OUR LONDON LETTER

Evening Star, Issue 16033, 9 February 1916, Page 8

OUR LONDON LETTER

[By Raymond Debt.] December 16, 1915. Lord Derby’s recruiting scheme came to an end s.t- midnight on Sunday,' December 13, and 'ong before this letter reaches vou the results will be known and telegraphed to Now Zealand. It is supposed that at least half a million men offered themselves and were attested- in the last week alone. The real danger j.i England is not the lack of men, but tho extravagant habits of largo numbers of _ tho people. Now that the j local recruiting organisations arc released : trom the press of their labors under the 1 Dei by scheme they are to be turned to j tho more difficult task of inducing habits | of economy in the working classes, as i ■ mentioned in my last letter. As a pre- ! lininary to this direct propaganda all kinds | of indirect suggestions are being made to favor it. The British working man has a | deserved reputation for shrewdness ana j common-sense, and there is every reason | to anticipate that he will be inclined to resent a campaign in favor of economy that is directed exclusively at him. So the cry has been raised that the salaries oi Cabinet Ministers ought to be reduced, and that the salaries of members of Parliament should be abolished, as • a righteous example to the less exalted. The salaries of Ministers are of course high—higher in England than in any other country in the | world—but however high they are the present does not seem the best time to lower them. Ministers, like tho rest of us, have adapted their way of life to the amount of their incomes, and to make reductions now would be to saddle the man whom we trust to lead us to victory with private preoccupations and anxieties to the detriment of their public duties. As to the suggestion that the salaries of ordinary members of Parliament should be abolished in times of stress, this is only a belated echo of the old outcry against the payment of members, and its real source is antagonism to democracy, and the desire ot the old school of politician to preserve the character of the House of Commons as “ the first club in Europe.” The fact is, of course, that the working member lives , ou his salary : if it were taken from him, he would, in most cases, be obliged to resign his seat. More evident examples of economy in high places would certainly have a desirable effect on the minds of tho working classes, but what is wanted more than anything else is some sign that wealthy employers of labor whose pockets are benefiting by the war are taking a proportionate share in bearing its burdens. For a rich man with capital at his disposal to put money into war loan at 5 per cent, interest is not, after all, an act of heroism. The working man, on the other hand, who saves money and is willing to End it to the State shows a very genuine patriotism. A well-known banking authority, Mr Drummond Fraser, has estimated that no a sum than £5,000,000 a week is available for the purposes of the State in the savings of the working classes if only suitable means can lie devised to tap it. Mr Fraser suggests an organisation similar to that employed by the friendly societies who issue policies of insurance against accident and sickness and gather in the premiums by small weekly instalments. M hat the friendly societies can do, he argues pertinently, tho State ought to be able to do with equal success. Another suggestion which has much to recommend it is simply that the limit of £SO beyond winch deposits in the Post Office savings banks are not allowed to go should be abolished. Here is machinery,' ready made, with which the workers are already familiar, and which they trust. If the rate of interest, which now stands at per cent., were raised to 5 per cent., it is scarcely doubtful but that there would be an enormous and constantly increasing response. Preaching economy is not likely to bo much use unless it is accomplished by the institution of appropriate machinery by which economy can he practised. This machinery should above all things be simple and adapted to the peculiar needs of a class that earns its bread from day to day, and is always in legitimate fear ot being on the rocks. *******

]n the meantime an event in the Labor world that will have consequences of enormous importance when the war is over has practically unnoticed, by the London Tress. A new Labor combination, embracing the three most powerful trades unions in the country, has been quietly formed, with a total membership of 1,500,000 workers. The Triple Industrial Alliance, as it is called, unites the Miners* Federation, the National Union of Railwaymen, and tho National Transport \Vorkers Federation. These unions have before now worked together, or, rather, relinquished work together, out of temporary mutual sympathy, but this is the first time they have joined forces on a permanent basis. The general strike has long been held over capital as a threat, often a. very ominous threat. With the formation of this new triple alliance the possibility of such a strike is brought much nearer realisation, not, of course, during the war—in spite of carlv misunderstandings the loyalty of Labor is proved a doubt—but in the difficult times that will come after. The coal strike and the railway strike of three years ago will not soon be forgotten, further complicated as they wore by the participation of the transport workers, and if and when the new alliance decide to try their strength, it is difficult to see what means, short of surrender, it will lie in the power of the community as a whole to adopt in face of it. This, however, is a problem for the future; it is_necessary to mention it now, but its solution, if there be one short of a radical reconstitution of society, must be left times of peace. The immediate problems of Labor are pressing and difficult enough, without worrying about dangers that are still remote', as the Munitions Act Amendment Bill that is now in its second reading abundantly shows. The working of the original Act, well {Mentioned as it undoubtedly was, has led to a great deal of discontent, owing to the arbitrary powers over their workmen which it placed in the hands of employers. A, man could not leave one factory to go to another without first obtaining a certificate from bis employer, and there have been far too many cases in which certificates have been unreasonably refused. While, on tho one hand, the workman could not leave without his employer’s consent, the employer has enjoyed full power to dismiss a workman whenever he pleased. There have been other causes of friction as well. In some of tho “controlled establishments” rules of a vexatious character have been instituted, and fines exacted for the breach of them. Ibis state of affairs is to bo remedied by the Amendment Bill. Under it no rule's or fines will bo tolerated unless they have received the official sanction of the' Ministry of Munitions. Employers will not be able to withhold leaving certificates unreasonably, for in such cases men will be able to appeal to the local Munitions Tribunal. These tribunals will be) composed as hitherto of an independent chairman and two assessors, one representing the employers and the other the workmen. In tile Amendment Bill tho interests of the workers are further safeguarded by a stipulation compelling the chairman to consult his assessors before pronouncing his decisions, and, furthermore, there is to bo power of appeal from the tribunals to the ordinary courts on points of law. In. all cases relating to women workers—a great advance. this—women assessors axe to have the right to sit on the tribunals, and a clause ensuring the payment of fair wages is also included in the Bill. Amended in this way, and no doubt other useful suggestions will be incorporated in the measure during its committee stages, tho original Munitions Act will keep its place in the Statute Book. Air Lloyd Georo-e introduced it, as you will remember, with the , twofold purpose -of keeping down strikes and keeping up production. In both these respects it has been an enormous success, and now that its obvious defects have been remedied further criticism is unjustified, especially when it is remembered that the Amendment Bill extends its scope to cover many subsidiary industries that were not at first included.

Lack of space prevented me from dealing in my last letter with what I may call the London newspaper scandal. The storm has blown over for the present, but it is likely to be upon us again at any time. Briefly, it is a question whether it is permissible for newspapers in time, of war persistently to disparage the efforts of their country, and to discourage optimism both at home and abroad by a carefullycalculated pessimism. The chief offender for months past has been ‘The Times’ (choiussed, of course, by the ‘Dailv Mail’ and the lesser satellites of Northcliffeism), but it was a much less influential paper than any of these, the evening ‘ Globe,’ that precipitated a crisis, at the time when Lord Kitchener's Near Eastern mission was first announced, by publishing the false news that he had resigned his position as Secretary of State for War, and persisting in the allegation after it had been officially denied. The paper, as you know, was stopped, and it was not allowed to resume publication until it promised to print an apology. When it actually reappeared it was under a new editorship. Not much notice would have been taken of this particular case, in spite of the natural regard which all journalists have for the liberty of the Press and their suspicion of any arbitrary measures that might seem to imperil it, but for the larger question of ‘The Times’ that loomed behind it. At a most critical period in our negotiations with Bulgaria, before that country openly threw in her lot with the enemy, pessimistic articles (reprinted in sever, languages by the Germans from ‘The Times’) were spread broadcast over Bulgaria and the other Balkan States. ‘ The Times’ has, unfortunately, still its old prestige abroad, which it justly earned in its pre-Nor thcliffe days, it is still absurdly reputed to represent the views of the Foreign Office in particular and of the Government in general. People asked themselves at the time: Why was the inconspicuous ‘Globe’ attacked and the conspicuous and notorious ‘Times’ left alone? Tire matter was raised in Parliament, and Sir John Simoit, speaking for the Government, hinted very plainly that ‘The Times’ would have to be more careful in future or it would find itself in trouble. There the matter rests for the present, and it may be said that ‘Tho Times’ and its associated papers seem to be paying at least passing heed to the warning.