Evening Post. THURSDAY, JULY 1, 1926. THE MINING DEBATE

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 1, 1 July 1926, Page 8

Evening Post. THURSDAY, JULY 1, 1926. THE MINING DEBATE

Two months after the issue of the notice calling a General Strike, and six weeks .after it was unconditionally called off, the .quarrel in which it originated is proceeding as fiercely and as obstinately as ever. The miners are still out, and though they bitterly re-» sented what they regarded as'the betrayal of their interests by the Trades Union executive in terminating the General Strike it is clear that by the wiser methods of financial aid and political action the party as a whole is still prepared to carry on the fight. Whether this solidarity will continue till the last ditch is reached—the ditch in which the miners' friends and subsidises in Russia are hoping to see.the coal industry' and every other source of Britain's prosperity and greatness involved in a common ruin—remains to'be'seen. But at present the attitude of the Trades .Unions and the Parliamentary Labour Party seems to be as uncompromising as that of the miners themselves, and to be serving no more useful ..purpose than that' of negation and obstruction. A few days ago. even Mr. A. J. Cook was credited with "a more moderate attitude.". In a speech at Tamworth he had actually suggested that "the time had arrived ' for an armistice," and for the purpose "the Government should drop the Eight Hours Bill." But even then there was reason to fear that in any scheme of conciliation the . Government and the nation will have to play the part of the man who, desiring to paint his house white while hie wife insisted on red, compromised by painting it red. The suspicion is confirmed, by to-day's report that "the miners.' executive, after a review of the position on the coalfields, unanimously decided to resist the increase in hours and the reduction in wages." It is evidently only a 100 per cent.' Red compromise that will satisfy Mr. Cook and his colleagues. The manner in which the Eight Hours Bill is being fought in the House of Commons suggests that Labour's Right Wing is no more disposed to a compromise which will involve giving as well as taking than the executive of the Minora' Federation., The second reading of the Bill has been carried "after a stormy debate" in which, we are told, " the Labour members constantly and angrily interrupted the speeches." From the blind rage of some of them even the personal character of Mr. Baldwin, which the nation and the Empire regard as an even finer asset than his great abilities, was not exempt. Amongst other charges made against the Government, says our report, was that of "Mr. J. Westwood, who asked if Mr. Baldwin had 200,----000 shares in Baldwins, Limited, and whethor he interfered with the Coal Commission's report by dictating what should appear. Other Labour members asked if a member who had 'such a financial interest in the coal problem should be allowed to vote. It is an indication, not of the degeneracy of the Prime Minister but of-the disturbing effect of passion on the minds of his critics, that he should be called upon to answer such dishonour^ •ing charges. Not only was his answer complete, but it went a good deal further than the case demanded. That, Mr. Baldwin had interfered with the Coal Commission's report was, of course, an "unqualified misrepresentation." It is true that he holds' shares in Baldwin's, Limited, and unfortun-. ately| for him they represent the bulk of his investments. He could, he said, havo become very wealthy, during tho War from that block of shares, but he had declined, and he had refused to invest abroad. He -had received nothing from his shares for five years, and he did not expect to. The conclusion of the Prime Minister's reply was drowned, we are told, "in a storm of cheers and,countercheers," but even after the clearing of the air we hear nothing of an apology. .A man who rejected perfectly legitimate opportunities, both of amassing great wealth from his shares during the War and of seeking foreign investments, displayed a delicate sense, of honour and a self-sacrificing patriotism which merit the admiration and the gratitude of his countrymen, and especially of those who are loudest in denouncing tho rapacity of the profiteer, whether jn war or peace. The suggestion that Mr. Baldwin has a disqualifying "financial interest 'in the coal problem," presumably because his company, like every other manufacturer, is concerned to get He coal cheap, is too absurd to require refutation. If he is to be disqualified on that ground, must

not tho same- disqualification attach to every householder in the land, and therefore even to members of the Labour Party* But the best answer to Mr. Baldwin's slanderers is the character of the man to whom, just after the end of the General Strike, tho "Times", paid the following wellearned tribute:—

The Prime Minister has led the nation through theso dark days in a manner which is beyond all criticism. His reputation in the country was in some jeopardy when the subsidy failed in tho end to avert the strike; yet; it stands unmistakably higher this morning (May 15) than it did a fortnight ago. He has shown himself possessed of a very rare combination of determination, steadiness, and conciliatory , goodwill. No other member of the Government inspires anything like the same universal confidence or can produce the same atmosphere of fellowship, Mr. Baldwin is infinitely more valuable for what he is than for anything in particular that he does; and for this reason— : and indeed on .general principles—it is to be hoped that he will be restrained from complete absorption in >the details of a difficult, highly technical, and • perhaps protracted economic controversy.

■ Though the second reading of the Bill was carried by a majority of more than two to one—3ss to 163 —it looks as though Labour, whose strength immediately after the General Election was

only 152, must have had some Liberal support. How Mr. Lloyd George spoke i or voted we are not told, but Sir John Simon, who, unlike him, backed the Government. Btrongly throughout the General Strike, spoke against the Bill and presumably voted as he spoke. The cabled report of Sir John's speech is confined to the single sentence that "he urged the Government to legislate boldly on the lines of the Royal Commission's Report." That was obviously the ideal course,: but it is not surprising that' the Government regarded it as impracticable, in the: present circumstances. The Bill is avowedly but a stop-gap measure, designed to provide partial and immediate relief.' It was described by Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland as "a temporary measure to permit and not compel an extra hour's work daily."

While the. negotiations continued, he said, as the miners' leaders would not agree to any concession recommended by the Coal Commission, the only way out for the Government, as far as he could sec, was an extension, of the -hours, to meet an exceptional case.

The constructive powers of the Government and the House will get a better chance when the more elaborate, measure circulated last wcole comes up for debate,