M. LOUBET AND CARMAUX.
WE left the French Premier last week almost trium- phant in the Chamber, though we should fancy not a little perturbed. He had saved his Government, in the debate on the strike at Carmaux, by taking a some- what desperate course. As the Chamber was, on the whole, in favour of arbitration, and as the advocates of the men demanded arbitration, M. Loubet accepted arbitration, compelled the reluctant mining company to submit, and even by a grand effort of self-sacrifice, proposed himself as arbitrator. It was not the position for the head of the French Government, who should stand outside trade dis- putes; but it offered the easiest road out of the scrape, and accordingly he took it. Having taken it, he tried hard to perform his new duties well ; cross-examined everybody in- terested, including M. Humblot, the manager, and M. Cal- vignac, the chief rebel; listened for hours to two Socialist Deputies and three Deputies of the Left—just think how M. Baudin and M. Cl6menceau must have bored him—and ascertained exactly what the officials on the spot thought had actually occurred. Then he gave his award, which will, we imagine, strike most Englishmen as a little illogical, but substantially just. He decided that the manager had seemed to insult universal suffrage in dismissing M. Calvignac because he had been elected Mayor, and that the miner in question must accordingly be reinstated as an employ, of the mine. As, however, the Company could not be expected to pay him for doing Mayor's work, he must "accept leave" during his term of office, and thus, as the miners are paid by the day, rely for subsistence only upon his salary as Mayor. The men who had struck, having struck for a true, if rather overestimated, grievance, must be pardoned by the Company, with the exception only of those found guilty by the Courts of committing or favouring outrage. Finally, the men must pardon M. Humblot, the manager, he having in dismissing M. Calvignac for non-attendance, acted strictly within the written and well-known regulations of the mines. The award annoyed Baron Reille, the chairman of the Company, who maintains that the position of Mayor and the position of workman are incompatible ; but as he had agreed to abide by it, he submitted just as he would have done to the decision of a court of law. "I will not discuss," he said, "I submit." The men who had de- manded arbitration, and rather exulted in such an arbitrator as M. Loubet, were, of course, expected to submit also, and for an hour or two the quarrel was regarded as at an end.
It was only just beginning. The men had believed that M. Loubet's acceptance of the post of arbitrator covered an intention to concede everything they had demanded, in order to secure their votes ; they have not risen to the conception that a, decision against them can ever be just ; and they perceive a fatal flaw in the logic of the award. If M. Humblot, the manager, was in the wrong in dismissing M. Calvignac, as the Premier admits to have been the case, he ought to have been punished, and he goes scot-free. The regulations of the mines either do not pro- tect him, or they justify his dismissal of M. Calvignac. His escape shows that inequality is permitted in France, and the idea of an inequality not in his own favour, stirs a Frenchman's blood. The miners declared that they would not, under these circumstances, obey the award the Socialist leaders eagerly welcomed the prospect of further trouble, and the leader of the Left, M. 016men- ceau, had a grievance of his own. M. Loubet, like most politicians of to-day, had, in talking privately to him, been too conciliatory, and had left him with the impression—conveyed, it would appear, chiefly by silence— that the imprisoned workmen would be released and restored to their positions in the mine. M. Cleanenceau, therefore, declared that he had been made a fool of; and not only advised the strike to go on, but arranged more " interpellations,"—that is, in practice, votes of "No confidence" in the Chamber. He obviously desired ' more fierce debates, ending, whatever the decision, in a deeper severance of parties, and in a fresh embittering of the relations between capital and labour. Indeed, according to the Times' correspondent, the Ministry was on Wed- nesday again in danger, the Chamber being expected to vote, in some form or other, that it disapproved the award.
Such a result was impossible in France, where the respect for la chose jugge is a tradition, and where the major portion of the voters are either freeholders, or pos- sessed of stock, or interested in industrial undertakings. The question which disordered Republican judgments, that of the "insult to universal suffrage," had been decided in favour of the popular side ; and as everybody had been pardoned, except men guilty of violence, there was no room for that pity for the poor, which nowadays takes the place of the old desire for justice to the poor and rich alike. Moreover, to uphold the continuance of the strike, was to give a fatal blow to the device of arbitration as a settlement for trade disputes. No capitalist will submit to a " reference " if the other side are at liberty, according to opinion as well as law, to reject an award against them, and no decent person will accept the posi- tion of arbitrator, if his decision, when given, is to be treated with contempt. He might almost as well be umpire at a prize-fight, with the moral conviction usually entertained by that potentate that he must fly the moment the fight is over. The very idea of arbitration includes the promise on both sides of submission to the arbitrator, more especially when, as in France, resort to that method of settling differences is entirely voluntary. The method must, under such circumstances, be given up ; and to give it up is not only to accentuate the existing conflict between capital and labour, but to throw back the legislators upon those ideas of expropriating industrial property which are so dreaded or so popular with employers and workmen. The alternative to arbitration, in French Liberal opinion, is to vest all property in the community, so uniting the interests of capital and labour for ever. It cannot be denied, however, that the position of the Government in the Chamber was most awkward. The Deputies did not really care about any Ministry, thinking that they themselves are always masters, the Left was positively furious with hope of catching the permanent workman vote, and the Right, seeing a chance of dis- crediting a Government found to be unexpectedly anti- clerical, might have voted with the Left, explaining to all the world that M. Loubet had really been too weak to be entitled to support. It was not certain that the peasant constituencies were aroused enough to give orders to their representatives, while it was certain that a large section of the workmen would support the miners of Carmaux, and threaten the Deputies who approve M. Loubet with opposition in every district at the elections, which again take place next year. The eagerness to retain seats, it must be remembered, is even greater in France than here, for not only are the French Members paid both in cash and patronage, but they value their possession of one of the few great social distinctions now recognised by the law. A French Deputy is invested with much more " privilege " than an English Peer, being, in fact, beyond law until the Chamber has been consulted, and wearing, when he pleases, a scarf which indicates his rank to all men, police officers specially included. It was possible, therefore, that M. Loubet might have been overthrown for a fairly just award previously accepted by both sides, and then the Labour question would undoubtedly have entered on a new phase.
The Chamber has decided otherwise, in favour of the Government, but we would just ask those who believe that the recourse to arbitration will prevent all wars, to study the scene at Carmaux. The majority in most States is made up of just such individuals as we see there, and when roused by insult, or aggression, or panic, is even more liable to emotion. The men who compose a State are, from ignorance alone, exceedingly suspicious, indisposed to trust foreigners, and, in many cases, utterly unable to understand foreigners' points of view. The international matters to be " referred " are often exceedingly complex ; they constantly affect the vague and varying impulse called "wounded honour ; " and they may at any time involve principles, say, for example, the question whether in war time coal is, or is not, contraband of war, which are to the nations concerned matters of life and death. Why, in the face of what they see at Carmaux, do the peace men believe that arbitration will always be respected ? We believe, on the contrary, that it will often deepen the in- ternal resolve to go to war on the first opportunity ; and so, besides settling the original question by force, to avenge what a whole community believes to be an unjust judg- ment. The truth is, that mankind has not yet been edu- cated, either by positive training, or by circumstances, up to the level of impartiality ; and that to secure prompt submis- sion to an impartial award, the award must be invested with a "sanction," like the award of a Court of Justice. Every- body yields to a Judge, because everybody must, on penalty of imprisonment ; and without that "must," unreasonable suitors would do just as the drunk women and half-mad " cranks " do now,—throw their shoes at the Judge for his decision. In international suits, the only possible final "sanction" is war, and this fact will maintain war as a possibility, and armies as necessary safeguards, for ages after mankind has admitted that war is a very horrible and un-Christian way of settling national disputes. Nothing is more harsh in appearance than a strike or a lock-out, or more clearly a resort to physical compulsion ; but if arbi- tration excites no respect, what alternative have philan- thropists to propose ?
Previous page
