UNIVERSITY DEBATE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 123, 25 May 1926, Page 7

UNIVERSITY DEBATE

FOR AND AGAINST STRIKES,

"That the General Strike in Great Britain is to be Condemned" was the motion discussed by the Victoria University College Debating Society at a -visitors', debate held at the college on Saturday' even- ' ing. The movers were Mr. J. J. Ivlalfroy and Mr. Thomas Forsyth, M.P., and the. opposers Mr. J. W. G. Davidson and Mr. W. Nash. Mr. \V. P. Hollings presided over a large audience of students and visitors, and in welcoming the speakers mentioned the society's custom of inviting prominent public men to occupy its platform, originated in 1913, at the suggestion of the late Viscount Bryce, then on a tour of the Dominions. In opening the debate, Mr. Malfroy declared that the general strike was ''intended by its promoters to be a lever to raise themselves to power as a substitute for constitutional methods. He had the authority of M. Trotsky for claiming j that such an aim could not succeed but by the intervention of armed force and plain revolutionary measures. The speaker dealt with several notorious strikes of the past two decades from the economists' viewpoint, and said that the two most outstanding lessons were, first, the fact

that the strikers and their families were hardest hit, and, secondly, the astonishing power of the public to defend itself against the attacks of the strike weapon, Though nothing had been gained in the past, these homicidal attempts upon the nation's prosperity still continued. Mr. Davidson opened the case for the negative. He would show, he said, that the workers were justified in using tho weapon, and that their fellow-workers were similarly justified in coming to their assistance. He recounted the "hideous conditions" under which mining was carried on years ago, and traced' the slow process of improvement in wages and hours of work up to tho present day. T\yo facts emerged from this history: That in every recent industrial dispute the attack had come from the owners, and that the betterment of. conditions was due to the only weapon available, the strike. In the misery of the miner's life, which, the speaker alleged, was beyond the power of words to describe, was also to be .found the justification for tho spread of the strike to other industries, whose members could not, without disloyalty to the cause of tlie worker, stand by and see their fellows being beaten by powerful capitalist interests. . ■ _■ Mr. Forsyth announced his intention of debating the motion regarding the general strike, which the previous speaker had not referred to. Mr. Davidson's attempts to justify the primary strike were entirely ,

beside the point! The estimated loss of £205,000,000 caused by the general strike in Great Britain was an argument sufficient to show that the attempt was not worth while. It was also entirely unconstitutional, and for that reason, though perhaps a suitable means of gaining a desirable end in Russia, was the wrong method in any British country. Outlier means had . been provided. Amidst neated disclaimers from his opponents, Mr. Forsyth quoted "tried and trusted Labour leaders" who declared themselves against the use of the strike. The speaker described, in conclusion, the starvation and Buffering that followed every industrial upheaval, and characterised the result of the pre- ! sent disorganisation as an economic tragedy. Mr. W. Nash supported Mr. Davidson ! in opposing the motion. In England everyworker's life was what his predecessor had termed an economic tragedy. What had been gained by the workers in the mining industry was gained not because they had refrained from striking, but because they .had struck from time to time. It was humbug to suggest that the workers in sill branches of industry were not justified in taking up their comrades' quarrel. They did precisely what England did in August of 1914, when she ,w<is asked to go to the rescue of Belgium. The employers were always talking against a general strike, but their attitude was really one of self-interest; they . preferred to

tackle the trade unions one at a time, and warned others to keep out of the dispute. "When we have dealt with these, we will deal with 5*911." Seven University speakers followed, and at the conclusion Mr. Nash and Mr. Forsyth repjied. The motion was carried by the whole audience, with a large majority in its favour, but at the hands of the members of the society met with defeat by nine votes to four.