Deputations of workers waited upon Sir Harry Atkinson at his home and asked that the Government should interfere and try to stop the strike and adjust matters. It was officially announced that Sir Harry was not able to see his way to intervene in such a manner as to bring the trouble to an end.
When, however, the Liberal members, led by Sir Westby Perceval, moved a direct motion in Parliament that the Government should call a conference together in Wellington, at which the representatives of employers’ and workers’ associations should be represented, it was carried by a large majority. Some of the leading members of the Conservative Party opposed it. They argued that the Government should have adhered to its determination not to interfere in the dispute, and one at least thought that their leader had shown weakness in falling in with the proposal.
Mr. Seddon was amongst the prominent members of Parliament who came out before the public to discuss the position. In the House he was one of the outspoken supporters of the unionists. He denied a statement that they were banded together against law and order. He admitted that in the unions, as well as in other organisations, there were a few men who had made mistakes, as their sufferings had goaded them on to commit indiscretions; but in his opinion it was the duty of the Government and of Parliament to interfere and endeavour to bring about a settlement of the dispute, in the interests of the colony, if not in the interests of those actually engaged in the conflict. He denounced as a base calumny the statement that it was a war of the unionists against the people of the colony. He called upon every lover of fair-play in New Zealand to see that the dispute was considered on its merits. He asked farmers to
1890, when the strike was in progress. In regard to the justification of the action of the New Zealand Maritime Council, Sir Robert says: “If the New Zealanders had not supported the unionists by striking, and had worked with nonunionists, the whole principle of unionism would have been jeopardised. It might have shown a want of loyalty to their co-workers and thus have inflicted a grievous blow to the principle of co-operation amongst labourers. To fairly criticise, therefore, the executive of the unions one must try to put himself in their place, and if that be done it will be seen that a good defence may be made for their action.”
