One of the most interesting of the contributions to the
dispute as to the recent colliery strike is Lord llefasham's reply to Mr. Byles (M.P. for the Shipley division of the North- West Riding) in Wednesday's Times. Lord Masham uses stronger language against Mr. Byles than was prudent or- necessary for his purpose; bat he shows that he has been regarded as a liberal and kind master by his own employes, and has twice received from them a testimonial of their gratitude; that he has spent far more than half-a-million in patents, which have, at considerable risk to himself, greatly improved the position both of the labourer, the capitalist, and the consumer; and that he looks at all these labour disputee. as practical questions, with the interest of the labourers, no less than that of the capitalists, in view. He points out that the Ackton. Colliery had been working for some time before the strike at a ruinous loss, and only three days a week ; -that the colliery could not, at the very high wages which were then being paid, compete either in the London or the foreign markets with coal produced at leas cost; and that in this condition of the facts of the case, Mr. Byles's statement that "Lord Masham, the colliery-owner, was seeking to sub- due the men by the weapon of starvation," is not only contrary to the fact, but simply ridiculous. What Lord Masharn was doing was attempting, in the interests both of capital and labour, to reduce prosperity wages, which could not have gone on, to moderately good adversity wages, so that the col- fiery might work without ruinous loss to the owner, and not
be stopped altogether.
Previous page
