July 17.
The latest crisis at Westminster arises out of events which took place in the Spring. The ing Association proposed to the Miners' Federation that the coal industry should" unitedly ask the Government to insert in the Coal Mines Bill a proviso enabling any district, upon agreement between the owners and the miners, to vary the rigid 'Tachours day by fixing a weekly' maximum of 45 hours or a 90 hours fortnightly maximum. By. this "spread over" of working time it was intended to enable. mines either to retain an: 8-hours shift on five days a week, working a G-hour shift on Saturday, or to work 8-hour shifts on. eleven days a fortnight. This would give the miners' a. complete holiday on every alternate Saturday and at the same time promote economy in working. costs: by retaining. 8 hours as full day's. shift, The Miners' Federation on behalf of the men rejected this proposal from the mine-owners. The'rejection was. believed to have been dictated by the conviction that the introduction of a Ti-hour day would give a working week of from 424 to 445 hours, assuming that the present "short Saturday" would continue when the' Bill became law. This assumption was held by the advocates of the "spread-over" to rest on. insecure foundations. In fact the Miners' Executive were considered to have once more missed an admirable opportunity for securing from the owners the best possible wage-terms for the operation of the shortened day concession.
'This view found expression in the Lords' attempt to assist the miners in spite of themselves. The spread-over was included in an amendment made in the Bill when it came up from the Commons. It was. firmly excised when the "other place" at a long sitting considered—and "scrapped"—most of the Lords' amendments. The Upper House has stuck to its guns. The Government are now faced with the choice of dropping the Bill or accepting what they previously had resisted. The wisdom of the Lords' decision may however commend itself to Mr.
Ramsay MacDonald on mature consideration of all his commitments. It has intrinsic merits for, without the spread-over proviso, there seems to be little doubt that the conclusion, under the Bill, of wage agreements satisfactory to both parties would be hampered by a serious lack of elasticity. The British public is inured by this time to the process of suffering under the disagreements of miners and mine-owners. That consideration may make the Government chary of accepting the action of the Lords as a casus bel. The plain fact is that, if the Miners' Federation had. been willing to discuss the "spread-over" with the Mining: Association, they would probably have: secured. a lower figure than the 90-hours suggested. for the period involyed. If that is appreciated. by. the electorate, the Government would be championing an uninspiring- cause, to which the hackneyed complaint against their' adamantine- _lordships would lend some adornment but, faint conviction.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.