TOPICS • OF THE DAY
MR. BALDWIN AND THE MINERS
MR. BALDWIN has not been fairly treated by his critics, whether Unionist, Liberal or Labour. They have taunted him with yielding to threats, with enthroning direct action, with inspiring in the workers the idea that they have only to ask and get, and with taking the first step on the slippery slope of subsidies— of wholesale as well as retail dealings in the dole. Nothing could be more unfair, nothing could less represent the facts. Mr. Baldwin did not yield to threats. What he yielded to was the force of circumstances. After he discovered that the wrong turn had been taken, he refused to drive on as hard as he could for fear of being obliged to admit that he had blundered. Of course, he was foolish to get on to the wrong road ; but, at any rate, he had the pluck to cut the national loss and not pretend that there was no precipice at the end of the lane when he had found out that there was.
I shall not find excuses for Mr. Baldwin's mistake in allowing the Bank of England and Mr. Churchill to commit the Government to their dangerous financial policy, for forgetting to count the political and social cost of that policy, and for letting his personal views be over- borne—as I fancy was the case. All the same I utterly refuse to blame him for not adding obstinacy to his mistake. Like a wise commander-in-chief, he asked for a report from his general staff whether the ground occupied by an over-eager corps commander was a good place to fight on. The answer he received from the men he trusted with the duty of advising him—men of high skill and experience—was firm and precise. Calmly, clearly, and without fuss or emotionalism, they warned him of the perils, moral and intellectual as well as material and financial, to which he would be exposed if he fought where he was.
To drop the evil-omened metaphors of war, they pointed out to him in unprovocative, but none the less emphatic, terms that it was by no means safe to assume that the Coal Industry was being efficiently or economically run, or that the workers had no case for believing that there were other and better ways of saving the industry than cutting down wages and depressing Labour. In effect, they declared that it would be most unwise to risk the safety and welfare of the nation on an unsound dilemma of " Lower wages or closed pits."
I do not hesitate to say that the Prime Minister, faced with the Report of the Court of Inquiry, and with the condition of public opinion at once caused by that Report, would have behaved like a lunatic instead of a statesman if he had acted otherwise than he did. He may, by his original negligence, have brought on a situation of peril, but he saved it by his courage and firmness. A fantastic defence ? No, a true one.
Consider for a moment, and without prejudice, what the Prime Minister did. He did what business men are constantly doing, and wisely doing. Jones and Robinson, a firm with a large but rather chaotic and old-fashioned business, and one apt to have sudden ups and downs, find themselves in a precarious position—an almost hopeless one. And they believe that unless they take rertain drastic measures, which prima facie seem fraught with great peril—veritable counsels of despair—they are doomed. What does any prudent friend of the firm do in such a case? His reply is almost one of corn- mon form. " Oh, well, I hope things are not as bad as you fear. Anyway, I will look into the matter and advise you." " Very well, but for heaven's sake don't delay, for we literally can't carry on much longer." The next step is for the friend to say : " I've had a pre- liminary look round and admit things don't look at all well ; but, all the same, I think I could find a way out if you will give me time for a thorough investigation. I am by no means sure that you are working your busi- ness on sound lines. There seems to be room for re■ organization." " But we can't wait for investigation. While you are investigating we shall become insolventi We haven't the wherewithal to pay our weekly charges. You are simply telling us to go under without a struggle, and we won't and can't ! We'd rather take what you call a desperate course than that." The final stage in the negotiations is also very near common form. " Well, I'll tell you what I'll do, though it's hardly business. I'll finance you. I'll keep you going for six months while I make a thorough inquiry, provided you'll either take my advice at the end or else agree to sell out on equitable terms and let someone else try his hand." The embarrassed firm at first sulks and curses, and says : " Call yourself a friend ! You're taking the side of our business enemies." In the end, however, it submits, and the inquiry takes place.
De nobis fabula narratur. The story fits ourselves, and I for one cannot abuse Mr. Baldwin, because, in the circumstances in which he found himself in the last days of July, he acted as he did and consented to keep the Coal Industry going pending investigation.
There is nothing more to be said about the Inquiry except to express the hope that the imperative need for increasing the demand for coal will not for an instant be forgotten, and to express the belief that under present conditions almost the only way is to coin our coal into oil—if not by low temperature carbonization, then, may be, by the new German process. " We don't want coal we want oil," says the world. Admitted. Why, then; should not necessity once more be the mother of invention ?
J. ST. LOE STRACHEY.
Previous page
