Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 29

The London District

page 73

The London District.

Vauxhall Branch—Proposed by Br. Stone, seconded by Br. Burton—

"That we, the members of the Vauxhall Branch, call the attention of the E.C. to their answer to the Paddington Branch in the March Monthly Report. If the votes of the members in the London District were taken in accordance with Rule 11, clause 1, upon the advance of wages movement, the delegates representing those Branches were not allowed to record their votes at the delegate meeting, according to their instructions, although it had been earned by a majority of the delegates present to do so. Therefore, the votes of the members were set aside. We would ask what is the use of taking the votes of the members and then not acting on them? We also consider the answer given to the Southampton and Plymouth Branches is not in accordance with the duties of the E.C., which in our opinion should be to carry out the wishes and interests of the members, not to withhold resolutions which are not in accordance with their views; and we are of opinion the sarcastic language used in their reply exceeds the duties of the E.C., and is not in keeping with the principles of unionism or the spirit which should actuate members in carrying out those principles."

Reply—If the Vauxhall Branch has a complaint to make, why is it not stated in specific terms which can be comprehended? We fail to understand whether the E.C. are blamed, or some unknown persons are censured. It is stated that the delegates were not allowed to record their votes at the delegate meeting according to their instructions. Who prevented them from voting in accordance with their instructions? This statement may not be intended to be sarcastic, but it will hardly be regarded by the delegates as complimentary. Our experience of London men has not induced us to regard them as being likely to be easily prevented by anyone from doing that which they consider to be just and right. The fact is that at both of the meetings referred to the delegates were put in possession of information relating to occurrences which transpired subsequent to the dates of the summoned meetings at which they were appointed. They acted as sensible men should act. They said, "We now know what our constituents could not possibly know when they elected us. We will modify our policy in accordance with the facts laid before us, and act as we believe our members would have wished us to act were they in possession of the information we have received, and which we shall lay before them at the earliest possible opportunity." This action is strictly in accordance with the spirit and intention of our rules. If argument and reason are to pass unheeded at London District delegate meetings, at the next revision of our rules we can with advantage curtail our expenses by eliciting the opinions of our branches by voting papers, instead of paying members for their attendance at district delegate meetings.