¹ The Times, 5 03 1919.Google ScholarThe Times recorded at length the speeches of both conferences; the report of the P.J.C, is Cmd. 139 and Cmd. 501 in P.P. (1919), XXIV, 1 and 21; an official summary of early developments, including the full text of Lloyd George's letter of 1 May 1919, is in P.P. (1920), XIX, I, 35–43; the transcripts of all meetings of the P.J.C. are in the libraries of the department of employment and the T.U.C. Research for this article was completed with the aid of a grant from the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland, to whom I should like to express my gratitude.

² Quoted in Shotwell, J. T. (ed.), The origins of the International Labour Organization (London, 1934), I, 209.Google Scholar

³ Halevy, E., ‘The policy of social peace in England’ (06 1919)Google Scholar, reprinted in The era of tyrannies (London, 1967), p. 122.Google Scholar

⁴ New York World, 7 04 1919.Google Scholar Even cynics at home were confounded. After her initial scorn of the Conference, Beatrice Webb commented in her diary on 27 Mar. 1919: ‘Soviet Government peacefully incorporated in the British Constitution; a revolution in a fit of absentmindedness, without machine guns or barricades – without even waving a red flag’. (Quotation from the Passfield papers by permission of the British Library of Political Science, London.)

⁵ Bullock, A., The life and times of Ernest Bevin (London, 1960), I, 96Google Scholar; Cole, G. D. H. and Postgate, R., The common people (London, 1938), p. 538.Google Scholar

⁶ See Mowat, C. L., Britain between the wars (London, 1955 edn), p. 31Google Scholar: ‘Nothing was achieved by them, but that did not matter. They had served their purpose to get the leaders of trade unions to talk rather than act.’

⁷ Public Record Office, London. Cab. 63/29. Unpublished material in the P.R.O. appears by permission of the controller of the stationery office.

⁸ Charles, R., The development of industrial relations in Britain, 1911–1939 (London, 1973), p. 249.Google Scholar The italics are added.

⁹ Armitage, S., The Politics of decontrol of industry: Britain and the United States (London, 1969), p. 160.Google Scholar For hesitation after herculean labours see Johnson, P. B., Land fit for heroes (Chicago, 1968), p. 476.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See P.P. (1942–3), VI, 119, para 31: ‘The scheme proposed is in some ways a revolution, but in more important ways it is a development from the past. It is a British revolution.’

¹¹ Apart from cabinet and ministry df labour records at the P.R.O., the most important collections are the papers of the National Confederation of Employers' Organizations (the C.B.I., Tothill Street, London); the minutes of the parliamentary committee of the T.U.C. (Congress House, London); the minutes of the national executive committee of the Labour party and the Henderson papers (Transport Mouse, London). Quotations from the papers of the N.C.E.O. are by permission of the C.B.I.

¹² The prime minister who established the N.E.D.C, was Harold Macmillan, a co-author of Industry and state; that a national industrial council still has its advocates, see Wigham, E. L., ‘A new industrial forum in place of the House of Lords?’, The Times, 11 01 1977.Google Scholar

¹³ P.R.O.: Lab 2/647/WA 4781/1920.

¹⁴ Cab 23/18/2(4); Lab 2/689/WA 4875/1919.

¹⁵ See Reynolds, G. W. and Judge, A., The night the police went on strike (London, 1968), eh. VII.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Lab 2/690/CS 132/8/1920; Lab 2/493/ED 106/71; Lab 2/5O2/ED 27444/1919.

¹⁷ P.P. (1919), 1, 841, 849; for further details of the negotiations, see Lowe, R., ‘The demand for a ministry of labour, its establishment and initial role’ (unpublished London University Ph.D. thesis, 1975), pp. 158–60.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cab 23/10/WC 557(4).

¹⁹ For a further discussion of the merits of the various suggestions for minimum wage legislation, see Lowe, R., ‘The erosion of state intervention in Britain, 1917–24’, Economic History Review XXXI (1978), 272–5.Google Scholar The Bill is in P.P. (1919), II, 291.

²⁰ Cab 23/11/WC 588(5).

²¹ The arguments are summarized from two weekly reports to the cabinet in 1919 by the intelligence division of the ministry of labour: Cab 24/92/CP 25 and CP 68, the latter appropriately dated 5 Nov.

²² , S. and Webb, B., A constitution for the socialist commonwealth of Great Britain (London, 1920), p. 111.Google Scholar

²³ Lab 2/556/WA 7809. This reference is applicable to the following quotation.

²⁴ Rowland, P., Lloyd George (London, 1975), p. 523.Google Scholar

²⁵ Lord Riddell's war diary (London, 1933), p. 265.Google Scholar

²⁶ Rowland, , Lloyd George, pp. 463, 507, 519.Google Scholar

²⁷ See ‘Mr Lloyd George: a fragment’, The collected writings of John Maynard Keynes (London, 1971), x, 24Google Scholar: ‘Lloyd George is rooted in nothing; he is a void and without content; he lives and feeds on his immediate surroundings: he is an instrument and player at the same time which plays on the company and is played on by them too.’

²⁸ Armitage, , The politics of decontrol, pp. 70, 124.Google Scholar

²⁹ Lord Riddell's intimate diaries of the peace conference and after, 1918–23 (London, 1933), p. 179.Google Scholar

³⁰ The Times, 6 12 1920: ‘It is too early to say that he has pieced what he has learned since he entered politics into a coherent system’.Google Scholar

³¹ For his conservatism, see Cab 23/15/WC 613A and the testimony of one of his senior officials, Butler, H. B. in Confident morning (London, 1950), p. 141Google Scholar: ‘he had little affection for progressive social policies. His foot instinctively sought the brake rather than the accelerator’. He was also the chancellor who commissioned the Geddes Axe. For his seduction, see James, R. R., Memoirs of a conservative: J. C. C. Davidson's memoirs and papers, 1910–37 (London, 1969), p. 116Google Scholar and the revealing incident recorded in Taylor, A. J. P. (ed.), Lloyd George: a diary by Frances Stevenson (London, 1971), pp. 323–4.Google ScholarThe Times on 6 12 1920Google Scholar noted, diplomatically, that ‘he is said to have warmed both hands at the fire of life’.

³² Compare his views in Cab 23/10/WC 584 (July 1919) with those in Cab 23/35 (Jan. 1920).

³³ The Bodleian Library, Oxford: CF Rey papers, box 1/3.

³⁴ P.R.O.: T 162/74/E 7112/01; House of Lords library, Lloyd George papers, F 36/1/42. For a full catalogue of his misdemeanours, see Lowe (thesis), pp. 199–200.

³⁵ The admission was by the Treasury itself in Lab 2/1719/CEB 165/1923. For the initial organization – and disorganization – of the ministry, see Lowe, R., ‘The ministry of labour, 1916–24: a graveyard of social reform?’, Public Administration, LII (1973), 415–38.Google Scholar

³⁶ T 1/12610/24460/1920.

³⁷ Charles, , The development of industrial relations, p. 210Google Scholar; for the importance of the Weekly report, see Lab 2/694/CS 115 and for its content, see above, p. 657.

³⁸ T 162/6/E 372.

³⁹ Lab 2/647/WA 4781/1920; Lab 2/775/IR 324/1922.

⁴⁰ Lab 2/821/WA 5611/1920.

⁴¹ Lab 2/775/IR 1730/1921; Lab 2/841/TB 165/5/1921.

⁴² Lab 2/821/IR 615/2.

⁴³ Charles, , The development of industrial relations, p. 250.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Henderson argued at the second conference that ‘the pivot was the action, or failure to take action, on the part of the Government’ (The Times, 5 04 1919Google Scholar) and Smith, in a letter to Lloyd George in 1921, specified the government's breach of faith as the cause of the P.J.C.'s resignation (Lab 2/821/IR 615/2).

⁴⁵ Gleason, A., What the workers want (London, 1920), p. 26.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Pelling, H., A history of British trade unionism (Harmondsworth, 1963), p. 164.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The N.C.E.O. took full advantage of falling productivity to discourage further voluntary reduction of hours (pee, for instance, BEC/NC/1/C4(pt. 1)). For the government's negotiations and frustrations With the building trade, see especially Cab 24/119/CP 2530.

⁴⁸ Johnson, , Land fit for heroes, p. 471.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ McKibbin, R., The evolution of the Labour party, 1910–1924 (London, 1974), pp. 124–5.Google Scholar The ‘door-mat incident’ occurred in 1917 when Henderson was left outside the door while the war cabinet decided to demand his resignation following disagreement over the Stockholm peace conference.

⁵⁰ The accusation by Charles (The development of industrial relations, p. 244Google Scholar) that the government's decision to continue negotiations with the P.J.C, was ‘out of order and that the reasons for it could hardly be good ones’ is incorrect. The P.J.C.'s continuance was requested by the trade union side and sanctioned by the second conference.

⁵¹ The Times, 5 04 1919.Google Scholar At the first conference, he reminded Thomas and Bevin in particular that there were workers outside the Triple Alliance (The Times, 28 02 1919).Google Scholar

⁵² T.U.C, parliamentary committee, Minutes, 14 08 1919Google Scholar; Labour party N.E.C., Minutes, 11 09 1919.Google Scholar For Henderson's attempts at industrial organization, see Cole, G. D. H., A short history of the British working-class movement (London, 1932 edn), III, 200–1.Google Scholar

⁵³ For the T.U.C.'s rejection, see above, p. 654; for the N.U.R.'s, Lab 2/435/WA 4189/2.

⁵⁴ Labour Party N.E.C., Minutes: minutes of a joint meeting of the parliamentary committee of the T.U.C. and the executive committee of the Labour party, 6 Jan. and 11 Jan. 1921.

⁵⁵ Blank, S., Government and industry in Britain (Farnborough, 1973), p. 23.Google Scholar Even Cole agreed that labour ‘did not always act wisely’ before issuing the challenge ‘who did in those years act so wisely that he can afford to cast the first stone?’ (A short history of the British working-class movement, III, 164).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Simultaneously being pressurized by the advocates of ‘direct action’, the T.U.C, parliamentary committee rejected overtures from bodies such as the Industrial League ‘owing to the views of a large number of Trade Unionists in regard to co-operation with employers in the task of solving industrial questions’ (Minutes, 11 06 1919Google Scholar). Later, the T.U.C, acknowledged that in 1919 it had been afforded unparalleled opportunities by the government to discuss specific items of legislation (P.R.O.: Prem 1/41) but their quibbles over every point of detail drove Home to declare: ‘I shall never put a tentative draft before anybody [again] … it has taught me a lesson I shall act on in future’ (Lab 2/556/WA 7809).

⁵⁷ Armitage, S., The politics of decontrol, p. 159.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See, for instance, the N.U.R.'s Railway Review, 27 06 1919Google Scholar: ‘no useful purpose is served by collusion with the employers through the Government to maintain the existing order of society’. For the increasingly irrelevant activities of the most militant elements in the working class, see Kendall, W., The revolutionary movement in Britain, 1900–1921 (London, 1969), especially pp. 297–8.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Gleason, , What the workers want, p. 25.Google Scholar For the contradictions in union policy, see especially Halevy, The era of tyrannies, pp. 123ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ The Times, 5 04 1919Google Scholar; diary, Beatrice Webb's, 27 03 1919.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Lab 2/775/IR 324/1922.

⁶² P.P. (1919), XXIV, 21, appendix I, xi. The italics are added.

⁶³ BEC/NC/2/C4 (pt. 8)/NC 156. Smith's authority was demonstrated by his automatic selection as a delegate to the Washington labour conference – in contrast to Henderson.

⁶⁴ Lab 2/771/CS 154/4/1919.

⁶⁵ Lab 2/816/HQ 12190/2.

⁶⁶ Citrine, Men and work (London, 1964), p. 247Google Scholar; Wigham, E. L., The power to manage. The history of the Engineering Employers' Federation (London, 1973), pp. 133ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ BEC/NC/2/C4 (pt. 8)/NC 156; Wigham, , The power to manage, p. 119.Google Scholar For Baldwin's reaction, see James, , The memoirs of a conservative, p. 106.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See BEC/NC/I/C4 (pt. 1), especially NC 057, NC 0139.

⁶⁹ BEC/NC/I/C4 (pt. a)/NC 086.

⁷⁰ Hamilton, M., Arthur Henderson (London, 1938), pp. 214–15.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Charles notes the contradiction in The development of industrial relations, p. 246.Google Scholar

⁷² The ministry of labour was informed of the duplicity by a disgusted employer: Lab 2/841/TB 165/7/1921.

⁷³ Lab 2/677/TB (Gen) 106/10; Lab 2/821/IR 615/2.

⁷⁴ Lab 2/821/WA 5458/1920.

⁷⁵ Johnson, , Land fit for heroes, p. 476.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Lab 2/212/ML 626/4: ‘there is a strong tendency to look for future development along the line of Home Rule for Industry, rather than on the lines of greater central and state control… The policy of the future would therefore appear to be an increasing measure of decentralisation which will leave each industry a large share in the control of its own affairs, coupled with a general supervision by the State, and a larger amount of State activity in those industries which are backward in organization and development, until such time as they are sufficiently developed to be capable of exercising the measure of autonomy accorded to the highly organized trades.’

⁷⁷ See, for example, The Times, 18 02 1919Google Scholar; Johnson, , Land fit for heroes, p. 376.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See above, p. 659.

⁷⁹ For its weaknesses, see Halevy, , The era of tyrannies, pp. 91 ffGoogle Scholar; for its temporary success, see Charles, , The development of industrial relations, pp. 130ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ The ministry of labour, despite the protests of its junior officials, refused to consider legislation on the extension of agreements, to provide secretarial assistance or to persuade local authorities to join (Lab 2/713/IR 184/1923; Lab 2/715/JIC 158 and 807/1921; Lab 2/851/IR 805/1925).

⁸¹ See above, p. 708.

⁸² In 1921, when pressed by the T.U.C, on trade boards legislation, Shackleton (somewhat ungrammatically) protested ‘the neutrality of the Department and the futility to put forward a proposal for legislation on the representations of one party and where there was no measure of agreement’. The government's inability either to settle or prevent industrial disputes was assured by a reduction between 1919 and 1924 in the number of industrial relations officials from above 230 to 29. Even Horace Wilson was forced to complain that numbers had been reduced ‘down to, if not well below, the minimum which is really necessary’ (Lab 2/1822/CEB 537/2/1921).

⁸³ These and the following quotations are from memoranda prepared by the ministry of labour and introduced by Horace Wilson and Hubert Henderson for the prime minister in 1934 (MacDonald papers, P.R.O. 30/69/1/359 (12)). The memoranda include a summary of the ministry's reactions in 1928 to the Mond–Turner talks.

⁸⁴ Howson, S. and Winch, D., The Economic Advisory Council, 1930–1939 (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 157–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar