Page:EB1922 - Volume 31.djvu/756

716

was suggesting the advantages of this way out. And the war munitions volunteer scheme, like the Derby scheme that followed it, was introduced as the final alternative to industrial con- scription. But unlike the Derby scheme, when it failed to realize expectations it was not converted into a compulsory scheme. The country was, as events showed, prepared to be conscripted for fighting. It was not prepared to be conscripted for working, when the work was still in a large measure to yield private profit. Industrial conscription as a means of preventing wastage was, therefore, never adopted. The three other methods were all attempted the first with no result; the second two, as will be shown, with very considerable results. In March 1915, a bill was introduced and passed through both Houses of Parliament in two days, amending Section i (3) of the Defence of the Realm Con- solidation Act 1914, which empowered the Admiralty or the Army Council

" (a) to require that there shall be placed at their disposal the whole or any part of the output of any factory or workshop in which arms, ammunition, or warlike stores or equipment, or any articles required for the production thereof, are manufactured ;

" (6) to take possession of and use for the purpose of his Majesty's naval or military service any such factory or workshop or any plant thereof."

This was amended to enable the Admiralty or Army Council to take over private factories and shipyards and to require them to be worked as directed, and " to regulate or restrict the carrying of work in any factory or workshop." The object of these words was not plain on the face of them, but their intention was to enable the Admiralty or Army Council, by giving directions which would in effect close down a factory or workshop, to cause the labour to be diverted to war work. This intention was made plain when this provision was reenacted by Section 10 of the Munitions of War Act 1913, with the addition of words directly referring to the engagement or employment of any workman or classes of workmen.

Like many other war enactments this power proved useful, but not for the purpose for which it was intended. The wholesale closing of factories in order to release labour was seen almost at once to bear too much similarity to the Chinaman's method of roasting pig. It would not only gravely dislocate trade, but it would necessarily throw out of work, not only the skilled men who would be readily reabsorbed, but a large army of unskilled men for whom work was not at the time available. Moreover, the new theory of sending work to the workman rather than the workman to the work was beginning to gain ground. And the provision, though reenacted, from this point of view fell into desuetude. But from the point of view of a weapon often flourished, and on very rare occasions used, it remained a potent weapon till the end of the war for coercing refractory employers.

The second method was attempted in the following month. On April 29 a regulation was made under the Defence of the Realm Regulations (amended later to extend its scope) imposing a penalty on manufacturers of munitions for (a) attracting men away from munitions work, and (6) for engaging any workman resident more than 10 m. from the factory in question except through a labour exchange. And as supplementary to this, the Board of Trade made a regulation under the Labour Exchange Act requiring employment-exchange officials to give priority to vacancies on war work. These regulations, except possibly in a deterrent sense, were hardly more effective than had been the effort on the first plan. So far as the first offence was concerned, evasion was fatally difficult to detect; indeed there was through- out the war no instance even of a prosecution on this head. Moreover, there was one perfectly simple method of evading the spirit of the regulation without infringing the letter. All that was necessary was for a firm to raise wages above the level of its com- petitors, and leave the news to percolate, as it invariably did.

So far as the second part of the regulation is concerned, there can be little doubt that it did contribute substantially to the centralization of labour supply, but here again the means of evasion were easily discovered. Where men from a distance were required, if it could be arranged that they should shift

their residence of their own accord to within 10 m. of the factory, they could be, and constantly were, taken in at the gates.

The solution was found under the third scheme. It had long been clear that the effective method was to restrict the workman's liberty of movement rather than the Leaving employer's right to engage, while at the same time Certin- taking action to limit the employer's freedom to fix ctes. any rates of wages which he might choose. The delay in resorting to this method was due to the great reluctance which was felt in introducing any measure which could readily be represented as, if not industrial conscription, at least as, in a way, a system of indentured labour. Both steps were taken by the first Munitions of War Act, 1915. Section 4 (2) of that Act required the employer to seek the sanction of the Minister before varying rates of wages. Section 7 required a workman on munitions work to stay with his employer unless in possession of a " leaving certificate." The actual form of the prohibition was to impose a penalty on an employer who, within six weeks from a man's leaving his previous employment on munitions work, took him on without a leaving certificate. In order to provide against a misuse of the power given to the employer by this section an appeal was allowed to a workman to a special domestic court constituted by the Muni- tions of War Act, known as the munitions tribunal.

The measure of the efficacy of this step is illustrated in part by the fact that, with the sections controlling profits and for- bidding strikes and lockouts, it was regarded by employers and workmen alike as the central provision of the new Act, and partly by the extraordinary results which followed its total repeal by the Munitions of War Act, 1917. From the day that Section 7 came into force an employer could be sure of his quota of labour, and the workman, realizing that his freedom of movement was no longer unlimited, settled down with more regularity to his work. But along with its obvious advantages this new instrument of labour regulation possessed certain obvious defects. The em- ployer was given remarkable powers. While the workman could not leave without a certificate, the employer could dismiss with- out one. When with the heavy preoccupations that the war cast on employers, dismissals and engagements were often left in the hands of foremen, it will be seen how provocative of difficulty the section might be. On the one hand, from the national point of view, a workman might be out of work for six weeks when his services were urgently needed. Prom the work- man's point of view the difficulty was more acute, since an unjustifiable dismissal without a certificate might lead to his recruitment. These were the main sources of grievance, and the complaints were bitter. The commission, consisting of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and Mr. (afterwards Sir) Lynden Macassey, who investigated the unrest on the Clyde at the end of 1915, reported that the operation of Section 7 was in many cases harsh, and was generally one of the principal causes of labour uneasiness. They did not recommend a repeal of the provision, but were strongly in favour of amendments to make its operation less harsh. The Ministry of Munitions had con- currently arrived at the same conclusions as those submitted by this commission, and in the amending Act of 1916 effect was given to them. The three most important amendments in that Act were those requiring an employer to give a certificate in all cases of dismissal, except those of misconduct, giving the work- people the right to demand a certificate if suspended for more than two days, and to require a week's notice or wages in lieu.

Even these amendments did not remove the growing tide of resentment against what was freely described in labour circles as the " slavery " section. The truth was that this was a measure which definitely affected the individual in his daily work, and its operation was always present to his mind. The measure was endurable in the earlier years of the war, but with the growing strain it began to have serious effects on the moral of the work- people. After the May strike of 1917, commissions of inquiry, under the general chairmanship of Mr. G. N. Barnes, M.P., were set up into the causes of labour unrest. All the commis- sions (which reported territorially) agreed in finding that Section 7 was a potent source of trouble.