THE RAILWAY VOTE AT THE RECENT ELECTIONS. [To THE EDITOR
OF THE " SPECTATOR." J
SIR,—The Spectator has, I think, failed to appreciate the full extent of the railway men's hostility to the late Government. In addition to Crewe, the Conservatives have gained seats in at least eight other constituencies where the railway vote was the dominating factor. Here is the list :—Derby, Glasgow (St. R,ollox), Inverness Burghs, Kilmarnock Burghs, Lan- cashire (Gorton), Peterborough, Doncaster, West Ham. Battersea, also a railway town, went very near throwing out Mr. John Burns himself. So much for the fact, which is unquestionable. The reason is less certain. You say the Employers' Liability Bill. But I am assured by gentlemen with good opportunities for judging, who speak of con-
stituencies widely separated, that it was not the Employers Liability Bill, but the Railway Servants' Hours of Labour Act, which roused the railway servants' wrath. "Every engine-driver in my division was an unpaid canvasser for me," says one Conservative M.P. "The men voted against the party who stopped their overtime," is another report. If this be true, and I think it will be found on inquiry to be so, the fact is worth putting on record. For whether the policy of restricting by law adult men's hours of labour—a policy for which, by the way, the Conservatives, led by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, were just as much respon- sible as their opponents—be right or 'wrong; whether the. motive of the legislators who voted for it was care for the public safety and a desire to protect a deserving class of public servants, or mere readiness to oblige the extreme Trade-Unionists, if it appears that the voters have resented at the poll efforts, however well intentioned to protect them from themselves, Members of Parliament are not likely to press forward any further protective measures of the kind for some time to come.—I am, Sir, &c., W. M. A.
Previous page
