Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAJORITY OF 123.

MINERS' POLICY CONDEMNED.

COMPARED TO FEUDAL BARONS. (Rec. March 22, 9.15 p.m.) London, Jlnich 22. The second reading of the Bill was carried by a majority of 125, the members of tho Nationalist and Labour parties voting with the Government. The figures were :— For the Bill 318 • Against the Bill 225 Majority for 123 MR. BALFOUR CHEERED. Mr. Balfour, on rising, was welcomed with Unionist cheers and counter Ministerial cheers and shouts of "Under which King?-" Ho said that the impression created on tho opening of tho debate was that neither on the Treasury bench nor elsewhere was anyone satisfied with the Government's solution. The Bill held out no finality, and sanctioned a principle which would bo the precursor of perpetual future trouble. Tho country had never before'faced a peril of such character and magnitude as that which confronted it at present. They had the portentous spectacle of an . organisation acting without regard ror the rights of others and threatening to paralyse the whole community. Neither Policy nor Mercy. The men's leaders were; not tempering power with any consideration cither of policy or mercy. No feudal baron had exercised power as the miners' leaders were exercising it. He was unable to understand how harmony could be preserved in the industrial world when agreements were allowed ,to be broken. The Government had deceived themselves and tho House by adducing arguments based on "abnormal places," which were not arguments for a minimum wage. The miners desired to compel Parliament and a reluctant Government to adapt a principle which would render opposition to tho Tmirereal application of a minimum wage impossible. The Opposition were compelled to test the opinion of the House of Commons, but at the same time they would do their best to secure the Government's policy, bad as it was, if the House approved. Mr. Asquith Replies.

Mr. Asquith denied' that the Government was responsible for the crisis. It had never yielded to pressure. Tho proposals in tho Bill were identical with those offered to the miners by the owners three weeks ago. While he would not say the miners' representatives had acted wisely and considerately, ho challenged tho likening of them to feudal barons. The comparisons with tho actions of American Trusts wore also unfair. .lie. asked tho Opposition whether they considered legislation was unnecessary. Mr. Balfour had not produced an alternative, but had only propounded barren negatives and impracticable platitudes. In the Scottish and Welsh agreements the masters and men had deliberately reserved tho question of "abnormal places" for future consideration, and it was not therefore reasonable to allow the agreements to stand in the way of a settlement. Tho failure of the conference had compelled the Government to obtain Parliamentary sanction. The reasonableness of the Minimum Wage Bill would bo a means of escape from the crisis without tho Government sacrificing its primary duties. A Labour View. Mr. Enoch Edwards, Labour member for Ilanley, said he regretted (hat the Government ha*! legislated to scttlo the dispute. The Miners' Federation had not asked for the Hill. He realised, however, that the Government would be lacking in its duly if it did not grapple with the question. There was nothing criminal in asking for n minimum wage where men had failed to earn a proper wage through cases beyond their control. The miners were most industrious men, and it was an insult to say that tho owners would require safeguards. Tho minimum sought was not an extravagant one. Absence of the Schedule. Sir Edward Grey, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, said the miners should not ask Parliament to include the schedule in tho Bill as this would be impossible without exhaustive investigation. This investigation would lie best left to the district boards. If the Bill failed and the strike was prolonged, the Government would not neglect means to secure the supplying of coal, which ought not to bo withheld from the nation.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19120323.2.35

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1396, 23 March 1912, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
655

MAJORITY OF 123. Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1396, 23 March 1912, Page 5

MAJORITY OF 123. Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1396, 23 March 1912, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert