Fifty years after the Strike

Dingle Foot

Monday 3 May is an historic anniversary. Fifty years ago the General Strike began. In the event it passed off without bloodshed or much in the way of open tumult. Yet it was the most insurrectionary occasion in British history since Peterloo. For the first time in over a century (with the possible exception of the Chartist Movement) the Establishment were being openly defied. And yet it all ended not with a bang, but with a collective whimper.

It was a strange conflict. Under the Coalition there had been acute industrial dissension. The miners' strike in 1921 lasted for three months. A general strike was threatened. The leave of the armed forces was stopped. Civil war appeared in prospect. The miners' representatives refused to meet the Prime Minister. The end of the stoppage on 1 July was followed by a savage cut in miners' wages.

Following the general election of 1924 it appeared that confrontation between government and unions had come to an end. Baldwin was Prime Minister. There had never been a more appropriate head of the party of organised torpor. On a memorable occasion a right-wing Conservative (McQuisten) introduced a Private Member's Bill to abolish the political levy. Baldwin responded from the Front Bench with a nostalgic account of his early years in industrial management. And he ended with the prayer 'Peace in our time, 0 Lord'. Here then is the mystery of the middle 'twenties. How did the conflict arise less than fourteen months later? In part the explanation is due to the political temperature. This was the period of 'Reds under the bed'—or indeed throughout the household. In our present era the Communist Party may exercise a considerable influence in the industrial field. Politically it has ceased to matter. There is no single constituency in the United Kingdom where a Communist candidate would not forfeit his deposit. But during the early 'twenties leftwing idealism centred on Moscow. This was long before Soviet tanks had rolled through the streets of Budapest and Prague. And so the Communists figured very largely in the politics of both Left and Right. The general election of 1924 was the Red Letter Election. The publication of Mr Zinoviev's letter to the British Communist Party was, it appeared, decisive. Nor did matters end there. In October 1925 twelve leaders of the Communist Party, including Harry Pollitt, were arrested on charges of seditious libel and incitement to mutiny. They were tried at the Old Bailey. The judge offered to release the first offenders with a caution if they left the Party. They refused and were sentenced to six months imprisonment.

In 1926 the Communist Member for North Battersea, Mr Shapurji Saklatvala was sentenced at Bow Street Police Court to two months imprisonment for incitement to breach of the peace. He had refused to enter into a covenant to be of good behaviour. The incitement was alleged to have occurred during a May Day speech in Hyde Park. In 1925 the Labour Party at its annual conference debarred communists froth membership, and appealed to all constituency parties not to send communists to the conference. In the main this recommendation was adopted. On 3 February 1926 the National Executive 'de-affiliated' Battersea Trades Union Council and Borough Labour Party, Battersea North Trades Union Council and Borough Labour PartY and South-West Bethnal Green Borough Labour Party for their refusal to debar communists. All these examples demonstrate how large a part the Communist Party played during the 'twenties in the public imagination. The ultra-Conservative Home Secretary was Sir William Joynsorr Hicks. He was displayed on Tory posterS astride a horse with the ensuing couplet:

`.IN the boy for work Jix the boy for play Jix the lad when things are bad To keep the Reds away.'

It was in this atmosphere that the crisis of 1926 :blew up. But it was not simPlY, fortuitous. When the Tories were returtleu in 1924 Winston Churchill became Chan' cellor of the Exchequer: It can now hardlY, be disputed that he was the most success Prime Minister in the present century--; possibly of all time (with the exception 01 Lloyd George). But it can also hardly be disputed that he was a disastrous chilli' cellor of the Exchequer. In April 1925 be announced his decision to put Britain back on the gold standard at pre-war party. This was tlenounced by J. M. Keynes in The Economic Consequences of Mr Churchill. He predicted the inevitablde trouble in our export industry an announced that it amounted to reducing British wages by two shillings in the pound* British coal at once became dearer in terns of foreign currency. -The coal-owners sought to cheapen the costs of production. The miners refused to take a wage cut. DI! coal-owners gave notice to terminate th," existing wages agreement. Threatened wit", a strike the Prime Minister set up a Roll Commission under Sir Herbert Satritiei; The Government granted a subsidy wt.°, cost twenty million pounds. The Coin

mission recommended small reductions in wages and the reorganisation of the coal industry. The owners insisted on larger wage cuts and longer working hours. The miners refused to give way. They were led bY a great agitator, A. J. Cook, who proclaimed, 'Not a minute on the day, not a Penny off the pay'.

This was the situation on 2 May 1926, The Samuel Commission had reported on 6 March. They recommended nationalisation of coal royalties, the reorganisation of the industry under private ownership and the immediate lowering of wages. The two sides met together. But they were miles apart. Neither would give way. Lord Birkenhead afterwards wrote that: 'It is Possible to say without exaggeration that the miners' leaders were the stupidest men in England if we had not met on frequent occasions the mine owners.'

The TUC decided to support the miners. But the door was left open for negotiations with the Government. These took place on I May, and eventually on Sunday 2 May. It is difficult to discern any valid reason why they should not have succeeded. A formula was almost within sight. It was drawn up by Lord Birkenhead, The Industrial Committee assembled at No 10 Downing Street. The miners arrived and joined it. Then the TUC leaders were summoned down to meet the Prime Minister. He handed them a letter saying that within the last hour an incident had happened of which the British Cabinet took such a serious view that they had decided to break off negotiations.

What was the incident ? The members of Natsopa (the National Society of Operative Printers) in the Daily Mail headquarters had refused to print the Monday issue of the newspaper unless the editorial was altered. The editor had described the threatened General Strike as a revolutionary Movement.

The Industrial Committee were taken Completely by surprise. They had no information as to what had happened at the offices of the Daily Mail. They went back to the miners and the General Council of the TUC and formulated a draft resolution with which they returned. They found the room where the Cabinet had met was dark and they were informed that all the members had gone home. This was the beginning of the General Strike. It is one of the most extraordinary episodes in British ihistory. The miners and the trade union eaders were in no way responsible for the Printers of the Daily Mail. Yet the Government precipitated a major political crisis.

The General Strike lasted for ten days.

T , be Flying Scotsman was derailed at Dud'el,. Otherwise there was far less dislocation than might have been expected. This was Tajo!), due to the number of volunteers. he need had been foreseen. J. C. C. Davidson has described how plans were made for t_he distribution of food by coastal vessels. volunteers were brought in. In particular the included undergraduates from Oxford and Cambridge. They served as special constables, bus drivers and even engine drivers on the railways. A Balliol undergraduate, who had only read a book on the subject, drove an engine from London to Hull. The newspapers could not appear. Winston Churchill became the editor of the British Gazette. It was published under the auspices of His Majesty's Government from the offices of the Morning Post. Between 5 May and 10 May its circulation rose from 232,000 to 2,209,000. The Churchillian style is unmistakable:

'Constitutional government is being attacked. Let all good citizens whose livelihood and labour have thus been put in peril bear with fortitude and patience the hardships with which they have been so suddenly confronted. Stand behind the Government, who are doing their part, confident that you will co-operate in the measures they have undertaken to preserve the liberties and privileges of the people of these islands. The laws of England are the people's birthright. The laws are in your keeping. You have made Parliament their guardian. The General Strike is a challenge to Parliament and the road to anarchy and ruin.'

But the British Gazette was not confined to such examples of Churchillian trumpet and drum. For example, the issue of 7 May contained the following passage:

'The Earl of Middleton presided on Thursday at the annual meeting of the Surrey County Club at the Oval. In referring to the strike he said he had approached the Prime Minister regarding the desirability—or not—of continuing cricket. Mr Baldwin informed him that he had brought the matter before the Cabinet who were of the opinion that it was desirable that cricket should go on as it involved no expense or strain on any of the resources of the country in the present crisis and would be the means of promoting good feeling between the sport-loving classes.'

Throughout these days the House of Commons continued to sit. Perhaps the most significant speech was that of Mr J. H. Thomas. He described how agreement between the Government and the TUC had been nearly reached on the Sunday night. The words of acceptance had been laid down by the Prime Minister. He went on to say: 'As to the Daily Mail we knew nothing about it. We knew nothing about any expression of opinion of the Daily Mail in its leading article. We knew nothing about that. When the existence of the country was at stake the question about the Daily Mail ought not to have prevented us from coming to an agreement.'

To this there was no adequate reply. But perhaps the most decisive intervention was that of Sir John Simon. Since the departure of F. E. Smith to the Woolsack he was the most distinguished lawyer in the House of Commons. As a young Liberal Member in 1906 he had established his reputation by defending the rights of trade unions. On this occasion he proclaimed that the General Strike was unlawful. He expressed the view that every workman was bound by contract to give notice before he left work, and every workman who had come out before giving proper notice had broken the law. He went on to say that every trade union leader who had advised and promoted that form of action was liable in damages to the uttermost part of his personal possessions.

It is at least doubtful whether this was a correct view: Distinguished lawyers have since argued that the G6neral Strike was simply a sympathetic strike which had expressly been made legal by statute law. But undoubtedly the homily by Sir John Simon had a very considerable effect.

The strike leaders capitulated and the strike came to an end after ten days. It was a more peaceful confrontation than could possibly have been expected. It has never been forgotten that on the suggestion of the Chief Constable the Plymouth police played football against the strikers.

The question arose as to whether the match and its result should be reported in the British Gazette. Winston Churchill was against such publication. But the matter went to the Cabinet and he was over-ruled.

In retrospect neither side emerges with credit. The trade union leaders blundered into a situation for which they were wholly unprepared. The Government blundered into a wholly unnecessary crisis. The results might have been disastrous. There could have been almost a civil war. Yet both sides were saved from the consequences of their own folly by the innate good sense (or torpor) of the British people. Arthur Koestler later described England thus: 'A country where arrows are only used on dart-boards, suspicious of all causes, contemptuous of systems, bored by ideologies, sceptical about Utopia, rejecting all blueprints, enamoured of its leisurely muddle, incurious about the future, devoted to its past. A country neither of Yogis nor of Commissars, but of potterers-in-the-garden and stickers-in-the-mud, where strikers played soccer with the police and Socialists wore peers' crowns. I was intrigued by a civilisation whose social norms were a reversal of mine: which admired "character" instead of "brains", stoicism instead of temperament, nonchalance instead of diligence, the tongue-tied stammer instead of the art of eloquence.'

These were the qualities of the British (or at least the English) people which were most evident fifty years agci. But the last word which deserves to be recorded was spoken by Winston Churchill in the House of Commons on 7 July :

"I have no wish to make threats or to use language which would disturb the House or cause bad blood, but this I must say : Make your minds perfectly clear that if ever you let loose upon us again a General Strike, we will loose upon you—another British Gazette.'

This was a prospect too awful to contemplate. There has never been another General Strike.