finances it is presumed are to be involved, should realise the responsibilities such a strike movement would entail and should themselves determine the plan of any such new campaign.'

It was, therefore, not surprising that later in the Conference a resolution was carried instructing the National Executive to consult the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress with a view to effective action being taken to prevent any further interference by the Allies in Russia, and for the enforcement of that demand 'by the unreserved use of the political and industrial power of the Trade Unions.' The seed thus sown rapidly began to fructify. During the early part of 1920 the Triple Alliance continued their propaganda in favour of direct action, with the result that, on Aug. 9, a general conference representing the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, the Executive Committee of the Labour Party, and the Parliamentary Labour Party was held, and by the irony of fate in the seat of the constitutional government of the nation, in a Grand Committee Room of the House of Commons. A minatory resolution was passed threatening the Government that the whole industrial power of the organised workers would be used to defeat any war with Russia and establishing a Council of Action. The resolution provided for the summoning to a National Conference of the Executives of all Trade Unions and other organisations affiliated to the Labour Party, and recommended that the Trade Unions should be advised to instruct their members to down tools on receipt of instructions to that effect. On Aug. 13, 1920, the National Conference met. The Trade Unions represented at it handed over all their Executive responsibility to the Council of Action, and authorised the latter to use any and every form of withdrawal of labour that circumstances might require to give effect to the policy of the Conference. The Rt Hon. J. H. Thomas, Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, proposed that 'this Conference approves and endorses the action of the three national bodies in forming a Council of Action to deal with the present situation arising from the policy of the Government towards the Russian Polish War,' and said, perhaps

a

more truly than he realised 'giving effect to this resolution does not mean a mere strike, it means challenge to the whole constitution of the country.' His observations were greeted with loud cheers. The Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Labour Party, Mr. A. G. Cameron, was even more outspoken:

'When the action which had been referred to was taken, if too much interference was attempted they might be compelled to do things that would cause the present authorities [i.e. the Government] to abdicate. They might be forced to tell them that if they could not run this country in a peaceful manner without interfering with other nations, they might be compelled, against all constitutionalism, to chance doing something to take the country into their own hands.'

Mr Robert Williams, on p. 134 of his book, states with characteristic candour his satisfaction with this resolution.

'Direct action,' he says, 'has now left the propaganda stage and has become part of the explicit plan and avowed programme of the British Labour movement. Those of us who have not been content with the declarations expressed in pious resolutions, but who have desired to impregnate the Labour movement with a spirit of iron resolution, were satisfied, while being amazed, to hear the moderate men who had hitherto denounced direct action, readily declare their devotion to this resolution. Mr J. R. Clynes, Mr J. H. Thomas, Mr Tom Shaw, and a host of others placed their hands on their hearts and testified to their conversion to the principle.'

Mr Mellor, on p. 156 of his book, says, 'In the words of that super-constitutionalist, J. H. Thomas, "the basis of the constitution has been attacked," and from that there can be no receding.

It is deeply instructive to take up the Reports of the Trades Union Congresses and of the Labour Party Conference since 1920, and to follow up the growing acceptance by the whole organised Labour movement of the principle of direct action as the best means to the attainment of any of its objects or aspirations. It culminated in the Executives of the Trade Unions handing over to

the Trades Union Congress their power to call a strike, which power the T.U.C. put in force with such disastrous consequences to the nation on Saturday, May 1, of the present year. An intelligent anticipation of what was coming roused even Sir Henry Slesser, the late SolicitorGeneral of the Labour Government, in his 'Law Relating to Trade Unions,' 1921, p. 72, to utter this word of warning:

'There has recently arisen for consideration the question how far a strike called for political objects-" direct action" as the journalists have called it [Sir Henry is wrong-the words 'direct action' came from within the Labour movement and belong to the vernacular of the revolutionary section]that is, a strike to interfere with or constrain the Government in conduct which the Trade Unions do not approve-can be said to be a strike in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. This matter has fortunately not yet had to be decided, but I have very little doubt that such a strike would not be covered by the words in the definition in the Trades Disputes Act.'

To restore their diminishing prestige amongst their misled and disgruntled followers, every variety of apology and excuse, after the failure of the general strike, is made by the discredited industrial and political leaders of the Trade Union movement. None which I have seen so far seems to recognise the attack which direct action is upon constitutional government. All are ex post facto reasons why the general strike as a weapon broke in their hands and deprecations of its further use so long as conditions continue to militate against its success in action. Typically apologetic is the article by Mr Ramsay MacDonald in the June number of the 'Socialist Review.'

To-day,' he says, 'some critics blame the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, some blame the miners, but the real blame is with the General Strike itself. It is a weapon that cannot be wielded for industrial purposes. It is clumsy and ineffectual.'

Mr MacDonald shows clearly that he objects to the general strike only because it is ineffective as a reliable means of conclusive coercion. The next general election will be the time to remember that. In spite of all that

has happened, the Labour movement still intends by direct action in the form of a general strike to rivet its will upon the community as and when the opportunity occurs. For the moment direct action has had a set-back and is out of favour, but there has been no recantation of belief in its legitimacy. When the T.U.C. sees a new opportunity of levelling successfully at the community the weapon of the general strike, it will assuredly use it, if true to its declared principles and pledges. To refuse to recognise this is merely to bury our heads in the sand and to substitute for our reason a morbid and myopic sentimentality.

How is the community to be protected against strikes? That is the crux. To-day it is defenceless. In respect of a strike which is (1) in contemplation or furtherance of a 'trade dispute' (as defined in Section 5 (3) of the Trades Disputes Act, 1906), and (2) is not 'an offence against the State or the Sovereign,' no criminal proceedings for conspiracy will lie (Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, Section 3) and no civil action for conspiracy (Trades Disputes Act, 1906, Section 1). If, however, the strike is not in furtherance of a trade dispute,' or is 'an offence against the State or the Sovereign,' whatever that may mean, then the common law applies with its variant decisions, some to the effect that a strike is a criminal offence. A general strike may throttle the life of the community and yet be absolutely within the law. I should like to see all strikes made illegal, and compulsory arbitration of industrial differences introduced, but I recognise the futility of the suggestion. Compulsory arbitration has failed in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and during the War in our own country, and will never succeed as a general expedient. It might, however, be worth while, as an experiment, to prohibit even legal strikes and to introduce compulsory arbitration into a limited number of industries and services whose uninterrupted continuance is essential to the national life. There is certainly a case for making the calling of, or participation in, a sympathetic strike a criminal offence, even if in support of a legal trade dispute strike, and very substantial arguments for enlarging by Statute the old common law of Conspiracy so as to make it a crime to organise or take part in a non-economic' or 'direct

action' strike; that is to say, one which is not in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.' But, of course, although you may punish a man for not working you cannot by punishment make him work, and the only real protection for the community is for the Government to maintain always in being a nucleus organisation capable at any time of carrying on the vital industries and services.

In support of a sympathetic strike or of any strike in the nature of direct action the Trade Union movement claims the right to apply the practice of picketing. The Trades Disputes Act, 1906, authorises 'peaceful picketing' in contemplation or furtherance of a 'trade dispute.' To describe as 'peaceful' the picketing that now customarily takes place in connexion with an ordinary trade dispute is grotesque. With a unanimity almost ludicrous every Government since the passing of the Act of 1906, for no other reason than the fear of alienating working-class votes, has refrained from enforcing the remnant of law left by the Liberal Government of 1906 to restrict picketing. As a result, Trade Unions have not inexcusably been encouraged to regard as legitimate, in connexion with an ordinary trade dispute strike, every kind of intimidation, as applied both against men who remain at work, or who go in to take up the work of those who go on strike, and what is really despicable, by way of reprisal, against their defenceless wives and families. The present Home Secretary-Sir William Joynson-Hicks-is the first who has shown himself really prepared to enforce the law, insufficient as it is.

As now practised within the illusory limits of the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, the right of picketing cannot be justified in any land of liberty. It stirs to risibility American jurists; it is unintelligible to those born under and bred on continental codes of law. The existing right, even were picketing restricted to it, is much too wide and ought drastically to be curtailed. The picketing of workers' residences, intimidation and obstruction by mass picketing,' as it is called in the United States, and other familiar forms of coercive 'peaceful picketing,' short of actual violence, have become insufferable. In connexion with a strike, not a legitimate 'trade dispute ' -for example, a direct action' attack upon the Govern