The Progress of the World. 



17 



years r In any other branch ot" national 

 life the men would strike and be justified 

 in striking; here they just go out because 

 it is " not good enough." It is a national 

 disgrace, and those responsible are guilty of 

 imperilling the continuance of peace and ot 

 the Empire. The old catch phrase will have 

 to be altered to " We've got too few ships, 

 we've got too few men. and (yet) we've got 

 the money too ! " It is the last which 

 makes the whole question inexplicable to 

 the serious thinker. 



The strike at the London 



London docks seems to be slowly 



Labour Troubles. hz/Jing out. The dockers 



have undoubtedly estab- 

 lished many grievances against their em- 

 ployers, who in their turn have put them- 

 selves time and again in the wrong. The 

 suffering of the innocent women and 

 children commands general sympathy. 

 But, as events have clearly showed, the 

 men were badly led. Tiie leaders seem to 

 have been dazzled with tlic glamour of the 

 idea of a sudden strike, and then if that 

 first line of attatk was not immediately 

 successful, of following it u[) with a national 

 strike of transport workers. But British 

 working men, though wonderfully loyal 

 when democratically gui<ied, did not appre- 

 ciate these autocratic methods : the national 

 strike did not come off: and the London 

 Strike is moribund. The leaders of other 

 forms of organised labour very strongly 

 resent the policy which has been adopted 

 of calling on tlK-ir nu-n to go out on a 

 symjjathetic strike before the unions con- 

 cerned have been consulted. The Govern- 

 ment has (lone all it could to mediate 

 peaic : but the masters, aware of tiie weak- 

 ness of the men in leadershi|) as well as in 

 fundv have |)ractically declined the Minis- 

 terial overtures. 



Good 

 Out of Evil. 



The trouble on the 

 Thames has • yielded one 

 important result. The 

 Transport Workers' Union 

 has offered to place a certain amount of its 

 funds as security for its abiding by the 

 terms of any contract made with the em- 

 ployers, to be forfeited, in whole or in part, 

 if the Union fail to keej) faith. Whether 

 or not such an arrangement would be 

 void at law under the Trades Disputes Act 

 remains to be seen ; it is already welcomed 

 in some quarters as a sign of the working- 

 men themselves wishing to void that Act. 

 It may be remembered that for years 

 Mr. Ben Tillett has argued in vain with 

 the Trade Union Congress for the adoption 

 of comj)ulsory arbitration, which, of course, 

 carries with it consequences of pecuniary 

 responsibility. Another interesting effect 

 of the prolonged Labour Unrest has been 

 to develop Mr. F. E. Smith, and — if he can 

 manage the difficult feat — his party also, 

 into advocacy of tlic abolition of poverty. 

 The statement advanced by Mr. Charles 

 Booth and confirmed bv Mr. Seebohm 

 Rowntree, that nearly one-third of the 

 pojjulation was in poverty, was driven home 

 on public attention by Sir Henry Campbell- 

 Bannerman, who by so doing caused great 

 offence in Conservative quarters. But 

 now Mr. Smith would lia\e if inscribed 

 on the walls of every Conservative Club, 

 "and particidarly of those clubs to which 

 the wealthier members of the Party belong." 

 IK- insists that "a contented proletariat 

 shoidd be one of the first objects of an 

 enlightened Conservative jxilicy." In 

 national monopolies, like the railway, 

 trans|)ort service, coal mining, he would 

 secine " a reasonable profit to the investor, 

 a decent wage to the worker, and an 

 absolute prohibition to strike." He will 



