COAL TROUBLE

Southland Times, Issue 19900, 19 June 1926, Page 7

COAL TROUBLE

MINE OWNERS’ SCHEME RE-OPENING OF PITS THE EIGHT-HOUR DAY. (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) London, June 16. It is understood the mine-owners are preparing a scheme for re-opening pits on the eight-hour basis. Coalfields will be divided into three categories, firstly, pits where wages are not reduced ; secondly, pits where there is a reduction of under 10 per cent; thirdly, pits where the reduction, if possible does not exceed 10 per cent. The last-named probably includes three export districts, Durham, Northumberland and South Wales. As many pits as possible will be included /n the first category. —A. ano N.Z. BRITAIN AND SOVIET. QUESTION IN COMMONS. London, June 17. In the House of Commons, Sir W. LockerLampson asked whether the Government was considering the advisability of withdrawing recognition of the Soviet Government in view of the offer of money from Moscow for the general strike. Sir W. Joynson-Hicks replied that the Government, having protested in a most formal manner to the Soviet Government, did not propose a‘ present to take the steps indicated by Sir W. Locker-Lampson. The Government was equally indisposed to forbid so-called charity gifts in connection with industrial disputes, but was carefully watching the further action of the Soviet Government and affiliated organisations. It would not hesitate to act if a change of policy were necessary. He declared that his Majesty’s Government was satisfied the Soviet Government and various Communist and Trade Union organisations are under a single controlling authority. He mentioned that £380,000 altogether had been contributed from Russia to the Council of the Trade Union in connection with the miners’ dispute. A discussion developed, during which in reply to Mr MacDonald and others, Sir W. Joynson-Hicks said the Government would arrange for discussion of the widest possible character of the Anglo-Russian relations. —Reuter. SOVIETS GOLD. EARL BALFOUR’S ADVICE. (Rec. 10.35 pjn.) London, June 17. In the House of Lords, replying to Sir Douglas Newton’s inquiry respecting the Russian strike money, Earl Balfour said the avowed object of the Soviet Government was to destroy our social system. The presumption was that the money was not contributed by the workers but by the Soviet Government. He was not quite sure they should have recognised the Soviet. That was an arguable point, but there was a great difference between ‘'breaking off of relations and not entering into relations at all” The first would produce disturbance far beyond the confines of the two countries and was the last course any responsible statesman would like to take. It was one which, without an adequate object, would add a new social disturbance to an over-disturbed world. What were they going to gain by breaking off relations? “I am quite unable to see any gain until the situation develops in the manner in which I hope it will not. I suggest we go on diplomatically as now. Nothing is to be gained by formal gestures when we cordially disapprove of a Government whose action we can in no manner control. lam in favour of things as thev are. Having quite explicitly explained that we are not the dupes of a Russian policy and with public opinion behind us we have nothing to fear from the contrivances and intrigues of any nation in the world.”—A. <t N.Z.