THE LEADERS OF THE CHURCHES AND THE PRIME MINISTER
IF the door in Downing Street has not been banged and bolted against the peace makers,- as we believe it has not and never will be while Mr. Baldwin is Prime Minister, it behoves us and all good citizens_ to use the utmost care and reticence in writing on the coal dispute. Even a single voice may precipitate the avalanche which we all want to avoid. But, though discretion is so greatly needed, there are one or two things which may be said in regard to the action of the Bishops and Free Church leaders and their deputation to the Prime Minister, which not only do not involve danger or breach of confidence, but which may help the public to understand the true position. After all, public opinion is a vital factor in the problem, and it is essential that it should be well instructed.
The representatives of the Churches acted exactly as any impartial and good citizen would have wished them to act. They did not "butt in." They did not enter upon a quarrel in which they were not .concerned. They did not pose as experts. They did not attempt to negotiate, or to make terms and obtain concessions as if they were delegates or plenipotentiaries. They acted, as was right for a body of their kind, as mediators. _Their primary object was to ascertain exactly what the miners Meant when they expressed their willingness to accept the Report upon conditions. Having obtained the miners' views, in precise terms, with the endorsement and acceptance of the leaders attached, they passed on .this important information to the. Government. In fact the represerstatives of the Churches acted as interpreters.. It may perhaps be said, "But interpreters are apt to he critics, in spite of themselves," but we are convinced that this was as little so in the present instance as was possible. Another point of importance is to be noted. It appears to have been assumed in certain quarters that the miners took the initiative and asked the representatives of. the Churches to make the best terms that they could with the Government.. This is not in accordance with the facts. The Industrial Christian Fellowship endeavoured through- out to act as peace-makers. In this capacity they first approached the mine owners and endeavoured to discover exactly their position. After meeting the owners and hearing their views on the Report, they invited the miners to come to them and to state their attitude in regard to the proposals Of the Commissioners. Then they trans- mitted•the result to the Prime Minister.
Needless to say we make no claim to speak for the representatives of the Churches; but, judging by their public utterances and the form of their memorandum in which they passed on the proposals accepted by the Executive of the Miners' Federation, their view from the beginning was consistent with the view So often expressed by the Spectator. • The Government, we have urged, in effect empanelled a jury when they appointed the Royal Commission and instructed them to give a verdict. That verdict, obtained after a diligent hearing of the facts, and after a large expenditure of public money, ought to be applied—if possible with the consent of the litigants, but, if that 'consent cannot be obtained, must still be carried out.
It will be seen that Mr. Baldwin, in his letter to the Bishop of Lichfield, by implication limits this view. In regard to hours and wages he declares that "The terms and Conditions on which work can be resumed in the coal-mining industry are not within the power of the Government to determine. They can only be settled by agreement between owners and miners." In dealing with the proposal for Government help during an interregnum strictly limited to four months, Mr. Baldwin went on to declare that the *Governnient could not possibly assent to such a proposal. "Apart from any other consideration, the disastrous effect of this prolonged stoppage on the national finances has made any further subsidy in aid of wages quite out of the question." He also emphasized the Commissioner's strong condemnation of any subsidy in their Report. Incidentally we may note here that the representatives of the Churches were clearly not passing on a demand for a return to the old subsidy, but merely for some financial assistance from the Government. It may well be asked how, if the Government's finances will not stand the restricted sum asked for during the interregnuin, they can stand a prolonged stoppage. The expenses of the dispute, which fall directly on the Government, the Poor Law, and other local authorities, and indirectly upon all British commerce, probably cost four or five times as much a week as the biggest assistance ever contemplated by those who believe in Government aid with a time limit, not exceeding four months. In Dther words, prolongation of the stoppage, which unfortunately is a possibility, might prove the greater burden on the national finances. In saying this we are making no attempt to prejudice the decision of the Government to adhere to the Commissioners' condem- nation of 'any subvention. We are only trying to put Ilearly the financial dilemma.
But; even if the Government holds to this attitude of yon poss•-umus towards suggestions for Government assistance; we are glad to believe that the door still remains open for external and private plans of assistance by way of loan. It is common knowledge that a scheme is being considered (with full financial backing of the highest kind) under which the money required to promote a settlement on the lines of the memorandum sent by the representatives of the Churches to Mr. Baldwin can be obtained, provided the Government do not in effect veto the arrangement by refusing the statutory powers required as the basis for a loan. Capital and interest, under such powers, would be a charge upon the industry for five, or possibly ten, years. If the arrangement takes place, the annual charge involved would be met by the miners, by the royalty owners, and by the colliery companies, in equal shares. Such a solution, no doubt, involves sacrifices on the part of the three parties con- cerned ; but small compared with the sacrifices required by a prolonged stoppage, followed by a " victory " for either side.
Before we leave the subject this week we would remind our readers of the work that has been done by the Standing Committee of the House of Commons, which has been considering amendments to the Government's Mining Industry Bill. For instance, at their last sitting on Tuesday a new clause was added on the questions of examinations and certificates, designed to carry out the Commissioners' advice that abler men should be attracted from outside to take responsible positions in the industry. Another, which received the support of the Labour members, is intended to implement the recommendations of the Report upon pit committees. In effect, their establishment is left to voluntary effort for two years, but if at any pit none is then formed, the law will establish one over the heads of those concerned. The importance of this work is bound to appear before long.
Previous page
