NEWS OF THE WEEK.

THEgreat railway strike took the public unawares—in this it followed the fashion of most wars. For this strike, which is the most considerable attempt ever made by a section of Labour to hold up the whole country, is undoubtedly a war, and follows the rules of war. When we went to press last week there seemed to be a fair hope of a settlement. At that time (on Thursday week) the National Union of Railwaymen, although prepared to strike at midnight next day, because they considered Sir Auckland Geddes's " definitive " offer unsatisfactory, had just accepted, through their Secretary, Mr. J. H. Thomas, an offer of further Conferences with the Government. The dispute about Sir Auckland Geddes's word " definitive " is now very old history, and matters very little. The question whether Sir Auckland Geddes by the use of that word meant

final " or " unchangeable " became entirely academic when the Conferences with the Ministers began.

These Conferences took place on Thursday and Friday week. On the Friday afternoon it became known that they had been without effect, and that the strike would take place at midnight in accordance with the notices to the men already issued. It was not till Monday that the newspapers published an official account of what happened at the Conferences. We cannot call to mind the publication of a stranger record of negotiations.

We suppose, indeed, that this publication of a verbatim report of conversations between Cabinet Ministers and Labour leaders

while the life-and-death interests of the nation were at stake is without parallel. The report is like a flashlight which suddenly fixes the members of the Conference, as it were, in undress. We see men who have been accustomed to meet on friendly terms in the House of Commons still expostulating with one

another in a friendly manner although they are on the point of declaring war. Take the following passage, for example :—

'" Mr. TnostAs—Suppose I am in a position to show that the proposal offered by the Government for standard rates, say, to a guard, or a goods worker, or any other grade, it does not matter what, is not so advantageous even on percentage as another grade.

Sir Ewe GEDDES (in a whispered aside to the Prime Minister)— We could not do that.

Mr. Tztoste.s—Then I need not say anything further.

The PRIME Mr/miss—Please continue, Mr. Thomas. Sir Eric Geddes's remark was addressed to me privately, and you ought not to have heard it.

Mr. Tnomas—Here we are within a few hours of the strike and X. am doing all I can to help you. The PRIME MINISTER—When we are consulting together you are not supposed to hear.

Mr. THOMAS—But it is no good when he says : I cannot agree to that.' I had not made the suggestion.

The PRIME MINISTER—That is something which is said to me."

This passage is illuminating in several ways. It gives us a picture of two extremely skilful debaters, both of whom happen to be Welsh, trying to trip each other up in debate. Mr. Thomas has since magnified the incident which is related in this dialogue, and has tried to convince the public that Sir Eric Geddes is the evil genius who has stood in the way of a settlement. But for him, Mr. Thomas has said, the Prime Minister would have arranged a handsome settlement with the men. Of course this is moonshine. Sir Eric Geddes is now head of the whole transport system of the country, and he is the authorized adviser of the Prime Minister. To pretend that the Government and Sir Eric Geddes have different policies at this moment is to ask the public to believe that collective responsibility in the Cabinet, though it is true that it has been considerably neglected in the past, is at an even lower ebb than it actually is.

We have not space to summarize the whole report of the Conferences, but as a political document it is well worth examination, and we advise those of our readers who have missed it to read it. The issue which arose may be briefly stated. Since the beginning of the war a series of advances in wages have brought it about that all railway workers receive a special flat-rate war wage of 33s. a week in addition to their pre-war wages. Last March it was agreed that no wages should be reduced below the present level—that is, the pre-war wages plus the special war wage—before December 31st. It was also arranged that between March and December 31st of this year new basic rates should be fixed. As all the world knows, new rates have already been fixed for the drivers, firemen, and cleaners. In most cases of the drivers and firemen the new rates are at higher rates than pre-war wages, and the special war wage is still added. Mr. Thomas demanded that the new rates for other grades should follow the " principle " adopted in the case of the drivers and firemen. In other words, he demanded that every worker should receive the highest rate paid before the war in his particular grade plus 33s. a week permanently. In every case, he also laid it down, there should be a minimum of £3 a week.

The offer made by the Government was that the new rates for grades other than drivers and firemen should be, on the average, 100 per cent. above their pre-war rates with a minimum of £2 a week ; that the difference between these new rates and the present rates should be maintained until the cost of living had fallen to 110 per cent. over the pre-war figure. At the time the special war wage reached the total of 33s. the cost of living over the pre-war figure was 125 per cent. To-day it is estimated at 115 per cent. over. The Government, moreover, proposed that when the cost of living had fallen to the 110 per cent. level the residue of the war wage should still be paid until the cost of living had remained at or below the 110 per cent. level for three months. That is to say, no wages could be reduced by a penny till six months hence. Even then, according to the Government proposal, the residue of the war wage should not be discontinued suddenly, but should be readjusted gradually either by a sliding-scale or by a reference to an independent Tribunal. As the cost of living would certainly fall fairly rapidly if the workers of the country would put their backs into their work—it is already falling slightly in spite of the unrest and all the difficulties caused by lack of transport and raw material—the offer of the Government seems generous.

But even if it did not satisfy all the expectations of the men or their interpretation of what the Government had promised them, the fact remains, as we have said, that there can in no

ease be any alteration in wages for another six months. The decision of the Executive of the National Union of Railwaymen to try to paralyse the country at this moment makes one look about for some reason other than the admitted one for this

outrage Minister r in a which ha n our life awndournsaatiot to c national.The1t

Saturday announcing that he would be unable to fulfil an engagement to speak there declared that the strike was on the face of it inexplicable. He pointed out that apart from the Government's offer, which we have already summarized, the Government had promised to remove any anomalies or injustices which could be proved, and that when Mr. Thomas still seemed determined to go on with his strike policy, the Government asked in vain for two or three days' delay for further discussion. The Prime Minister, therefore, like a great many other people, looks to what lies behind the strike policy. In his telegram he expressed his belief that there was " an Anarchist plot of a few " who have captured and coerced their more sober colleagues.

The Prime Minister's language is strong, but we are convinced that it represents a substantial truth. A good many papers were inclined to take much too lightly the warnings which were issued by a Government official some weeks ago about Bolshevik intrigue in this country. For our part, we have no doubt about the essentially good intentions of Mr.Thomas. We believe that he has tried to keep Labour to its legitimate channels, and that he is at heart a Constitutionalist who believes that democracy should be a reality—that the votes of the majority should prevail. Unhappily he has been overborne by stronger and much more extreme colleagues. His position now is almost tragic. The railway strike will certainly fail, and he can then hope for little consideration from those moderate-minded men among the workers (as a, matter of fact, the vast majority) who will :feel• that he has led them e very badly. He can expect no sympathy from the extremists, who will • -tell him that • but for his pernicious caution a losing cause would have been a winning one.

Surely it would have been much better for Mr. Thomas to take the line of what might be described as still bolder-caution. He ought to have 'told the members of the National Union of Railwaymen, over whom he had an extraordinary influence, the simple truth, that their real wages would rise in accordance with the efforts of the whole industrial community. He ought to have told them fearlessly that if Labour was to rule the country in a stable manner, it must do so with the consent of the majority of the people, and that for that purpose it would be necessary to convince the majority. He ought to have told them that nothing good for Labour or beneficial for anybody could come out of violence and the paralysis of the country. Instead of that, he too often showed, as we pointed out last week, an unfortunate sensitiveness which made him respond unduly to his immediate environment. In this case he has, we fear, allowed himself to be led into a. disastrous policy—disastrous not only from the point of view of the public, but from the point of view of the railwaymen, whom, we freely admit,the has served loyally and ungrudgingly for many years. Even if the men should nominally win their • point, they , would really •lose, for the cost of living will, be more against -them than ever.

The Morning Post of Tuesday published from its special correspondent who makes a business of carefully collating the Sayings of Labour leaders some of the remarks of Mr. Cramp, who is the President of the National Union of Railwaymen. Mr. Thomas, as we have said, is at heart a Constitutionalist, but Mr. Cramp, President of the Union, who •seems to have been driving Mr. Thomas, is quite otherwise. At Carlisle on May 26th Mr. Cramp said : " Whenever you say you are ripe for industrial revolution I am with you, but not for a trade dispute. Let us approach it with our eyes open and be free to carry it through." In another 'speech Mr. Cramp declared that the "-centre of gravity was passing from the -House of Commons to the headquarters of the great Trade Unions." These sentiments mean very much what the Prime Minister said—namely, that there is " an Anarchist plot of a few." _ Mr. Thomas may try, as he is doing, in a -very unconvincing manner, I make the public: believe that nothing is at stake but a question of wages, and that the public) may look on, as it were, unconcerned and undismayed. • Mr. Thomas, as we all know, has a certain suavity, but suavity applied to the present conditions becomes rather ridiculous. How can poor old infirm men, or delicate girls, ' or overworked and frail women, who find themselves stranded far from their -destination or their daily means of livelihood, look on at this great railway strike in the manner prescribed by Mr. Thomas ?

We have no small respect and liking for Mr. Thomas, but some of his complaints in regard to unfair and exaggerated statements made by the newspapers as to the strike remind us a little of an American story. A Western editor was one day accosted in his effice by a visitor as follows : "I've come to see you about an accident that happened yesterday. I was at dinner at my brother-in-law's, and we got into a bit of a discussion on politics and I knifed him, and then hi the' excitement of the moment I scalped him. Knowing how easily exaggerated accounts of things get into the papers, I thought I'd come round and tell you the real facts."

Of course every man, woman, and child cannot feel otherwise than that the issue is a matter of life and death, not only for them in their own families; 'but for all the families of the -nation in their corporate capacity. If the strike succeeded and Mr. Cramp's views were to prevail, Mr. Cramp, with his friends Mr. &Mille and Mr. Williams, would have to take the place of the Government. They would be the persons in control of the situation ; there would be no alternative to• their rule. That is why popular opinion, which as usual has seized upon the true elements of the problem, is so strongly'opposed to the strikers, against whom• personally there is no illwill. The dispute has left wages far behind. We are disputing for and against a revolution.

We began this summaryby-speaking of the great strike as a war, and the similarity extends in many directions. Just as the Germans made miscalculations on many points when they plunged the world in horror, so we think have the Executive of the National Union of • Railwaymen made miscalculations. From their point of view they.-have chosen a bad battlefield. Let us 'mention a few of the things they have forgotten :(1) There is now no powerful foreign enemy doing what Germany used to-do whenever we suffered from industrial-strife--threatening to take advantage of our temporary weakness and forcing us to this or that surrender. (2) The whole nation ,has become accustomed during the war to be rationed in necessaries and to go on short commons generally. If a rationing system• had now to be introduced suddenly and for •the first time, it might have •been resisted. As things ar0, the-nation is perfectly compliant, and accepts thankfully what is done for it, 'knowing that it is for its own good. We shall therefore go-through this crisis with a much smaller waste of food than would have been possible or• conceivable in previous years. (3) The development of motor traction, largely owing to, the war, has revolutionized the situation as regards the -possibility of supplyingthe nation apart from the railways. What happened at Verdun when the Germans cut the principal-railway-and the defending French army was fed by a constant stream of motor-lorries covering a road •thirty miles :long is now being -reproduced here. For London Hyde Park has become •the centre of-distribution. It is a wonderful sight. It is also a success.

An observant stranger who •had heard much of .the conventional talk on Labour platforms about the fight against capital-ism,-and who then watched the plodding but brave and patient crowds which have been streaming in and out of London every day along all the roads, would laugh if he did not feel more inclined to weep at the awful irony. This is no fight against capitalism, but a •demand made.-on the State that the State should pay more than it can afford to pay on a losing concern. If the strikers should succeed, and more pay were enforced, that pay would come out of the pockets of the very people who are now seen wearily plodding their way to their work every morning, and struggling or waiting for some means of conveyance home at the end of a -tiring day.

Fortunately the strikehas dealt the publica -less severe blow, severe though it is, than might have been expected. Many trains on all the knee have been ,run by volunteers. The power-station at Lot's Road, Chelsea, for the -District Railway, was restarted after a couple of lays-with 'volunteer help, •-and after three days or so of the strike it came to be generally understood that it was a disgrace to drive amotor-car with .empty 'seats anywhere on the 'main roads to London. Even the Thames, though it has been neglected by Londoners more than perhaps

any river in the world has been neglected, has once again become a highway, and river craft of various kinds have broughp workers into London from such places as Kew and Richmond.

Every day that passed showed the rapid growth of the Government organization, and the eager response of the public to the demand for volunteers in the work of feeding the nation. Men and women of all classes cheerfully undertook the humblest tasks in the railway stations, goods yards, and signal-boxes. By Thursday morning the railway companies were able to arrange for so many trains on the main and suburban lines that the list filled nearly six columns of the Times. A number of goods trains were also running. Many railwaymen returned to duty on Tuesday and Wednesday. Several of the London electric railways provided a fair service by the middle of the week. All this voluntary effort, wisely guided by the Ministry of Food and other Departments, resulted in the maintenance of a regular supply of milk, bread, and meat in London and the great cities of the North. There was a sufficiency of food for every one. The country was not to be starved into surrender.

Another remarkable feature of the week has been the rapid development of long-distance motor transport for passengers. One seemed to be taken back into the old coaching days when one saw a motor-coach in Piccadilly ready to take passengers to Penzance or Falmouth, or when one read advertisements of regular motor-services to Manchester and Leeds at very moderate fares. The aeroplane is, of comae, available for the rich man in a hurry, as well as for the aerial post which began on Wednesday. But we are inclined to think that the long-distance motor-char-it-bane may prove a formidable rival to the express train when this strike is over and forgotten. The open road has, for many of us, more charm than the stuffy interior of a railway carriage, and it is not always necessary to get to the journey's end at the speed of an express. Mr. Thomas, without meaning it, has perhaps opened a new era in travelling.

An important development of the crisis began on Wednesday. The Transport Workers' Federation held a Conference of the Trade Unions chiefly affected by the strike. Mr. Thomas and Mr. Bromley, for the railwaymen, were invited to attend and to address the Conference. The delegates, we are told, " unanimously agreed that the fight was purely a Trade Union one for wages and conditions " ; that is to say, they disavowed the interpretation placed upon the sudden strike by the Prime Minister and by the public generally—namely, that it was prompted by a revolutionary clique who had gained control of the Executive of the National Union of Railwaymen. The Conference then sent a deputation to the Prime Minister. He told them plainly that the Government could not reopen negotiations with the railwaymen until they went back to work. The Minister of Transport was too busily engaged in saving the country from ruin to give any time to discussing questions of wages. Nevertheless the Prime Minister agreed to meet Mr. Thomas and hear what he had to say.

The deputation and the railwaymen's leaders were closeted with the Prime Minister on Wednesday evening. The deputation met him again on Thursday morning, and then returned to consult with the railwaymen. That is the position as we go to press on. Thursday afternoon. We trust we are right in inferring that the other Trade Unions have advised Mr•. Thomas to accept his defeat, and that they are helping him to retire in good order from an untenable position.

It is interesting to speculate what will be the effect of the railwaymen's failure in this strike on the general Labour policy of nationalization.. Explain it away as they may, the railwaymen's leaders cannot deny that the coincidence of their strike with the accession to power of Sir Erie Geddes was too remarkable for design to be wholly absent. The railways are already in effect nationalized.. No sooner was Sir Eric Geddes in control than it was expected that he would make a wholesale surrender, or that if he did not he must naturally expect personally, and quite apart from the rest of the Cabinet, to bear the blame. What a start for nationalization I But if Sir Eric Geddes wine, as he will, what then ? Will nationalization go out of favour ? Is it too fantastic to think that nationalization might even win supporters from among those who were by conviction opposed to it IThey might say—though we should not be among them—

that a strong man representing the State was the only person who " could keep Labour in order."

We must congratulate Lord Northcliffe on the firm stand that he has taken against sinister attempts to interfere with the liberty of the Press. Thursday's Times contained a letter to him from the Daily Mail machinists protesting " against the treatment that is being meted out to the N.U.R. in the columns of your Press." Lord Northcliffe in his reply went to the root of the matter. His papers had, ho said truly, given much space to Labour questions. But he had no intention of allowing his papers to be influenced by any one in this or any other matter. " Rather than be dictated to by any one or any body of men, I will stop the publication of these newspapers." Lord Northcliffe is entirely in the right, and his answer will, we think, discourage any revolutionists who proposed to muzzle the• Press through the printing Trade Unions. Lord Northcliffe is well known in Fleet Street as a good employer He has always been on good terms with the printers and with Labour in general. His vigorous protest will thus carry all the more weight.

The last of the British troops to leave Archangel were embarked on Saturday last. Under Lord Rawlinson's direction, the evacuation was safely completed, and the Russian patriotio forces were left to hold the Archangel positions against the Bolsheviks. When our troops have left Murmansk, our military responsibilities in Northern Russia will have ceased. But neither we nor our Allies can evade the political difficulty which remains. If the Allies ignore Russia, and do nothing for the patriots who are trying to expel the criminal despots now ruling at Moscow, Germany will not fail to profit by the opportunity. She is now working with the Bolsheviks, but she would work against them if it seemed.to her advantage. The inability of the Allies to agree on a steady Russian policy is most unfortunate.

The Allies have informed Germany that she must withdraw at once all her troops from the Baltio States. The Armistice, which is still in force, provides that Germany shall evacuate those regions whenever the Allies think fit. Marshal Fooh asked the Germans to return home on August 27th, but General von der Goltz with a large army still remains in Courland and Lithuania, and is being supplied and reinforced. The Allies have now repeated their demand, adding that until it is satisfied they will pay no attention to Germany's requests for food, raw materials, or loans. It is reported from Germany that General von der Goltz has been recalled, but that he has failed to induce his army to return to Germany.. The Allies will not be deluded by such an obvious prevarication.

The older generation will be stirred as youth cannot be by the news of the death of Mme. Adelina Patti (Baroness Cederstrom) at the age of seventy-six. We think of her as the perfect natural soprano—the embodiment of all that was delightful in the Italian operatic tradition. It were vain to try to describe her voice to those who never heard her. Patti sang as the birds sing. Like so many eminent actors and musicians, she was born in the profession, and she sang in public . at the age of seven. She first appeared at New York as. Lucia . sixty years ago. She came to London in 1861. An artist like Patti, who has given pleasure to so many, millions of people, deserves a grateful farewell.

We greatly regret to record the death, at the age of sixty-two, of Sir E. T. Cook, who won . equal distinction as a journalist and as a scholar. He showed himself a great editor when he directed in turn the Pall Mall Gazette, the Westminster Gazette, and the Daily News between 1889-and 1901. His scholarship is most fully displayed in his monumental edition of Ruskin's works, undertaken in collaboration with Mr. Wedderburn, which astonishes every student of Ruskin by its unfailing accuracy and good taste. Sir E. T. Cook during the war acted as a Director of the Press Bureau it is safe to say. that, had he been free to manage that unhappy institution in his 'own way, the Press Bureau would have been far legs objectionable and far more efficient. English scholarship has sustained another heavy loss in Professor F. J. Haverfield, the Camden Professor at Oxford. He was fifty-nine. Professor Haverfield devoted his life to the study of Roman Britain, which he placed, for the first time, on a scientific basis.