"We have utilised every available opportunity of promoting the Association's view that the only sound method of 'reconstructing' the railway industry is that of Nationalisation."
RCA 1921 Annual Report.
When the Armistice was signed the Government was faced with a railway industry starved of capital investment and in a semi-paralysed state. Whereas before the war the return on railway capital expenditure had been 4.3 per cent, it now made a loss of between 3-4 per cent. The 836 miles of light railways which had made a profit of 2 per cent prior to 1914, also operated at a loss. The 4,700 miles of canals (of which 1,100 were railway-owned) were heavily subsidised but it was the railways that caused the Government the greatest concern. Not only were they ill-equipped to face the demands of the post-war era, their losses amounted to the huge sum of anything beween £90-£100 million per year.1 During its period of control the Government had not been ungenerous and had provided the railway companies with an annual state subsidy based on the record net receipts of 1913, but confronted with such horrific losses, the Government was obliged to take action; nationalisation became a serious option.
During the election campaign of 1918, Winston Churchill, in a speech at Dundee, had indicated his support for nationalising the railways, and on 20th March Walkden, along with other members of the TUC, raised the subject with the Prime Minister. Following the meeting, C.W. Bowerman, who led the delegation, reported that they had obtained a sympathetic hearing and that Lloyd George had cordially received the suggestion that railways, canals and waterways should be nationalised.2 A few weeks later the Prime Minister gave his own considered response and said that he was in complete sympathy with the general character of the proposals put forward by the delegation and was certain that they would not go back to the old system.3 In view of this railway workers were optimistic that nationalisation would take place.
After the TUC and Labour Party had approved its policy for establishing a co-ordinated transport system in 1918, the RCA decided to take it one stage further. By the end of the year it had developed detailed proposals for a National Transport Services Bill - the main thrust of which covered nationalisation, co-ordination of transport and trade union control.4 This should not be seen as a sectarian syndicalist approach to management, on the contrary.
The RCA's Bill advocated the establishment of a Ministry of Transport and Communications, with six Commissioners to manage the network. Their duties would be executive, administrative and advisory, with a minister who would determine policy and be responsible to Parliament. Two of the Commissioners were to be appointed by Parliament, one by the Treasury, and three by the Government, from nominations put forward by the railway trade unions. Provision was made in the Bill for adequate safeguarding of pension rights and the continuation of superannuation funds. Copies of the National Transport Services Bill were sent to the Government and MPs for consideration, and it received widespread support including that of the Railway Nationalisation Society which acknowledged that the RCA's Bill was superior to its own. The Society did, however, have one criticism; it considered that the proposals for the workforce representatives on the Management Board should remain subject to the control of those who had nominated them, rather than to the Minister as after some years of office, a man may get wholly out of touch with those who put him there.
5 The Bill set out for the first time the principle of co-ordinating all road, air, canals and coastal services; it was, in effect, the first stage towards the 1947 Transport Act. However, the Bill was primarily a propaganda exercise to influence public opinion and was never actually raised in Parliament.
Meanwhile, the Government was formulating its own plans for the railway industry; these were introduced to Parliament in February 1919 as the somewhat misnamed Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill. This was later amended and became the Ministry of Transport Act 1919. The Bill had several positive features which included transferring to the Minister all powers and duties in relation to the railways, light railways, tramways, canals, waterways, roads, ferries, harbours, docks and even the supply of electricity.6 When the Minister, Sir Eric Geddes, introduced the Bill to Parliament he stated, We must forego the luxuries of competition; we must forego private interest and local interest in the interest of the State. In the past private interest made for development, but today I think I may say that it makes for colossal waste.
7 Not many railway workers would have disagreed with that, but the railway companies were not idle.
Pressure on the Government had been coming from the boardrooms of the railway companies as early as 1907 by which time competition had become discredited and co-operation had been widely recommended at shareholders' meetings. Following the publication of the Ways and Communications Bill, they, along with the Federation of British Industries, and after a well orchestrated campaign by the press, brought their influence to bear and the Government dropped its proposal to nationalise the railways in May 1919. Sir Fortescue Flannery, the Association's former President, now in Parliament representing the Maldon constituency, welcomed the Bill and as a shareholder in several railway companies was pleased that nationalisation had been abandoned. During a speech Flannery suggested that it would bring order out of chaos and that transport would be co-ordinated by road, rail and water.8 The reality was somewhat different.
The Association had welcomed the publication of the Ways and Communications Bill as in its original form, it had established the principle of Government ownership along with the prospect of unification and the co-ordination of transport. When the purchase clauses were dropped the Association called on the Government to prepare a detailed policy for railway nationalisation over the next two years.9 Disappointed at the change of policy, the EC still had to face reality and as the Ways and Communications Bill made its progress through Parliament the Association attempted to insert a number of clauses to protect the interests of its members. Some of these were adopted by the Government, but by the time they reached the statute book, they were barely recognisable.
The RCA, angry that nationalisation had been dropped, decided to develop its own Bill. Working closely with ASLEF, it revised its earlier Bill to meet the new situation. The Bill was approved by the Railway Nationalisation Society, and as the Ministry of Transport (Transfer of Railways) Bill it was officially adopted by the Labour Party. J.H. Thomas presented it to the House of Commons, where it was read for the first time on 22nd March 1921.10 It failed to survive as the Government was already preparing its own plans for a major change to its transport strategy.
The Ministry of Transport Act 1919 had been in reality a temporary measure, its proposals having being built up in a piecemeal fashion as the Bill made its progress through Parliament, but with the railway system in such a poor state it became increasingly obvious that the railway companies could not be managed as before. The old system of small inefficient companies no longer suited the interests of shareholders, and the Government set out to restructure the railway system by introducing a Bill to amalgamate the 123 companies into four - the London and North-Eastern, the Great Western, the Southern and the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Companies.
On 29th June 1920 the Bill was preceded by a White Paper11 which included a provision for employees to be represented on Railway Management Boards, elected by workers from their own ranks. A Railway Advisory Committee had already been established in 1919 composed of 13 railway directors and 4 trade unionists; A.G. Walkden, (RCA); C.T. Cramp, J.H. Thomas, (NUR) and J. Bromley (ASLEF). Walkden's appointment to the committee prompted a columnist in the Globe newspaper to write:
"Though not so much in the limelight as some of his colleagues, Mr. Walkden is one of the ablest men in the Labour Movement, and his inclusion in any board concerned with railway management would be of great gain. He has a rare gift of organisation, and there are few men who understand railway management as Mr.Walkden understands it."12
The Association's support for the Advisory Committee was qualified; it had no executive or administrative powers, and the RCA sought power and responsibility, not the palliative of an advisory body. It also rejected the White Paper's proposal for workers to be elected to the management board as it considered that if the industry was to remain in private ownership it was no part of a trade union's function to assist in the exploitation of its members. For its part, the NUR had sought worker control for some years and initially was more amenable to the White Paper's proposal, but when it saw that its representation would be nominal it changed its view. From a different perspective the railway directors had their own objections to the White Paper. When the leading railway directors met formally to discuss their strategy they strenuously opposed any suggestion that workers should be elected to management boards. They considered such a step to be objectionable and wrong in principle as no employee in a subordinate position should be placed in authority over his manager in the conduct of the business.13 The railway companies were intransigent and the Government eventually dropped its proposals for worker directors when the Bill was published.
As the RCA did not have any direct representation in Parliament it turned to a Scottish MP William Graham LL.B,14 a graduate of Edinburgh University, to protect its interests. Graham, a Labour member of the Select Committee dealing with the Bill, was approached by the RCA's solicitor William Southeard and George Lathan, and asked to represent the RCA. The importance of William Graham's contribution at this time cannot be overemphasised. The committee sat for months and its work became so strenuous and complex that the Government took the unprecedented step of setting up a second committee to work alongside the first. Although other Labour MPs were also helpful during the passage of the Bill, it is to Graham that the Association owes the most. He and the RCA used their combined expertise with great effect, and important insertions and amendments designed to safeguard superannuation funds and provide protective rights for all railway workers were added to the Bill. These included a provision for compensation in the event of dismissal and the right to assistance from a trade union representative in disciplinary hearings.
A formal negotiating machinery was proposed with representation at national and local level, but as the railway companies were against the inclusion of clerical staff within the machinery, the Government excluded the RCA from the Bill. The Association could not let this pass, and pressure was brought to bear on the Minister of Transport. All three unions were now opposed to having worker directors and a compromise was easily reached whereby they dropped their claim to be included on the management boards, and the RCA was included in the Railways Act (1921) which came into force on 19th August, five days after the Government gave back control of the railways to its former owners. The NUR, ASLEF and the RCA were now all legally recognised by statute.
The new machinery of consultation also covered national negotiations, with area representation based on Sectional Councils and Local Departmental Committees (LDC). The National Wages Board had as its chairman, Sir William Mackenzie K.B.E. K.C., with six General Managers representing the railway companies. There were four representatives of railway users nominated from the TUC, the Co-operative Union, the Federation of British Industries and the British Chamber of Commerce. Six trade unionists were on the Board, with Thomas Gill and George Lathan as the Association's nominees.
The London Underground was excluded from the Railways Act (1921) but its introduction led directly to the establishment of a machinery that covered all grades of employees with the exception of those in the Special Class. Twelve Sectional Committees were introduced in 1922 with the employees' representatives being elected by ballot of the respective grades every two years. These committees dealt with applications of agreements, hours, holidays, seniority, suggestions, welfare, efficiency and economy, with a corresponding number of officials being nominated by the companies to represent their interests. Those matters that embraced more than one Sectional Council were dealt with by five Departmental Councils covering Clerical, Traffic, Supervisory, Engineering and Power House employees. Where agreement could not be reached, the items were referred to Management and, if necessary, to the Negotiating Committee composed of representatives of the Underground companies and the trade unions. There were no other alternative means of resolving differences.
The release of the railways from Government control was commemorated by The Times with a special supplement on the railway industry. In a comment on the railway trade unions, its correspondent said, The influence of the RCA in the counsels of trade unionism is great, and its organisation is often held up as a great model.
Walkden was the only trade unionist invited to contribute to the supplement, and he used the opportunity to extol the virtues of nationalisation. William Graham also wrote an article and said that consumers would inevitably pay for the introduction of the Act. When the 1921 Act became law, the railway trade unions had a total of 616,749 members out of a workforce of 680,176.15 This was a remarkably high percentage and one that was essential to meet the challenge presented by the railway companies during the next twenty years.
To an extent events in Ireland resembled those in Britain, although a review into the operation of Irish railways began considerably earlier. The railway companies had established 840 route miles by 1853 and by the turn of the century a multitude of companies existed. A Vice-Regal Commission was established in 1907 to make recommendations on the future of the railway system, with W.E. Hill supplying information on behalf of the RCA. Five reports were issued, the last being published in 1910. The majority report recommended public ownership of the 28 companies and a Management Board to be formed of 20 directors, 16 of whom would be elected. This was a radical proposition but a minority report advocated the establishment of one privately owned combine. Needless to say, the RCA was totally in favour of the majority point of view although there were some reservations as far as security of employment was concerned. Nothing came of these reports but Government control was introduced during the First World War and this lasted until 1921. At this stage the railway system had reached its peak of approximately 3,400 route miles; from now on it declined and by 1939 it had fallen to 3,183 route miles.
Prior to state control no two railway companies had the same rates of pay or conditions of service, and when the Irish Government relinquished its authority over the railways on 15th August 1921, the railway directors sought to impose conditions that were inferior to those in existence, which, with the exception of the 1920 Women's Agreement, were now the same as those in Britain. Cuts in pay for railway clerks varied from £50 to £120 per annum dependent on grade; stationmasters' salaries were also reduced. If men had good cause to be aggrieved, women had greater justification. Before the war, women clerks were at least as well paid as their colleagues in Britain and had always been employed on a permanent basis. When the Woman's Agreement was established in Britain, the Irish Railway Companies refused to extend it to their clerks claiming that they were better paid than those in comparable employment elsewhere. The RCA had little difficulty in proving that this was not correct and it was generally felt that not only did the railway companies seek cheap labour, but they were also intent on punishing women for supporting the RCA's strike for recognition. Indeed they had not received any increase in their salaries since November 1918.
The trade unions bitterly resented this attempt to worsen their conditions of service and totally rejected cuts in pay. An Arbitration Tribunal was established under the chairmanship of W. Carrigan KC, with representation from the employers and trade unions. J.T. O'Farrell represented the RCA and A.G. Walkden acted as its advocate. Its findings provoked universal protest amongst railway workers, and a General Strike, set for 14th January 1922, was only averted by the Provisional Government postponing the Carrigan award until a full enquiry into the railways could be held. An agreement was arrived at by the Governments on both sides of the border, but although the Provisional Government agreed to compensate the railway companies for any loss they might incur as a result, this did not apply in Northern Ireland. The Provisional Government of the Irish Free State set up a Railway Commission with very wide terms of reference, including rates of pay and conditions of service. Evidence on behalf of the RCA was given by J.T. O'Farrell who proved that railway clerical workers were paid considerably less than workers in analogous services and industries in Ireland; A.G. Walkden dealt principally with railway policy and put forward proposals for nationalising the railway system. A similar Commission was appointed in Northern Ireland where Walkden and O'Farrell again presented the evidence. At both Commissions, the railway companies vehemently opposed nationalisation and private amalgamation, whilst insisting that they would be unable to continue unless pay and conditions reverted, in some cases, to those of the pre-war period. When the Commission reported to the Provisional Government it recommended nationalisation, but a minority report proposed that amalgamation was the best way forward. In Northern Ireland, the majority of the Commission saw no need for any change, but a minority report recommended nationalisation.
Throughout 1922 and 1923 the RCA campaigned vigorously for nationalisation of the railways on both sides of the border. This was opposed by the railway companies, and a meeting between the Minister of Industry and Commerce and the railway trade unions was held in Dublin on 18th December 1922. The Minister said that he was not in favour of nationalisation as recommended in the majority report of the Irish Railways' Commission, owing to the financial position of the Government, and he did not consider nationalisation to be the most efficient and economic solution.
Following the election of 1923, the RCA, undeterred at losing the propaganda war, approached the Irish LP & TUC and prepared a joint Transport and Communications Bill. This was introduced to Dáil Éireann on 23rd November 1923 and sought to achieve the nationalisation of the railways and the co-ordination of road, rail and other transport services. It received its Second Reading in December when the leader of the Labour Party, Thomas Johnson, opened the debate. William Davin provided support, emphasising the differences between state control and nationalisation, but without Government approval the Bill had little hope of acceptance, and it was defeated by 56 votes to 16.
The Government presented its own Railway Bill to Dáil Éireann on 4th April 1924, and William Southeard,16 the Association's solicitor, along with William Davin and J.T. O'Farrell, formulated a number of amendments, Some of these were accepted, including compensation in the event of dismissal for those with less than five years service, and a new superannuation scheme that had to be agreed with the trade unions before 1st January 1926. As far as worker participation was concerned, this concept had already been rejected by the Government. However, there were rare occasions when RCA members were elected to Boards of Management of the light railways on which they were employed. The first to sit as a director was T. Fitzpatrick, secretary of the West Clare branch and a stationmaster at Kilmurry, who joined the board of the West and South Clare Railway in 1921 following a campaign by the RCA and other trade unions. Previously the board had been composed of an equal number of shareholders and County Council representatives.
During the summer of 1923, discussions led to the establishment of a negotiating machinery with LDCs, Sectional Councils, a Central Wages Board and an Irish Railway Wages Board for all Irish Railways and the Railway Clearing House. This was formally recognised in the 1924 Act with rates of pay, hours of duty, and other conditions of service being made in accordance with agreements between employees or their trade unions and the railway companies.17 This was a major advance and was warmly welcomed by the Association. When Dáil Éireann approved the Railways Act (1924), the four main railways came together to form the Great Southern Railways with a number of others being absorbed in the process.
The RCA received a great deal of praise for its work in drafting its Transport Bills and subsequent amendments to Government legislation in both Britain and the Free State. In 1924, the Irish LP & TUC thanked the Association for its work which had been the subject of many resolutions of past Congresses.18 Praise came even from opponents, and despite disagreeing with the Labour Party's Bill, William Cosgrave remarked during the debate:
"I think it is due to the draftsman of the Bill that he should know we are in agreement as to the lucidity and also the brevity of its provisions. It is certainly a very remarkable contribution to constructive legislation, and I hope we shall have many more such examples."19
Powerful opponents of nationalisation within the press such as the Dublin Evening Herald commented favourably on the Bill and the Irish Independent remarked that it bore the signs of great care and thoroughness.
20 Some of the work was done by George Lathan, but the main contributor was William Southeard who worked for the Association from 1905 until his retirement in 1936. Southeard was also responsible for drafting the Offices Regulations Bill of 1923 but without doubt his greatest contribution was the protective clauses incorporated in the Railways Act 1921, and following its approval by Parliament he went on to advise hundreds of members on the many questions that arose when the Act became operative.
The death of Sir Alfred Bird, Bart., the Coalition Unionist MP for Wolverhampton West, on 7th February 1922, provided Alexander Walkden with a further opportunity of being elected to Parliament. The Birmingham Post, (no friend of the Labour Party) said that Walkden was about the strongest candidate Labour could put forward and that he knew how to project himself as a moderate, whilst at the same time, keeping in the background the more extreme policies
of the Labour Party.21
That Walkden was an excellent candidate is not in doubt. Even the Glasgow Herald, also an opponent of Labour, stated:
"Walkden is a cultured, polished speaker, with a fine administrative record - his union is regarded as one of the best managed organisations in the country - and his views run on moderate lines. He is certainly the type of Labour leader one would like to see more of in Parliament."22
The Coalitionists adopted as its candidate Robert Bird, the son of the late member. He had very little political experience and with a climate becoming more favourable towards Labour, hopes were high that the constituency could be won. Walkden attracted many leading personalities to support his candidature including J.R. Clynes, A. Henderson, J.H. Thomas and J.C. Wedgwood. Amongst the trade union leaders who assisted Walkden were John Bromley, Charles Cramp, (General Secretary NUR), and Frank Hodges (Secretary of the Miners' Federation). The former RCA activist Mamie Anderson, now working for the Labour Party as Women's Organiser, also campaigned in the election along with several RCA members - notably Herbert Ainsworth, Thomas Gill and Ernest Townend. Support also came from the Irish Labour Party and TUC which asked the Irish electorate to give Walkden their vote.
Not all the press were as enthusiastic for Walkden's election as the Glasgow Herald. The Morning Post published a series of articles that were highly critical of trade unions, alleging that their management costs were excessive, with money secretly being spent on politics, and officials putting members' contributions into their own pockets. These allegations were reprinted and used by Bird to attack Walkden, alleging that the costs of the Association was exorbitant, and that Walkden was personally responsible. The EC issued a strong statement denying the charges, but the damage had been done. Polling day was 7th March and Walkden received telegrams of support from Trades Councils and RCA branches all over the country but it was Bird who won the election with 16,790 votes against Walkden's 13,799. In a statement to the press, Walkden said:
"To my knowledge, a great many votes have been obtained by well-to-do ladies canvassing amongst the ill-informed wives of the working classes and scaring them with their preposterous tales about Bolshevism, and the likelihood of their savings in Savings Certificates being jeopardised in the event of my election."23
In the autumn of 1922, the Conservatives within the Coalition Government removed Lloyd George as Prime Minister. A General Election followed on 15th November giving the Association another chance to test its electoral strength, and eight candidates were put forward. They, too, were defeated.
| Candidate | Constituency | Labour | Conservative | Others |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S. Lomax | Bolton | 20,559 | 37,840 | 49,518 |
| (two seat Constituency) | 20,145 | |||
| A.G. Walkden | Wolverhampton (W) | 15,190 | 17,738 | - |
| T.H. Gill | York | 10,106 | 15,163 | 8,838 |
| G. Lathan | Enfield | 9,820 | 11,725 | - |
| W. Robins | Cirencester | 9,195 | 16,463 | - |
| F. Anderson | High Peak (Derbyshire) | 7,692 | 14,892 | 5,802 |
| H.G. Romeril | St. Pancras (SE) | 5,609 | 8,753 | 4,053 |
| A.E. Townend | Blackley (Manchester) | 5,580 | 9,023 | 6,219 |
Overall, the Labour Party gained 67 seats returning 142 MPs, thus becoming, for the first time, the second largest party in the House of Commons. Ramsay MacDonald was elected as its leader. William Graham, who now acted on the Association's behalf in Parliament, thanked members of the Edinburgh branches who had helped in his re-election and said No public service I can render the Association in the House will even feebly repay all that they willingly and gladly did.
24
The Conservative Government, under the leadership of Stanley Baldwin, called a General Election for 6th December 1923, confidently expecting that the Labour Party would be unable to play a major part in the election owing to the protracted depression which had depleted trade union funds and therefore the Labour Party's finances. This ploy failed, and the election resulted in the Labour Party gaining 63 seats, giving it a total of 191. The Conservative Party obtained 258 seats and the Liberals 159. When Parliament reassembled, the Labour Party moved a vote of "No Confidence" and, with the support of the Liberals, this was carried by 328 votes to 256. Baldwin announced his resignation, and the first Labour Government was formed on 22nd January 1924, with Ramsay MacDonald as Prime Minister. Margaret Bondfield became the first woman to be appointed to a cabinet post as the Under Secretary for Labour, and J.H. Thomas was appointed as Minister for the Colonies. There still remained 27 railway directors in the House of Lords, but those in the House of Commons had been reduced to seven. Five railwaymen took their seats in the Commons, four were members of the NUR, the other was Herbert Romeril.
Seven members of the RCA had contested the election, two of whom were unofficial candidates.25 Neither Walkden nor Gill participated in the election; Walkden had withdrawn from Wolverhampton West and although he had made contact with a number of constituencies, the suddenness of the election caught him unawares and he failed to be nominated. The Executive had agreed to support Gill, but as he had been defeated in a Labour-held ward during a recent municipal election, he prudently decided not to stand. The overall result disappointed the RCA who saw six of its members defeated, but members were somewhat cheered by the election of Herbert Romeril as the MP for St. Pancras (South-East). The result was:
Romeril made his maiden speech on 26th May 1924 when he raised an issue relating to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS) (Superannuation Fund) Bill. His speech was praised by the Conservative MP Patrick Hannon, who said, Nobody indeed is better qualified to speak on the subject before the House than the Hon. Member who has just sat down.
26
Within a few days of the Government's existence it was faced with a national strike by ASLEF. Unrest had been festering since November when the unions found to their cost that the machinery of negotiation established in 1921 was, for the first time, to be used to obtain cuts in wages and conditions of service. During the negotiations the RCA had requested a 25 per cent increase in pay, the NUR 10 per cent and ASLEF, whose members earned 12-15 shillings (60p-75p) per day, were asking for £1. They had in fact been demanding this figure since 1913 when the average weekly rate of pay for a railway worker was £1 10s 7d (£1.53). By 1921, the average wage had risen to £4 9s 11d, (£4.50) but this dropped dramatically two years later to £3 6s 1d (£3.30).
The railway companies were determined to drive wages even lower. They argued that a fall in the cost of living must result in lower wages, and when this was rejected by all three unions it was sent to the National Wages Board. The Board sat for six days and received presentations from the three railway unions but, at the end of the hearing, it recommended a reduction in pay for Sunday duty and a new mileage payment for footplatemen. Opinion was divided as to the status of the Wages Board and whether its decisions were binding, but as the railway unions had asked for a machinery of arbitration for many years, there were strong pressures to accept its findings. The RCA decided to consult its membership and recommended acceptance of the award. The NUR held a conference and delegates voted in favour of acceptance by 59 votes to 20 but ASLEF, whose members were particularly hard hit by the proposals, decisively rejected the Wages Board decision in a ballot. This resulted in a strike commencing on the 21st January 1924.
Prior to the strike, Stott wrote in The Railway Service Journal, In the event of trouble developing in regard to the outdoor grades we trust that this time the A.S.L.E.& F., the N.U.R., and the R.C.A. will be together in any and every form of resistance that may be necessary.
27 However, following the RCA's decision to accept the Board's findings, an agreement was reached with ASLEF, and the RCA remained neutral. It issued instructions to its members not to carry out any duties that would normally be performed by footplate staff; this was a relatively easy request for the RCA, but the dispute generated considerable bitterness between ASLEF and the NUR lasting several years. The strike was eventually brought to an end following a compromise reached between the companies, ASLEF, and a small team of mediators from the TUC, one of whom was A.G. Walkden.
The railway dispute certainly unsettled the Labour Government, but its demise was owing to a number of factors. One of these was its decision to negotiate a Treaty with the USSR which the Conservatives bitterly opposed. Their anger was further aroused following the arrest and then the release of J.R. Campbell, the acting Editor of the Workers' Weekly, a CP paper. The Campbell incident arose from the publication of an article called An Open Letter to the Fighting Forces28 which called on troops not to turn your guns on your fellow workers, but instead line up with your fellow workers in an attack upon the exploiters and capitalists and use your arms on the side of your own class.
This was followed by a similar article the following week, and the Director of Public Prosecutions decided that Campbell should be charged under the Incitement to Mutiny Act 1797. Several Labour MPs supported Campbell, and James Maxton, the leader of the ILP, told the House of Commons that the article was mainly a call to the troops not to allow themselves to be used in industrial disputes, a point of view which was shared by many Labour MPs.29 The arrest of Campbell gave rise to considerable outrage being expressed in the labour movement with the result that the Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew his charges. The Conservatives, enraged at such a retreat, proposed a vote of censure on the Government, and the Liberals called for a Select Committee to enquire into the affair. MacDonald decided to make the matter one of confidence but he was unsuccessful and the first Labour Government fell.
The election campaign which followed was conducted in an atmosphere of anti-communism and just four days prior to the General Election, it was announced in the press that a "Soviet Plot" had been discovered. The so-called "plot" emanated from a letter allegedly sent by Zinoviev30 from the Headquarters of the Communist Third International to the CP in Britain. The Soviet Government denied that they had been responsible for the letter and indeed it was, and is, accepted as a forgery perpetrated by agents of British Intelligence.
MacDonald was convinced that the letter was a forgery, but his delay in making a statement to that effect enabled the press to create an anti-socialist climate that influenced the outcome of the election. When eventually he denounced the forgery two days before polling day, he pointed to a political plot against the Labour Government and against the Treaty, accusing the Rothermere press of playing a major part in the affair. It was, however, too late to influence the outcome of the election. Baldwin was returned to office with 419 seats and the Labour Party obtained 151. The Liberals were decimated and managed to win only 40 seats. The Asociation's seven official and three unofficial candidates were defeated. Herbert Romeril increased his support, but was beaten by his Conservative opponent who had a majority of over 2,000.
When Ramsay MacDonald was preparing for Government in January 1924 he had said that he was intending to take office in order to work for the welfare and happiness of the people31 but he failed to make inroads into the capitalist economy. His Government had a short existence, lasting until October 1924, and although it was reliant on the support of Liberals, it disappointed many of its supporters.
The most controversial item at the 1925 RCA Conference was the debate on the MacDonald Government. The Nottingham branch sought approval of its record but opposition came from those who would have preferred to have seen the Government pursue a more vigorous policy. This was supported by Rowland Hill, who acknowledged some of the Government's achievements and then suggested that the Labour Party should either have refused office altogether, or endeavoured to put its programme into operation. This view did not receive the backing of the delegates and with a mere six votes against, the proposition was carried.
The disappointment of the General Election was to a degree alleviated when Ernest Townend dealt the first electoral blow against the Baldwin Government when he won a by-election for the Stockport constituency on 17th September 1925. The result was:
Commenting on Townend's election Ramsay MacDonald said:
"It is a great and encouraging victory - all the greater when people knew the forces that were arrayed against us. It ought to put heart and confidence into the Labour Party all over the country."32
[1]. House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates, 17th March 1919 Vol. 113 Col. 1763.
[2]. The Times 21st March 1918.
[3]. The Times 12th April 1918.
[4]. The Railway Service Journal November 1919.
[5]. The Railway Service Journal February 1919.
[6]. Parliamentary Paper 1919 Vol. 2 Paper 11.
[7]. House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates, 17th March 1919 Vol. 113 Col. 176 1764.
[8]. House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates, 10th July 1919 Vol. 117 Col. 2124.
[9]. The Railway Service Journal July 1919.
[10]. House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates, 22nd March 1921 Vol. 139 Col. 2376.
[11]. Outline of Proposals as to the future organisation of transport undertakings in Great Britain and their relation to the State (Cmnd. 787).
[12]. The Railway Service Journal December 1919.
[13]. Railway Company Association Minutes Public Records Office, Kew. RAIL 1098 7.
[14]. William Graham MP contributed many articles to The Railway Service Journal and frequently attended RCA Conferences. MP 1918-1931.
[15]. The Times 15th August 1921.
[16]. W. Rapsey Southeard. Started his career as a railway clerk in 1884 and studied law in his spare time. Attended RCA meetings in the early 1900s and acted as solicitor for the RCA from 1905. A former Liberal, he joined the Labour Party. Southeard wrote the first RCA Rule Book and during the 1918 General Election prepared a summary of hints and notes for Parliamentary candidates. These were so useful that they were adopted by the Labour Party and circulated nationally during the 1918 and 1922 General Elections. He updated these notes for the 1923 election when they were again used by the Labour Party.
[17]. Railways Bill 1924 Part iv Section 55.
[18]. Irish LP & TUC Annual Report 1924.
[19]. Dáil Éireann Proceedings, Irish Free State Railways, Vol. 2 13th December 1923 Page 1902.
[20]. The Railway Service Journal January 1924.
[21]. Birmingham Post 8th March 1922.
[22]. Glasgow Herald 9th February 1922.
[23]. Express and Star 8th March 1922.
[24]. The Railway Service Journal December 1922.
[25]. Unofficial candidates were not financially supported by the RCA but they were often assisted with expenses.
[26]. House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates, 26th May 1924 Vol. 174 Col 165.
[27]. The Railway Service Journal November 1923.
[28]. The Workers' Weekly 25th July 1924.
[29]. The Times 25th October 1924.
[30]. The Zinoviev letter said that a close watch should be kept over leaders of the Labour Party; that it was desirable to have party cells in the army, and munition factories which, in the event of war, in conjunction with transport workers, could turn the war into a civil war. In addition, the proletariat must fight for the ratification of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty.
[31]. Daily Herald 9th January 1924.
[32]. Daily Herald 19th September 1925.
Transport Salaried Staffs' Association Registered Head Office: Walkden House, 10 Melton Street, London, England
© 1996-2008 TSSA. All rights reserved.