embittered relations between the Miners' Federation and the other trade unions. But the announcement of the Eight-Hours Bill had a sobering effect on both parties, and this was reinforced by a speech from Lord Birkenhead in which that determined enemy of Socialism foreshadowed in no uncertain terms a Government attack on the privileges of the trade unions. Accordingly, the representatives of the Federation and the Council, after discussing the situation on June 23, issued an announcement that in view of the attack by the Government on the standard of life of the workers they considered it in the interests of the miners that the Conference called for June 25 should not be held till after the mining dispute was ended, and emphasised the necessity of a united policy for opposing the Government's action.

On June 24 the Vote for the Ministry of Agriculture was taken, and a statement by the Minister revealed the fact that the Government had given up all thought of assisting the industry, and intended to let it work out its own salvation as best it could. Mr. Guinness considered that the cause of British agricultural depression was simply the steady drop in agricultural prices during the preceding six years; apart from this he refused to see that there was anything seriously wrong with the industry, and thought that the farmer would pull through with his own resources. Mr. Lloyd George remarked that very few who could speak with any authority on agricultural matters would confirm the Minister's optimistic view of the position, and reminded him that only eighteen months before Mr. Baldwin had declared the situation to be a danger to the country. A Liberal member moved a reduction of the Vote as a protest against the Minister's failure to make any tangible proposal for relieving the conditions under which agriculture laboured, but the proposal was defeated by a large majority.

On June 25 Commander Locker-Lampson duly brought forward his motion calling for the termination of the Russian Trade Agreement. A certain piquancy had been lent to the situation by the fact that during the previous week-end Mr. Churchill and Lord Birkenhead had made public speeches violently attacking the Soviet Government and its methods, and that in the course of the week there had been, according to public report, serious dissensions on the subject in the Cabinet. Labour members, therefore, as Mr. MacDonald put it, looked forward with great interest to hearing the Foreign Secretary reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir A. Chamberlain adhered closely to the lines laid down by Lord Balfour in the previous week. Two questions, he said, were raised--whether the Government and the country had good reason to complain of the attitude of the Soviet authorities in Russia, and whether, if so, it would be wise of them to show their indignation and resentment in the way suggested, by breaking off diplomatic relations and terminating

the trade agreement. His answer to the first question was in the affirmative and to the second in the negative. The trade agreement, in his opinion, had not been kept by the Soviet Government in the matter of conducting official propaganda against institutions of the British Empire. There was no pretence that relations with a Government which acted as the Soviet Government acted could be, he would not say cordial and friendly, but even cordial and correct. Nevertheless, he thought that in view of the situation in their own country and in Europe, it was to their interest to allow these diplomatic relations to continue with their eyes open, trusting to the good sense of the people to protect them against the poison of Russian propaganda. Further reasons for not breaking off diplomatic relations with Russia were that such a step would not entirely keep out propaganda, and that it might have unfavourable reactions on the European situation. While, therefore, if he had to make the agreement to-day he would not make it, he did not see his way clear to breaking it off now that it existed.

The further course of the debate afforded no opportunity of judging how far the Foreign Secretary's statement satisfied the Government's supporters. A Conservative member rose to speak, but the Labour members, who wished one of their own party to occupy the floor of the House, shouted him down, and, being unable to reduce them to silence, the Deputy Speaker, who was at the time in the Chair, declared the sitting adjourned.

On June 26 the Minister of Labour, Sir A. Steel-Maitland, made a carefully-worded speech at a Unionist meeting near Saffron Walden to prepare the public for the Bill which he was to introduce in Parliament two days later. He declared emphatically that in introducing a Bill making it possible for the miners to work eight hours a day no general attack upon wages or hours was contemplated by the Government. The coal industry was in a special plight, to deal with which exceptional measures were necessary for the time being. The Government had faced the facts, and by the facts alone it had been driven to the conclusion that the only way to save the industry was by a temporary lengthening of the working day from seven hours to eight. The Coal Commission, while it did not like the idea of an increase in hours, had always admitted that it might be the only way out, and in the Government's opinion it had reached that state of affairs. The Government stood by the Commission's Report and was endeavouring to carry it out, save only in the matter of royalties, in regard to which it thought it could attain the same end better by other means.

The Bill itself consisted of a single permissive clause, enabling the miner, beyond the sixty days in the year at present possible, to work eight hours a day. In moving the second reading on June 28, the Minister of Labour based himself on a sentence in