Our London Letter.

Maoriland Worker, Volume I, Issue 6, 20 February 1911, Page 5

Our London Letter.

LONDON, December 28, 3910

Again the Christmas season lias been marked by terrible disasters, and in several parts of the country these are bound to throw a shade of gloom over the close of the year, although we notice with satisfaction and pride that every accident is accompanied by proofs of splendid courage and heroism. This affords some kind of reply to the perpetual croaking about the decadence of the race, and the superiority of other nations to the British of later days. It may also be remarked that sympathy and generosity are excited by these events, which help to bind the various classes and districts of the kingdom into a unity of emotion and of effort. As the cables convey particulars of such calamities as that of the Cumberland mine and that of the burning express train, it would be unprofitable for mc to refer to them, any further; but I will briefly review the political and industrial position as affected by some of the chief events of the year, always pre-supposing that the position of the great majority of the nation is intended.

The genera] election, though at first grumbled at 3 as wantonly interfering with the trade and the pleasures of the season, was well over before Christmas, and even a week earlier than the close of the polling it was evident what the result would be., broadlyspeaking. That result is remarkably good for the People v. Peers question, and comes as a wholesome surprise to the advocates of privilege and protection. In British politics the defending party—the party already in office —is always at a and, therefore, I estimated that the Government would lose about fifteen seats on balance. As a fact 3 the anti-Peers combination has won two more seats than the Unionists, making the total theoretical majority 126,, and those two extra seats were gained by Labour members. I use tne word "theoretical" because no actual voting is ever recorded in the Commons to account for every member, especially when such a large majority is available. Already, since the election, one member, nominally has left the party, but the party can well spare him. In case your cablegrams should be perverted by bias,, I may here give the final figures. GOVERNMENT. Liberals ... ... 272 Labour Party ... ... 42 Irish Nationalists ... 84 398 272 Ministerial majority ... 126 OPPOSITION. Unionists, including both Tariff Reformers and Freetraders ... 253 Conservative Working Men ... ... 0 Irish Unionists ... 19 272 The Opposition papers add the Irish Unionists to the British Unionists, produce a total of 272, and call the result a dead heat; but if Irish Nationalists are excluded from one side, Irish Unionists ought to be excluded from the other. Again, the "Standard" and its clients have played a farce with Conservative working men : raising the funds for six or seven candidates, as before., and setting them up where they had no chance of winning, as before. If genuine "working men" are content to be fooled like this., they certainly deserve the ridicule which is the only effect of their enterprise; but one cannot penetrate into the mental conditions of such persons, for there never was before this: election a clearer issxie than the one just decided. The issue is one a the Nation v. Privileged Individuals., but its bearings are threefold—the supremacy of the Commons or that of the Lords; the taxation of land and great accumulations of wealth, or the taxation of everybody ; the maintenance of a commercial system that favours no one in particular, or the creation of a new system that favours certain producers at the expense of all consumers.

Of course, the Government was not likely to obtain such an overwhelming majority as five years ago. That is probably a unique record in British history, never to be repeated; but the result of this election is exactly the same as the result of the 1900 election, held during the South African War. Mr. A. J. Balfour made plenty of use of the majority he then secured, or rather, I should say, the majority his uncle 3 Lord Salisbury, secured, although the change was only of two votes on balance., the gains of the Unionists being 38., and those of the Liberals 36. The most striking characteristic of the recent contest has been the abandonment of

the House of Peers by all its friends, including many of its own members. Thirteen months ago it was the glory of the British Constitution,, the saviour of the country from a gang of brigands, the very grandest second chamber in the whole world, the concentration of the wisdom and sense and patriotism of the whole nation. During this present December it has been stated to be dead by one of its greatest ornaments, and those who oppose the Government's proposals for limiting the Peers' veto and their power of mischief (not abolishing them, be it noted) have on their side proposed drastic, revolutionary changes in the constitution of the House, because it is no longer fit to discharge its proper functions. This is all to the good for the future welfare of the people; the great obstructionists have pleaded guilty, and this will not be forgotten when further great reforms are put forward. It suits the purpose of the supporters of privilege and capital to represent the Prime Minister as dragged or driven along by the hot-heads of his Cabinet, such as Lloyd-George and Churchill, and by the Nationalists as the price of their support. But I believe, and I am not a strong partisan, that Asquith and Haldane are honestly in favour of strong, progressive measures for the benefit of the toiling millions and the struggling poor, without any "socialistic" squeezing ; and if once the Lords' veto is changed to delay only, I think we may hope for really ameliorative Bills. Whatever is done in this way, of course, many people will be impatient and dissatisfied. Two big Bills in one year will certainly be the very most we can expect, and, as a preliminary, the constitutional question may take two years by itself. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES. That the shipbuilding lock-out and the South Wales strikes were both ended and arranged before Christmas is a good augury for the New Year. It is understood that in both cases there have been concessions from both sides, and that wise counsel of moderation from the Board of Trade officials has at length prevailed. But there is r a broad distinction between the two disputes, for the shipbtiilding employers were the attacking party, having suddenly locked out many thousands of men, with whom they had no immediate quarrel, whereas the mine owners in Wales were on the defensive, having to face a sudden strike of men, who, through their representatives, had entered into an arrangement of hours and wages that was ■ supposed to bind both sides for several years. I shall say little about the riots, and still less about the vexed question of the conduct of the police, for the conflict of evidence is such that one must despair of a certain judgment. It has been freely stated that many of the worst rioters were not miners, and that much damage was done by men who were in no way implicated in the strike, but were exasperated by the importation of a large police force from other districts. Personally, I approve entirely of the Home Secretary's reluctance to employ, or sanction the employment of, the military. Mr. Churchill has been howled at as a traitor for countermanding the soldiers and sending a deprecatory message to the miners ; but it was well and wisely done. We want no Peterloo massacres in the twentieth century !

In the termination of the shipbuilding trouble, which had lasted fourteen weeks, Mr. Askwith, of the Board of Trade, added another and the greatest to his many triumphs of conciliation and peacemaking. The chief Union, though far from the only one concerned was that of the boilermakers, reputed to be the richest and best organised in Great Britain, and the members have made immense sacrifices to sustain their lock-out comrades and uphold their side of the dispute. Long before the end of the conflict the funds they could legally spend in strike pay had been exhausted, and the men were voluntarily contributing a heavy levy out of their weekly wages. It is with the greatest pleasure that I quote the following lines from the "Engineer," a technical capitalist organ, representing the interests of the manufacturers and shareholders:—"Throughout, in spite of the trouble the men and the employers have experienced, there has never been any real display of bad temper by those immediately concerned. The opponents have fought fairly and squarely like gentlemen, and what reprehensible conduct there may have been has been amongst those outside the ring. It has been a long and tedious fight, but we are not sure that it is not thereby made more effective." 1 may say that one conspicuous employer. Sir Christopher Furness, who had tried to establish co-partnership in two shipbuilding yards with which he is connected, disassociated himself from the Federation of Masters, and openly avowed his belief that there was more right on the men's side. E. D. CECIL.