The Hawera Star. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1925. UNDERSTANDING IN INDUSTRY.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 15 April 1925, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1925. UNDERSTANDING IN INDUSTRY.

Delivered every evening by 5 o'clock Hawera, Manaia. Normnnby, Okniawa, Eltham, Mnngatoki, Kapnnga, Alton. Hnrleyvillo, f'ntea, Waverley, Moltoia, Whnkamnra, Ohnngai. Meremere, Fraser Hoad, and Araruta.

What has preA’ented the recovery of Europe proceeding at a greater speed is that diabolic suspicion between man and man and nation and nation. Children of such philosophy can only bring damnation to this country. I plead for truce. Organisations of employers and men, if they took off their coats to it, are far more able to Avork out solutions of their troubles than the politicians. I would say: ‘‘England, steady. Look Avhere you are going. Human hands AA’ere given us to clasp and not to be raised against one another in fratricidal strife”

English exchanges to hand by yesterday’s mail give fuller reports than were cabled of Mr Baldwin’s two stirring addresses advocating a better understanding in the industrial field. The extracts given above are from the Prime Minister’s speech at Birmingham, which was predominantly an appeal for the application of the lessons of foreign affairs to the industrial life of England. In the House of Commons next day, in declaring against Mr MaeQuisten’s Trade Union (Political Fund) Bill, Mr Baldwin followed, up his Birmingham address ' with what the Spectator described as ‘‘that rare thing, a Parliamentary speech that will be remembered for a generation.” The Times was equally impressed: ‘‘the House expressed by its every motion and mutter its consciousness that this was a most notable day in Parliamentary annals.” Mr MacQuisten’s Bill— he is Conservative member for Argyll was directed against the semi-compulsorv levy on trade union funds for Labour .political purposes. The law provides that any unionist may be exempted from this levy by lodging an objection with his union. Mr MacQuisten argued that this tended to make of the objector a marked man, and he wished the law amended so that unionists desiring to pay tlie levy should contract in, rather <ban that those, objecting should be required to contract out. Cabinet had decided that this was too delicate a question to meddle with in a private member’s Bill, and Air Baldwin moved an amendment to that effect. ‘‘You have a strong ease in equity,” he told Mr MacQuisten, ‘‘but you are dealing with graver matters than you suppose.” It was, he continued, nothing less than the whole evolution of the industrial system which was involved. Tie described his own experience of patriarchal ' industry, with its heredi tarv masters and its hereditary men, being gradually crushed out by the development of impersonal industrialism, with its great- anonymous organisations of masters on the one hand and men on the other. The Prime Minister dwelt upon the tremendous responsibility which fell upon the leaders pf these vast new organisations on both sides. There were leaders with no hearts and good heads. There were leaders with no heads and good hearts. It was difficult. to say which did the more harm. All these organisations implied a certain loss of personal liberty; all were more or less uneconomic. On both sides they were formed for defence against new conditions and amid new needs. ‘‘The only salvation for both,” cried Mr Baldwin, raising his voice for the first time, ‘‘so similar in their strength, so similar in their weakness, is to get together.” It Avas an eloquent appeal Avhich found responsive chords in the hearts of all parties. Better than that, cables in the pafet month haA’e indicated that it Avas no mere flash of sentiment which moved the House. The more moderate and farsighted leaders on both sides —those Avhose hearts balance, their heads —are talcing the Prime Minister’s plea as the guiding star which shall lead them safely through the Avilderness of industrial stagnation. For there must- be a Avav out. What a tragedy our civilisation Avoulcl have> proved if there Avere not! We ha\’e established the rule of machinery and haA’e bent our eA-erv effort on achieving speed and—OA’erdriA r en Avord of the age—efficiency. But if Ave gain all for Avhich avc aim, and lose our o\A r n happiness, lioaa’ haA’e Ave prospered? There is an undoubted charm about the picture painted bv Mr BaldAvin of the old family business, now going fast, if not already gone for eA’er. This avos the sketch he gaA r e in the Commons, from personal experi- I ence:

It was a place where I had known from childhood every man on the ground, where I was able to talk to men, not only about troubles in the works, but troubles at home, where strikes and lock-outs were unknown, and where the fathers and grandfathers of the men had worked and their sons went automatically into the business. It was also a place where nobody ever got the sack, and where we had a natural sympathy for those who were less concerned in efficiency than this generation is. There were a large number of old gentlemen tvho used, to spend the day sitting on the handle, of a wheeibarrow and smoking their pipes. Oddly enough, it was not an inefficient community. It was the last survivor of that type of works, and ultimately was swallowed up in one of those great combinations to which the industries of the country are tending.

That stage of industry has gone under in what we sometimes call the march of progress. What a. hollow mockery has the word become when, “progress”

raises in anger, one against the other, the human hands given ua to clasp in brotherhood! We. speak of this as a young country, a non-industrial country, a happy country because we may profit by avoiding the mistakes of older lands; but we would be happier far if tire standard raised by the British Prime Minister were made the rallying ground for the conflicting forces in our industrial field too.