THE HULL STRIKE. T HE merits of the Hull strike are
even more confusing and difficult to understand than those of Labour disputes generally ; and that is saying a good deal. According to the speech made by Mr, John Burns, in moving the adjournment of the House on Monday, all that the labourers ask is that Lord Derby's principle should be applied, and that the authorities and the public should make a ring, and let the employers and the labourers fight the matter out without help or favour. Mr. Burns's words are so clear on this point, that they may usefully be quoted verbatim. "He did not," said Mr. Burns, "ask for the sympathy and consideration of the House for the Hull strikers, for he considered that the merits of economic, commercial, and industrial disputes had nothing whatever to do with this House as such, but he believed with Lord Derby that in an industrial dispute the House and the law should give a fair field and no favour, and do nothing more than provide a clear ring and let the dis- putants fight the matter out without any intervention on one side or the other, except for the preservation of law, life, and public peace." With this proposition no reason- able man will differ ; and if this is really all the labourers ask, then we most heartily agree with them. When, how- ever, it is translated into specific demands, it appears to bear a meaning very different from that which ordinary people would attach to it. We say " appears " advisedly, because it is just possible that, in the confusion and jar of mutual recrimination, we may be doing the labourers injustice, and because we do not forget that men who are deeply irritated and devoid of real education often forget what a delicate tool language is, and use it in such a way that it entirely refracts, instead of reflecting, their meaning. The men, then, seem to ask that "a ring round the combatants" shall be made by preventing the Hull Magistrates and police from keeping order in the streets, and by forcing the Boards of Guardians to grant outdoor relief to the labourers on strike. That is, the strikers are to be allowed not only to stop the employment of the free labourers by violence and intimidation, but while they are bringing the employers to terms, to live on the rates. Suspension of the laws protecting personal liberty in regard to free labour, and strike-pay levied on the community,—that is how the State is to carry out its duty of "not intervening on one side or the other, except for the preservation of law, life, and public peace."
We conceive the carrying-out of Lord Derby's principle ver7 differently, and so, we imagine, do most people of plain common-sense. In our opinion, the authorities should say : 'We have no more to do with the merits of the dispute at the Hull docks than we have with an auc- tion. Our sole duty is to carry on the law regardless of external considerations. If we find certain men being mobbed and intimidated we shall afford them protection, whether they are cLued free labourers or Union men. We shall not, of course, break up peaceable crowds of strikers merely because the employers think them an annoyance, or because they believe they may become lawless. The moment, however, that the crowds proceed to lawless acts, we shall act against them, and if necessary shall call the military to our aid. Further, we shall not alter the administration of the Poor-Law because there is a strike. If strikers ask for outdoor relief, we shall apply the rule against granting outdoor relief as long as work is obtainable in the town, and shall refuse to accept the excuse that the appli- cant is not willing to work for those who offer work. It cannot be the duty of the Guardians to admit such excuses for not working. If they were to do so, every man professing to be on strike would be able to obtain an allowance, and there would be no limit to outdoor relief.' Now, as far as we are able to judge, this is the line which the authorities at Hull have actually taken. They have refused to allow disorder and intimidation, and they have declined to strain the Poor-Law in order to assist the strikers,—they have made, in a word, a ring round the combatants. No allegations showing that the authorities have tried to force the men to accept the masters' terms have been supported by evidence of the slightest value, though the labour leaders have evidently been extremely anxious to make good their charges in this particular. We take it that they cannot, and that, as we have said, the authorities at Hull have in truth acted on Lord Derby's principle. Whatever may be the details of the settlement which is certain sooner or later to be arrived at in Hull, we cannot doubt that the Shipping Federation will in all cases insist absolutely on four things. They will maintain their right to employ whom they please,—that is, to engage men who do not belong to the Unions. They will insist that Unionists employed by them shall work amicably by the side of non- Unionists. They will refuse to allow their Free Labour Exchange to be managed by any one but themselves. Finally, they will not bind themselves not to give their best appointments to men who are not trammelled by the pedantic rules in force in the Union. That the employers will agree not to refuse to employ Union men we do not doubt for a moment. We do not believe that they have ever objected to Union men as such either in theory or prac- tice. The Federation ticket of which so much has been said—the shipowners are accused of forcing it on the men—shows in truth no hostile intention as regards the Unions. It is, we understand, merely an agreement that "the undersigned" will "work in harmony with any work- man who may be engaged, whether be is a, member of a Trades-Union or not." If we come, then, down to the ultimate issue, it will he seen to be the question whether free labour is or is not to be allowed. The ship- owners desire to have a perfectly free hand in regard to employment. The Union, on the other hand, desire to insist that only Union men shall be employed, or rather, that the owners shall only be able to employ free labour under conditions which will render it worthless. To say that there is a moral right on either side as regards these abstract demands would be to exaggerate. It is a question of bargain and price—nothing more—and each side has a. perfect right to make the best terms it can. If, however, we are asked whether there is much prospect of the men obtaining their demands, we cannot but answer that the prospect is a very slight one. In a skilled trade, it is com- paratively easy for the men to insist that all the employs of a particular firm or firms shall belong to the Union. In the recent cotton-strike, all the men came out and went back together. It is the same in coal-strikes, for mining is, in effect, a skilled trade, and new men can- not be got to take the place of those on strike. In an unskilled trade, such as that of the dock-labourer, it is always possible, if not easy, to supply the place of strikers. Hence, in the unskilled trades, it is hopeless to expect that the Unions can be as powerful as in the skilled trades. The labourers at a skilled trade form a, natural guild or mystery, and so are easily organised. Unskilled labour is not capable of such close organisation. No doubt, if they are prudently managed, Unions of unskilled labour may do a great deal to support the interests of their members; but they will never be able to take the commanding posi- tion occupied by Unions like those of the Engineers and Cotton operatives. Meantime, the country grows weary of the violence almost always occasioned by strikes of unskilled labourers, and would gladly find, some means of putting an end to such strikes. That it will not find; but we think it possible that the "Labour Disputes (Arbitration) Bill," introduced by Mr. Mundella on Monday night, may have useful results. It is a permissive measure ; but that does not necessarily mean that it will fail. Competent observers of Labour disputes declare that, in many cases, all that is wanted to arrive at an understanding is a clear statement of the issues involved. If that can be got by inducing each party to table their case fully and fairly before an impartial Board of Arbitration, then Arbitration Boards should do good. We do not expect a panacea, but we wish Mr. Mundells, all success with his Bill, and have some hope that it will help to make strikes less acrimonious and less protracted than they are at present.
Previous page
