Page images
PDF
EPUB

comes to pretty nearly the same thing. There is, therefore, a general resemblance between the schemes in this respect, though important differences in detail. It is impossible to tell, from the scanty outline given by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on Aug. 18, what the Government's scheme is. He made no mention of pit committees or of a national council, but they are not incompatible with the organisation he did indicate and may very well form part of it.

There is one other important point of agreement, namely that the manager of each colliery should be responsible for its working. Mr Justice Sankey's Report makes explicit provision for this in Paragraph XLV :

'Every mine shall be under one duly certificated manager, who shall be responsible for the control, management, direction and safety of the mine and the extent and method of working, provided always that such manager shall not be personally liable for conforming to any lawful order for safety made by the District Mining Council.'

The miners' representatives raised no objection to this provision, which is quite incompatible with the scheme proposed by the Miners' Federation. Thus one deadlock is removed which would have rendered the conduct of the industry impossible; for the mine-managers could not have worked under the Federation scheme.

Here, however, agreement ends and serious differences begin. They are many and various, but the heart of the conflict is the question of public or private ownership and control-otherwise the question of nationalisation. Everything else is secondary to that; and the battle will be fought mainly, though not entirely, upon it.

Before going on to discuss the position, let me say & word about the feeling of the public and my own attitude. The question is one on which strong prejudice exists on both sides; and most of the controversy about it is inspired, on one side, by the preconceived opinion that nationalisation is in itself and necessarily a good thing, and, on the other side, by the counter-opinion, that it is essentially a bad thing. This prejudice colours the arguments on both sides; they are partisan arguments. It is a common feature of controversy, but is exceptionally

arked in the present case, and peculiarly unfortunate, ecause the question at issue is of great practical imortance and one which should be decided on its merits 7 dispassionate scrutiny. That should have been the nction of the Coal Commission.

The Commission should have been a judicial inquiry onducted by competent judges and with the partisan ement confined to the witness chair. Then the findings the Court would have served as a real guide to the blic, who are the final judges. It implies no reflexion the Chairman to say that the partisan composition of e Commission made this impossible. The time limit was nother obstacle to the sort of inquiry that was needed. hatever scheme was adopted for the future conduct of e industry, it should have been presented in detail with Le reasons for the several provisions included in it and e manner of their working explained. But that was ite impossible; and the result is that, apart from the artisans, the public are left confused, bewildered and ritated. They feel that they are being rushed into mething which they do not understand, but on which eir future prosperity, their comfort and even their lives ay depend.

Now I do not believe that this public of whom I speak ve any prejudice against nationalisation, though they -ve none in favour of it. I believe they have an open ind and would accept any proposed plan, if they were nvinced that it would be for the benefit of the mmunity. That is my own attitude. I have no ejudice against nationalisation. I see that several ings have been nationalised or municipalised-which is e same thing in principle-without producing red ruin d the breaking-up of laws or even making any arked difference one way or the other. If the benefits nferred by the change from private to public ownership d administration are doubtful or imperceptible, as I ink they generally are, the disadvantages, on the her hand, have in no case been such as to excite any mand for a return to the former conditions, which uld certainly have happened if they had been at all ious or acutely felt.

Among the things that have been nationalised in some untries are coal mines; and I have long regarded the

nationalisation of the mines in this country as a possible and even probable development, if not a certain one. The mining industry is one of those that could conceivably be carried on by the State. There are many that could not, for definite and sufficient reasons into which I need not enter here, because they do not apply to mining or apply in very small measure.

The prospect of nationalisation, therefore, neither surprises nor alarms me in itself. Nor am I at all impressed by the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument, which foresees in the transference of this industry the same fate for all others. On the contrary, I think the effect might be exactly the opposite. It is strange that those who think the nationalisation of mines would be ruinous do not see that, if that were the result, there would be an intense reaction, and the policy would be utterly discredited. Of course those who regard nationalisation as an end in itself would be unconvinced and unchanged. They would lay the blame on anything rather than their sacred fetish, and would demand further sacrifices to it as the certain remedy for the failure of those already made. People with an idée fixe always do that. But no one would listen to them, and it would be a long time before the policy got another hearing. Once bit, twice shy, is a true adage.

In any case so great an experiment would have to justify itself before consent could be obtained for another. Labour itself would insist upon that; and by Labour I mean the general body of workmen, not the 'hot-air merchants,' as they call each other, who assume the name and pose for the part. In spite of all the congresses that ever sat, workmen are by no means enamoured of nationalisation; many of them disbelieve in it altogether, and a great many more are doubtful. They would all want to see how it worked before extend. ing it. And they would be very difficult to satisfy. The nationalisers have seen to that by their advocacy. In order to win support they have raised expectations which they cannot satisfy, as men in their position always do.

Nationalisation is a Mesopotamia, as I have said in my pamphlet on the subject; a blessed word which every one interprets in his own way. To the miners

who believe in nationalisation it means less work and more pay, to be their own masters and do pretty much as they please. The Russian workmen and peasants Looked to such results from their revolution, and they have had a rude awakening. Things will not be so bad nere, but it will be impossible to satisfy the expectations raised, because two and two will still make four, even hough Mr Smillie himself were Prime Minister and Sir L. C. Money Chancellor of the Exchequer. Their position would be instantly changed by the achievement of their aims. Instead of denouncing, demanding and criticising —a part that every fool can play-they would themselves be the object of denunciations, demands and criticisms from their disappointed and discontented followers, and would be in no position to pursue an aggressive policy. They would be on the defensive and pretty hard put to t to keep their footing. Success is the Nemesis of the lemagogue.

For these reasons I cannot share the apprehensions of those who think that the nationalisation of mines vould open the flood-gates and pour a devastating orrent of revolutionary change over our industries at arge. But I am equally unimpressed by the opposite view that it would work wonders in the mining industry nd benefit producers and consumers alike. It would vork no wonders. It never has done so anywhere. Any advantages it may confer are counter-balanced by lisadvantages. In that country where the State has been a more efficient instrument of administration than n any other, the two systems-public and private-have een in operation together and can be compared. The omparison is not to the advantage of the first. The dministration of the State mines of Prussia has been onspicuously inferior to that of the privately-owned. It has been less efficient, slower to adopt improvements, nore backward; it has paid lower wages and done far ess for the miners in other ways, in housing and welfare work; and the miners are less free under it. Nor is it ny answer to say that the proposed system here would e quite different. So is the proposed private system. One must compare the two under the same conditions; nd the experience we have to go by does not bear out he promises made on behalf of nationalisation. It is a

singular thing that so little guidance was sought from experience at the Sankey inquiry, for experience is the best guide.

I can see no general ground, then, for expecting that nationalisation would fulfil the promise of benefiting both producers and consumers; and, on the other hand, there are particular grounds for expecting a disastrous conflict between these interests. That will arise from the way in which the demand has been made and pressed; it is the most sinister feature of the whole business and one that fills the public with mistrust. It brings me back to the point where I broke off before proceeding to examine the present position; and to this point I return.

The demand for nationalisation comes from the Miners' Federation-a fact that should be kept in view, because that body exists to advance the interests of miners, and has never pretended to subordinate them to any other interests, though some spokesmen have recently found it politic to profess concern for the latter. It is an old demand on paper, but it took a new turn and entered the field of practical politics, as a live issue, at the end of January last, when the Federation, following a conference held earlier in the month, presented a series of demands to the Government at the time of the rioting at Glasgow and Belfast and during the absence of the Prime Minister at the Peace Conference. The Federation demanded an increase of 30 per cent. in wages, a sixhours' day, the nationalisation of mines and some other things. The Government in reply offered an immediate advance of 1s. a day and a joint inquiry into the other demands. This offer was communicated to the miners' conference at Southport on Feb. 12 and summarily refused. On Feb. 21 the Prime Minister met the Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation and offered a Commission of Inquiry into their demands. This offer was accepted on condition that the miners nominated half the Commission, exclusive of the Chairman, and that the Commission reported on the question of hours and wages by March 20. The Commission was appointed, with Mr Justice Sankey for Chairman, and began the inquiry at once. In the mean time the Federation had held a ballot on the question of striking to enforce their

« PreviousContinue »