THE TRADE-UNION CONGRESS AND ARBITRATION.
[To THE EDITOR OF Tax " SPECTATOR:1 Sin,—Would you kindly allow me, as a member of the Executive of the Scottish Operative Masons' Association, to criticise adversely your article appearing in last week's Spectator ? The first paragraph might well have been written by some irresponsible lecturer, considering the spirit of it. In the past your journal has been frank and outspoken on all topics, without giving offence; but in this instance we have an exception—a glaring one. Your characterising as "balderdash" Mr. Sexton's statement is, to say the least of it, ungentlemanlike, betokening a temper not in keeping with the highest form of culture. As a Trade-Unionist, I uphold Mr. Sexton's statement. The attitude of Labour towards Capital is very hostile, despite the fact that there has been of late less time lost through strikes. One has only got to be in the factory or the workshop for a short time to realise this. The grumbling is common too, only the non-Unionist is scarcely intelligent enough to know that a Union with ample " funds is at present his only safeguard. It is a mistake on your part to think that the workers are not in earnest about the creation of a Labour group in Parliament : we are terribly in earnest about the matter. The seed is being sown towards this end, and already the signs of a rich harvest are apparent. For example, last Saturday we had a great demonstration of the organised workers of Glasgow and district to let the Tories and Liberals and Unionists know that we mean what we say, and also to let them know that we consider it to be the duty of the State to provide work for the unemployed. All the large centres purpose doing similarly, and resolutions will be drawn up at each and forwarded to Parliament. Such a thing has never before happened in the Trade-Union movement, as all previous demonstrations were purely trade ones, having no political motive whatever. Does this not prove, then, that Mr. Sexton really voiced the sentiments of Trade-Unionists generally, and does it not also prove that your doubting is unreasonable? The position taken up by Mr. Ben Tillett you endorse. I am sorry at this, because I believe it to be the most pernicious point of view that Trade-Unionism has yet given ear to. Compulsory arbitration may sound very well, but it is too pacific and too enervating a principle for true progress,—i.e., the real betterment of the people. To recognise this principle is to admit that the meantime price of labour is a true one ; this is false to Trade-Unionism the world wide, and also to well-disposed and philanthropic people. Mr. Harvey, of the Derbyshire Miners, put the whole case for Trade-Unionism in a nut:shell when he said that " the miners could not in any circumstances arbitrate as to the minimum wage." The motive of Trade-Unionism is thus seen to be inimical to the present order of things ; but this does not early with it a menace to the State's well-being. In conclusion, let me state that I think the education resolution passed by the Congress is a step in the right direction. If we desire efficiency in the matter of education, we must secularise it. This also meets the ends of justice, seeing we have so many different religious sects in our midst. Is it not an immoral practice to teach children what is very much a matter of opinion P—I am, Sir, &c., JOHN MCLAREN.
[W6 are glad to publish Mr. McLaren's letter, as we welcome intelligent criticism, hostile or friendly. , We cannot, however, admit that our contention is shaken by his assertions, and he is entirely mistaken in thinking that we endorsed the position taken up by Mr. Ben Thlett. If he will refer to the article again, he will find that we did exactly the opposite.—. F.D. Spectator.]
Previous page
