Whatever may be the demerit of the Labour Government's Trades Dispute Bill, it -cannot be denied that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald is scrupulously fulfilling his election pledges in sponsoring it, There are Conservatives who hold the view that the Act which it, in effect seeks to repeal, was' urineeer sarily drastic in' its handling tthe political levy. Flushed with its victory in the General Strik the Cabinet of the day handicapped by the absence of the critical spirit in the country at large, The Strike had exasperated the Nation and the Government should have guard-fed themselves against permi ing an expression of vindictive. vees to unbalance their sense of impartiality. In fact to tackle the admittedly autocratic irres-per sibility of the Trade Unions they were betrayed into what seemed, in the light of cooler judgment afterwards, to be punitive action. "When the passions of thé'General Strike died down their action could be represent-fed as constituting a definite attack on the funds of their poliical opponents, This feeling has grown. It has gravely hampered Labour Ministers in their desire to avoid the futility of merely undoing what a previous Government had done, if only because of the boomerang effect of such Jo proceeding. Nevertheless the measure which they have produced has not had a particularly good reception even from their own followers. This hesi-fancy has been caused by the obscurity of some of the Janguage of the Bill, It required all the persuasiveness of Sir William Jowitt, just before the recess, to quieten Labouy irritation' on that score. Conserv tives—and a section of the Li berals—however, are much perturbed "because'. they consider that Mr, Ramsay MacDonald has gone far beyond the needs of the case. He has done more than restore to Trade Unions the privilege of the compulsory' Political Levy. He has, as Sir t- John Simon's' pointed question reported in the cables to-day' shows, been lured into what appears to be legalization of the' General Strike weapon.
The argument hitherto used by Conservatives friendly to the Trade Unions has been there is no need to declare illegal a General Strike because that proceeding is in effect a revolution. It is a waste of time for any Parliament declare revolutions illegal for illegality is the essence of their existence, If they succeed the iMegality is merged in legality if they fail the illegality is bury ed by penalties. Much difficulty however. seems to hang use of the word "primary.
Bill provides that no stay illegal if "its primary object is to further purposes connected with the employment....or with the conditions of labour of any) person..." On this basis the General' Strike of 1926 could have been upheld as legal; Sir famous speech been made and the struggle would not so swiftly have collapsed. The test question is now being put to the Government: "If the new Bill had been on the Statute Book in 1926 would the general strike of that year have been illegal or legal?" It will be interesting to note the Government's reply and the result.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.