TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE THREAT TO MR. MORLEY.
MR. MORLEY'S honesty and plain speaking in the matter of the Eight-Hours question has not passed unnoticed among the leaders of the Socialists. His declaration that he will never consent to a legal eight hours day, whether mitigated or not mitigated by the right of the majority in a trade to suspend the Act as far as they are concerned, has been met by an announcement that if he will not have an Eight-Hours Bill, neither shall he have a seat in Parliament. At a demonstration of the National Union of Gasworkers and General Labourers, held in Manchester last Saturday, Mr. Hugh Sinclair, a member of the Newcastle Trades' Council, indulged in some very plain speaking on the subject. Unless Mr. Morley agreed to the demands of the Labour party, he would not represent Newcastle at the next General Election. Mr. Morley, he pointed out, was returned by a majority of 667. "Since then, they had nominated three Socialist candidates for the School Board, and three working men had been re- turned at the head of the poll, receiving more than 13,000 votes each. They had contested six municipal elections in order to ascertain the feelings of the electors on the sub-. ject of the limitation of the hours of labour. At the General Election they would have a Labour candidate nominated. If the Liberal Party did not accept their platform, Liberal representatives would not go to the House of Commons from Newcastle. Mr. John Morley said at Cambridge that they used threats to him ; and they meant to put them in practice unless he climbed down from the high position he had taken up. Arguing from his attitude on the Home-rule Question, they thought he would do so."
Many people will no doubt be very angry at this utterance, and will talk of the monstrous tyranny of labour which is intended to be set up by the working men. They are trying, it will be urged, to drive every one who does not agree with them out of political life. But, after all, that is what all politicians do more or less, and it is a little absurd to blame the Socialists for playing the old game in the old way. They want to win, and many of them no doubt honestly believe an eight-hours day is the only thing worth fighting for. Under such circumstances, who can blame them for fighting to the bitter end to carry their point ? But if we think it foolish to be angry with the extreme Labour party for trying to punish Mr. Morley for what they consider bad political opinions, we hold it still more foolish for those who share Mr. Morley's views in regard to the Eight-Hours question, to allow Mr. Hugh Sinclair and his friends to banish Mr. Morley from Parliament. The Labour party in Newcastle know perfectly well that they have not a majority of the working classes of their town with them. They realise, however, that since the town is pretty evenly divided between Unionists and Home-rulers, they hold the balance, and so can dictate terms in regard to their particular views. This is, of course, an unpleasant fact for people who differ from the Socialists as regards the Eight-Hours question, but it is surely one more for careful consideration than for general indignation against democracy and representative government. As long as the Unionists are determined to turn Mr. Morley out at all costs, the Labour party have undoubtedly a very strong position. The moment, however, they decide that they will not beat Mr. Morley on the Hours of Labour question, the lever is knocked out of Mr. Hugh Sinclair's hands. We do not say off-hand that the free-contract Unionists should cap the Socialist manifesto by saying, You declare Mr. Morley shall not sit because of his attitude as to the Eight-Hours Bill; well, then, we declare that he shall ; ' but the matter• is one well worth careful consideration by the Newcastle Unionists, Conservative and Liberal. We consider Mr. Morley's attitude in regard to Home- rule as utterly opposed to every principle of statesman- ship—a misshapen bastard, begotten of washy sentiment on the one side and the fear of responsibility on the other —and if we were forced to choose between Unionism and a compulsory Eight-Hours Bill, would choose the latter. Fortunately, however, there is no occasion for exercising any such choice.- If the Unionists refuse to take advantage of Mr. Morley's pluck and independence on the Labour question, Home-rule will be no nearer than before. A Gladstonian would be sitting where a Unionist might have slipped in,—that would be the extent of the damage thine. If we look at the other side of the account,. it must be admitted by all who care for true Liberal principles, that a tremendous blow would have been struck against the tyranny of minorities. The influence of the- extreme Labour party, like that of the Nationalists before their amalgamation with the Gladstonians, depends upon their ability to throw on one side or the other a small but compact body of votes. Upon the inclination. of this solid phalanx depends defeat or victory for a great many candidates. The Labour party are thus in a position to establish what schoolboys call "a funk,' and this " funk " they are at present preparing to profit by. If, however, at the outset of their campa,ign of electoral pressure they were met by the stinging rebuff which would be given by the Conservatives of New- castle informing them that they did not intend to let Mr. Morley be punished for his independence, the "funk would be to a large extent put an end to. Candidates on, both sides would begin to pluck up heart at the result of the Labour threats against Mr. Morley, and to wonder whether, after all, it would not pay them best to stand up to the Labour party and refuse to be bullied. The failure of the attempt to bully Mr. Morley would, in a word, stiffen hundreds of weak-kneed men in other constituencies. They would perceive that, after all, independence often pays better than yielding.
Whether in the present instance the Newcastle Con- servatives should refuse to let the Labour party oust Mr. Morley, is a question which must, of course, be settled locally. It may be that the Conservatives and Unionists there, though opposed to a compulsory regulation of the hours of labour, do not consider the question as serious, or as one within the range of practical 'politics. If that is the case, they cannot, of course, be expected to forego their opposition to Mr. Morley on other grounds. If, however, they believe, as we suspect they do, that the Eight-Hours question is a very serious matter, and that the compulsion would do a great deal of injury to the country, then we think that they ought to teach Mr. Hugh Sinclair and his friends that they have not the power to give away two seats at Newcastle as they may think fit. To let Mr. Morley keep his seat in spite of the Labour party, would, as we have said above, have an excellent effect in two ways. It would teach our statesmen that if they show independence on the Labour question, they will obtain support and encourage- ment even from their enemies, and it would show the country in general that the power of those who claim to lead the labourers is by no means so great as is represented, but is, as a rule, little more than the ability to play one political party off against the other. Possibly it may be said that our proposal is premature, and that the time has not yet come to give this lesson to the Labour party. We do not think so. The sooner they are taught that they must drop their "We, the people of England" tone, the better it will be for the true interests of the country.
Previous page
