THE " SPECTATOR " AND THE STRIKE
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—The Spectator is the only Unionist paper I have read on the subject of the strike which seems to me to have drawn perfectly fair distinctions. You thought the management of the negotiations immediately before the strike unsatis- factory, but no paper could have stated more strongly than you did the need of resisting the strikers and warding off the deadly blow against the Constitution.
The truth is that the nation has been confronted by two great dangers. One came from the strikers and the other— scarcely less, though it was less visible—came from the unprogressive, I might even say reactionary, elements in the Government. They nearly defeated the Prime Minister. They prevented him from maqaging the negotiations in his own way immediately before the strike and, apparently, he would have had great difficul%y in suppressing them if the strike had lasted much longer. I do not want to pry
into Government secrets, but I am sure that the Times in its leading article of last Friday did not refer without good reason to those in the Government who were " excited or provocative " and to " foolish .plans that may have been propounded, discussed and almost carried." Fortunately for us all when the Prime Minister received the unconditional surrender of the strikers he was strong enough to act on his own authority and the policy of conciliation was re-established.'
I hope you will not be intimidated by your muddle-headed and diehard correspondents who seem unable to distinguish , between quite different things. " The Prime Minister is the only man who is likely to be able to get us through these troubles. I think you are perfectly right to criticize everything which tells against his policy. Your praise of his character last week was very eulogistic, but I do not think it was exaggerated.—I am, Sir, &e., B. H. K. EGGLESTON.
Royal Victoria Hotel, Hastings.
Previous page
