Page:EB1922 - Volume 30.djvu/1056

1000

was made to force a way into Buckingham Palace to petition the King in person; and His Majesty was subjected, on sev- eral public occasions, to rude interruption. The number of militants actually committing crimes was small, but they had a large number of enthusiastic sympathizers who kept them well supplied with funds. Formal protests and condemnation by the non-militant section of suffragists had no effect on the campaign, which was only terminated by the coming of war.

Although the labour conflicts of 1913 and the first seven months of 1914 were not on the scale of the great strikes of 1912, there was constant unrest, and many signs that sen- t/ore"/" ous trouble was brewing. The Labour party in Par- liament marked their increasing divergence from the principles accepted by both the historical parties by moving, at the beginning of the session of 1913, an amendment to the Ad- dress, which was of course easily defeated, in favour of a gen- eral system of nationalization. While there were sporadic strikes in various parts of Great Britain in the autumn and winter of that year, the principal disturbance was in Dublin and the neighbourhood, where, under the leadership of James Larkin, of the Irish Transport-Workers' Union, a series of strikes was organized, which lasted, despite official and other efforts at settlement, from Aug. to the close of the year, and which, during part of that time, brought the trade of the port of Dublin to a standstill. Larkin conducted his campaign with violence, was more than once arrested, was convicted of using seditious language, imprisoned, and then after a fortnight re- leased. At first there was much sympathy from the Trades Union Congress and other representatives of English labour; the Dublin strikers were supplied with funds from England, and there were some half-hearted attempts at sympathetic strikes. But Larkin's revolutionary attitude, which had already antagonized moderate Irish Nationalists, eventually alienated British labour leaders, and left him only the support of the extremists, who held the first Syndicalist congress in Great Britain that autumn and declared in favour of " direct action." Early in 1914 there was great indignation in British labour circles over the deportation by the South African Government of the labour leaders concerned in strike disturbances in Johannesburg. They were received, on their arrival in England, with great demonstrations at the London Opera House and in Hyde Park; and an unsuccessful attempt was made by the Labour party in Parliament to interfere with the discretion of a self-governing dominion. The irritation caused by this deportation was symp- tomatic of the general labour unrest, which in the first half of 1914 affected miners, engineers, gas-workers, char-workers, municipal employees, dockers, transport-workers, coal-porters and many other groups of artisans. The absolute refusal to work with a non-unionist had so disorganized the London building trade that a stubborn struggle, which lasted for months, was begun by a general lockout in January. In May the railway ser- vants decided to demand the recognition of their trade union, a 48 hours' week, and an increase of wages by 53. weekly; and in June they gave a final approval to the " Triple Alliance " of their union with the Miners' Federation and the Transport Workers' Federation. The industrial prospect was dark.

The opening of the year 1913 found Parliament still in session, and engaged in completing the final stages of the Home Rule Home Rule an< ^ Welsh Disestablishment bills. The report stage BUI reject- of the Home Rule bill did not produce any serious amendment except the introduction of proportional representation in the nine proposed Irish constituen- cies returning three or four members. There was a notable de- bate on New Year's Day on Sir Edward Carson's motion to exclude the province of Ulster from the operation of the meas- ure. Mr. Asquith, while expressing his readiness to consider additional safeguards, denounced the proposal as a claim by Ulster to veto Home Rule. Mr. Bonar Law solemnly promised support by the Unionist party to Ulster if the bill were forced on her and she resisted. The Government had its normal major- ity of about 100. The third reading debate on Jan. 15 and 16 did not reveal any new arguments, but Mr. Redmond stated

that the Nationalists accepted the bill as a final settlement. In spite of Unionist predictions of immeasurable calamity, the third reading was carried by 367 to 257. The Lords debated the bill on second reading for four days (Jan. 27, 28, 29 and 30) before rejecting it by 326 to 69. The impossibility of working the scheme in face of the resistance of Ulster was the main ground put forward by the Unionists for rejection. But the most interesting feature of the debate was the strong advocacy by Lord Grey, ex-Governor-General of Canada, of a solution on federal lines a proposal supported in a striking speech by the Archbishop of York (Dr. Lang). Neither the passing of the bill by the Commons, nor its rejection by the Lords, evoked any serious popular excitement.

Before the Welsh bill left the Commons its provisions were further mitigated in some slight degree. An amendment was adopted, favoured by Liberal churchmen, giving the Church body the option of commuting the life w f lsh Bin

o/u in, reiected

interests of the clergy on a 3 % basis. There was a t>y Lords. strong attempt made by the Unionists to confine the purposes to which the confiscated Church property should be applied to the advancement of the Christian religion by grants to Nonconformist churches. But, as the spokesmen of the Nonconformists repudiated the idea of concurrent endowment, the amendment was rejected by 273 to 200, though the Government agreed to limitation to charitable and eleemosynary purposes. The third reading was carried on Feb. 5 by the usual Government majority, after an eloquent exposition by Mr. Lloyd George of the sentiments of the Welsh people. The measure was debated on second reading by the Lords on Feb. n, 12 and 13, and rejected by 252 to 51. Sixteen bishops voted in the majority; those of Hereford (Percival) and Oxford (Gore) in the minority.

The rejection- of these two bills by the Lords, and the deter- mination of ministers and of their majority in the Commons to override the veto of the Upper House through the use of second the powers conferred by the Parliament Act, were the stage of considerations governing the whole course of politics ** Two down to the outbreak of war. The main purpose of the sessions of 1913 and 1914 was to carry the two meas- ures through the Commons a second and third time, so as to qualify them for passage into law in spite of the Lords. Feeling was naturally exacerbated by so high-handed a policy; especially as both bills, though apparently supported by the bulk of opinion in Ireland and Wales respectively, were strongly resisted by a majority of the parliamentary representatives of England, the predominant partner in each case. A recess of only three days separated the prorogation of the prolonged session of 1912 from the opening of the session of 1913 on March 10. The Opposition immediately joined issue on the Address by an amendment which asserted that the Irish and Welsh bills ought not to be proceeded with while the constitution of Parliament was still incomplete and without reference to the electors; but they were defeated by 262 to 169. The two controversial bills were carried for a second time through the Commons by the normal Government majority. As the Opposition resisted both measures in principle, no use was made of the limited opportunity for " suggestion " of amendments in Committee permitted by the. Parliament Act. When the two bills came up to the House of Lords they were both met with identical resolutions that " this House declines to proceed with the consideration of the bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the country." This was carried in the case of the Irish bill by 302 to 64; in that of the Welsh bill by 242 to 88. Thus the second stage for both under the Parliament Act was duly completed.

In all the debates on the Home Rule bill the Unionist leaders dwelt with insistence on the serious prospect before the country. We were " on the verge of a great national tragedy," fi, e said Mr. Balfour. The Liberals were crying peace Menace where there .was no peace, said Sir Edward Car- son; Ulster had behind her in her resistance the whole force of the Conservative and Unionist party The Liberals and Nationalists, however, still maintained that the Ulster attitude