Page images
PDF
EPUB

In the first place, experience proves that public employment by the State or the municipality provides no immunity against strikes in any country; and the examples of France and Australia go to show that, the more democratic the Government, the greater the liability to such strikes. Australia is classical, for it has been the scene of very large and determined strikes against the State under a Labour Government, in State coal mines, shipyards and railways. Then we have the war record, which is invoked to prove the altruistic influence of public service. The Government intervened between employers and employed and took control of important industries. Far more trouble occurred in these industries than in those left outside Government control. It is true that the Government did not own them; but the strikes and threats to strike, which occurred in an unending series, were against the State, against conditions determined by Government, and were carried on by men virtually employed by the State in public services. The last big strike, which was that of the Yorkshire miners in July last, is particularly instructive, because it occurred after the conclusion of peace and was directly attributed by the miners' leaders to the interference of the Government between mineowners and miners. As Mr Lloyd George said in the House of Commons, it was a strike against the State.

Further evidence is furnished by the origin of the demand for nationalisation and the manner in which it has been pressed. It was a purely sectional demand, the miners' 'national programme,' put forward in their own interests and presented to the Government with threats. Nothing was said about the public interest until the impolicy of antagonising public opinion became evident; and the miners' own scheme clearly indicated the intention of running the industry in their own interests. There is only too much ground for the misgivings enter tained by Mr Justice Sankey himself, in spite of his optimism, They find expression in the provision for bidding strikes until the dispute has been before the local and the district mining councils. No milder restriction could be framed, and the objection to it raised by the miners' representatives on the Commission throws a most sinister light on the prospects of peace under

ationalisation. The unfavourable inference inevitably rawn from it was fully justified by remarks let fall by Ir Duncan Graham, M.P., at the meeting of the Scottish liners' Federation at Ayr on Aug. 14 :

If the mines became the property of the nation, the miners ould need to be more determined than ever in their policy nd more vigorous in the trade union organisation, because, stead of fighting local employers, they would be fighting le Government.'

The speaker's subsequent attempt to explain away is statement only made it worse; it is too explicit to be xplained away. He may have been expressing his own pinion only, but he occupies a responsible position, and is remarks met with applause and were not repudiated. hey have found an echo in the newly-formed federation postal unions, which has formally adopted the strike olicy.

What prospect of peace or better service does all this Ortend? I can see none. And all there is to set against is some belated expressions of concern for the public terest and of personal belief in improvement. But no edges are given, and no action is taken as an earnest of podwill. On the contrary, if we look to the practical de-which is what really matters to the public-we see steadily dropping output when all allowance has been ade for holidays and incidental disturbances.

I can discern no way out so long as the problem is proached in the present frame of mind. The emphatic dorsement of nationalisation by the Trades Union ngress adds great weight to the demand and cannot be nored. But the Government cannot buy a little more nure of office by merely yielding to the minatory citude of the Congress; this would only ensure their eater damnation in the end. On the other hand, there no need for them to hold rigidly by their own scheme, ich seems quite hopeless, so far as can be judged from e scanty indications given by the Prime Minister. It uld have been better to adopt the scheme outlined in A. Duckham's Report, which is the best-reasoned of O Commission's various utterances. Agreement might ceivably be found somewhere between the proposals Sir A. Duckham and those of Mr Justice Sankey, the

[ocr errors]

1

two detached members of the Commission. But there will be no possibility of it without a spirit of agreement. On both sides there should be a more open mind on the subject of nationalisation. On the one hand, its possibility should be frankly recognised; and, on the other, there should be equal recognition of the right to demand some effectual guarantee or convincing proof of public benefit before the nation is asked to consent to such a leap in the dark. For the nation's consent must be asked either by a referendum or a general election.

At any rate there is material for negotiation; and before Parliament reassembles negotiations will have begun. The Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress will have brought before the Government the resolution passed on Aug. 10, peremptorily rejecting the Government's scheme (without knowing what it is) and demanding the adoption of the 'majority report.' The Government may reply that their scheme has been misunderstood, and may ask what is meant by the 'majority report.' Here is an opportunity for the Miners' Federation to prove their good faith. Are they prepared to accept the Sankey recommendations regard ing strikes, the composition of the mining councils, the disposal of subsidiary undertakings and compensation to royalty owners? Another way of lessening public dis trust would be for every lodge to pass a resolution pledging themselves to do their best in the national interest. But the most convincing and the only true test is a practical trial or period of probation.

I put forward these suggestions for the avoidance of a disastrous conflict, but have little expectation of their being acted on. We are much more likely to have a great battle leading to a general election. For my own part I should like to see the Labour Party form & Government, for there will be no peace and no stability until its discordant elements exchange the easy business of criticism and agitation for practical administration, and shoulder the responsibility of carrying on the affairs of the country.

A. SHADWELL

rt. 11.-IRELAND AND FEDERALISM.

Federal Government: Its Function and Method. By Prof. G. B. Adams. New York: Knickerbocker Press. 1919.

Report of the Proceedings of the Irish Convention, 1917-8. [Cd. 9019.]

Forms of Government within the Empire: Memorandum printed for the use of the Irish Convention.

Irish Peace and an Irish Settlement. Articles and Correspondence in 'The Times,' 1919.

EDERALISM has long been advocated as a a means of Loser union, of more formal union, between the United ingdom and the five Dominions, and possibly India and ther parts of the Empire, but recently it has been more ften suggested as a means of meeting three distinct roblems within the United Kingdom itself: namely, rst, the congestion of work in the Parliament of the nited Kingdom; secondly, the Irish claim for selfovernment; and, thirdly, the Ulster objection to any ach concession. In view of the proposed appointment fa Parliamentary Committee to consider federal evolution in connexion with the first matter and the resent state of the Irish question and the Ulster difficulty, he time seems opportune for examining this suggeson. The object of this article is not to consider the eed for devolution in the United Kingdom, or the erits or demerits of the demand in Ireland for selfovernment, or of the Ulster attitude thereto, but merely inquire how far federalism is applicable to or helpful or the solution of these problems. Federalism, however, a term little understood and vaguely used; it therere appears necessary, first of all, to ascertain, as far is possible in a limited space, what federal governent really means.

Prof. Adams's book discusses, from the standpoint of political philosopher, the function and method of deralism; but more useful for present purposes is the ction on federal government in the 'Memorandum on orms of Government within the Empire,' which it is nderstood was written by one of the Secretaries of the ish Convention and circulated among the members for

their information. The Memorandum points out that federalism, as the term is generally understood, has usually arisen where countries capable of union and connected by the bond of many common interests became desirous of union in some matters but of the retention of independence in others. History, from the days of the Achæan League, furnishes many examples of states so situated. Sometimes the desire or necessity for complete union gained the upper hand, with the result that unification ensued, as it did in South Africa. Sometimes the desire for individual independence prevailed, and little more than an alliance resulted, as in the case of the confederation of the thirteen American States in 1777. Both to alliances and incorporate unions the term 'federation' has been applied by some writers, but it is usually confined to the intermediate cases where, on the one hand, each of the federating communities continues in possession of certain powers with which the central government cannot interfere (whereby a federation is distinguished from an incorporate union); and where, on the other hand, the union has been sufficiently close to enable the central government-in which each of the federating units is represented-to deal, as regards the matters assigned to it, not merely with the governments of the federating communities (as in the case of confederate alliances), but also direct with the individuals who compose these communities.

The Memorandum states that it is only to unions of this nature that the term 'federal' can be properly applied; and, though this statement may appear somewhat sweeping, the writer seems to establish his case by an analysis of the three great federal systems that exist among English-speaking people. When the thirteen American Confederate States decided in 1788 to enter into a federal bond, a central government representative of the thirteen states had to be called into existence; and the powers government-to use a convenient if technically inaccurate term-had to be divided between this new government and the existing state or local governments. The plan adopted was the assignment to the central government of certain matters and the retention of practically all other matters by the state governments. When, eighty years later, the British provinces of North America were

« PreviousContinue »